Not sure what Trumps ultimate goal is in the end but all the threats of expanding territory is very resource focused and wanting America to be self-sufficient in the end, these threats are just how negotiate to distract the other party from what he truly wants. He’s playing hard ball and it’s gonna get a little dirty, only time will tell how dirty
Interesting take—there’s definitely a long history of leaders using bold threats as a negotiation tactic. If this kind of hardball approach keeps escalating, what do you think needs to change to avoid deeper conflicts? Is there a way for nations to shift their approach without losing leverage?
Stronger counter-negotiation requires asking questions like, "What are you/we trying to accomplish?"
Last month, the threat of tariffs on Canada and Mexico was moved forward by a month because we agreed to strengthen broader security—something both sides needed. This month, we’ll see; it’s likely another push for something he wants. Last time, the outcome was beneficial for both parties.
We’ll have to wait and see if the pattern repeats. If it does, expect 12 major policy shifts each year on both sides over the next four years.
Have you heard Ezra Klein's audio essay on this, by any chance? Very interesting take on Trump's distraction tactics, and how much of it is posturing versus actual policy work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8QLgLfqh6s
Would you say the tariffs are beneficial for both parties despite the large trade asymmetry in US-Canada and US-Mexico trade relations? I would push back on that idea. We're looking at the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso weakening, plus entire industries that could be devastated (like the energy industry in Canada) (Really clear breakdown of impact here: https://www.cfr.org/article/what-trumps-trade-war-would-mean-nine-charts)
Not sure what Trumps ultimate goal is in the end but all the threats of expanding territory is very resource focused and wanting America to be self-sufficient in the end, these threats are just how negotiate to distract the other party from what he truly wants. He’s playing hard ball and it’s gonna get a little dirty, only time will tell how dirty
Interesting take—there’s definitely a long history of leaders using bold threats as a negotiation tactic. If this kind of hardball approach keeps escalating, what do you think needs to change to avoid deeper conflicts? Is there a way for nations to shift their approach without losing leverage?
Stronger counter-negotiation requires asking questions like, "What are you/we trying to accomplish?"
Last month, the threat of tariffs on Canada and Mexico was moved forward by a month because we agreed to strengthen broader security—something both sides needed. This month, we’ll see; it’s likely another push for something he wants. Last time, the outcome was beneficial for both parties.
We’ll have to wait and see if the pattern repeats. If it does, expect 12 major policy shifts each year on both sides over the next four years.
Have you heard Ezra Klein's audio essay on this, by any chance? Very interesting take on Trump's distraction tactics, and how much of it is posturing versus actual policy work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8QLgLfqh6s
Would you say the tariffs are beneficial for both parties despite the large trade asymmetry in US-Canada and US-Mexico trade relations? I would push back on that idea. We're looking at the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso weakening, plus entire industries that could be devastated (like the energy industry in Canada) (Really clear breakdown of impact here: https://www.cfr.org/article/what-trumps-trade-war-would-mean-nine-charts)