RayC

So therefore you disagree with the rest of the OP and my reply?

1) MFN is a cornerstone of the WTO. To jettison it would seriously (fatally?) undermine the WTO. For that reason alone, I doubt that it will happen. I also disagree that as a principle the concept of MFN is obsolete: It helps to level the playing field in the absence of FTAs. 2) New trade alliances are regularly formed. The world didn't need the imposition of Trump's tariffs to further that goal 3) Call me cynical but I'm extremely skeptical that the plight of low paid workers in other countries was foremost in the mind of Trump and his advisors when formulating his tariff policies! In any event, many consumers want to pay ridiculously low prices for products and have little concern about workers' conditions. It is an issue that needs addressing and, perhaps, the targeted use of tariffs is one tool for doing so but it has nothing to do with Trump's policy. If the US becomes increasingly self-sufficient and thus, presumably, reduces the volume of its' overseas trade transactions, why would the rest of the world want to keep the dollar as the world's reserve currency? I can certainly see why the US favours this outcome but I don't see what's in it for the rest of the world. In such a case - and other things being equal - the rest of us would be better off with the Euro, Yen or even renminbi.

Excellent post. Makes a refreshing change from the usual, simplistic 'Blame the immigrants and Muslims' rants. As a Labour supporter, I have been largely disappointed by the actions of this government to date. Although events e.g. Trump's actions haven't helped, many of their problems have been self-inflicted. There are some green shoots: The apparent desire to re-engage constructively with the EU being one. Nevertheless, a long way to go. As for the alternatives. Imo Reform are light on policy detail and would bring greater division. The Liberals? Perhaps, but I would be concerned about their economic management. The Tories are a unorganised mess. Woe is us?

Right. And this reduction in trading volumes and chaos in the markets benefits the American consumer how exactly? As I said previously, Trump's tariffs are an act of economic sado-masochism.

A prime example of the misplaced arrogance which I mentioned previously. The American consumer IS important to the world, but is NOT all powerful and indispensable. Take your head out of the sand, look at the data e.g. the proportion of world trade which doesn't involve the US (+/-85%) and then reach some rational conclusions.

I agree with most of that but struggle to understand 1) why - and how - you think that global trade is already changing shape in response to US tariffs? Currently, other than a decrease in trading volumes and increased volatility in the financial markets I can't see any fundamental changes 2) what this fundamental reordering of world trade will eventually look like? 3) why you seemingly imply in other posts that the outcome is inevitable, especially given that you agree that world trade can continue without the US? As I said previously, no doubt the US will squeeze some concessions from other nations but there is a limit. As the old saying goes, 'No deal is better than a bad deal'.

??? I don't understand. You'll have to clarify exactly what you mean. If your goal was to irritate me then congratulations, you've succeeded: There's little I dislike more than someone telling me what I think and/or believe. Much depends on the product of course, but If Trump keeps this blanket worldwide tariff, the demand for US goods will fall. Ample opportunity for other countries - especially low-cost producers such as China - to step into the breach and reduce any perceived over-production. If you count China as un(der)developed the I agree but it is also a mega-market. In 2022 the US accounted for 13% of the world's goods imports ($3.1tn) and 8% of the world's exports ($2.0tn). No denying that they are big absolute numbers and significant proportions. However, the idea that the world's economy will simply collapse if the US decides to disengage itself is pie in the sky. The current tariff war is obviously different in nature to Brexit but the analogy is justified. The misplaced, arrogant conceit of Brexiters is mirrored by supporters of Trump; the mantra is the same, 'They need us more than we need them'. There can be little doubt that in the case of Brexit this has has been proven untrue. I will concede that the US has a stronger hand to play in any negotiations than the UK had and Trump may well win some concessions from other nations, however, I very much doubt that it will lead to a fundamental reordering of international trade. Imo in the medium/longer term, Trump's policy will be viewed in a similar light to Brexit: an act of economic sado-masochism.

Master negotiator? What more leverage has Trump achieved by applying wholesale tariffs rather than by simply contacting his counterparts in the more traditional fashion? The current tariffs applied by the US on China (and vica versa) will cause a massive decline in trade between the two nations but whether China cannot afford it is debatable. The US accounts for 15% of China's exports which is a significant number. However, the negative effects on China of losing the US market will be mitigated by the fact that the rest of the world will also be seeking new suppliers as a result of the tariff war. Moreover, don't forget that the obvious fact that a tariff war works both ways, and that US exporters to China will be greatly affected by Chinese tariffs on US goods (as will the wider US economy as the attached links indicate). https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kxe1m1y26o.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/04/28/trade-war-tariffs-full-blown-crisis-us-farm-exporters-say.html Indeed. And if the recent pronouncements from various countries are anything to go by that will mean a move away from the US market with countries seeking closer ties with more reliable partners. For example, Rachel Reeves has recently stated that the EU market is (arguably) more important to the UK than the US. Her's is not a lone voice. No doubt there are US produced goods which cannot easily be substituted but equally the reverse applies i.e. that US companies are dependent on goods produced overseas. Michel Barnier's comment that, 'There are no winners with Brexit' can be paraphrased and reused here: 'There are no winners in a trade war', which is why Trump's policy is in no one's interest.

If Trump feels that the US gets a bad deal wet trade, it would have been so much better if he has simply got on the phone to Xi, v.d. Leyden, etc and arranged bi-lateral talks. No one is going to refuse to talk to POTUS. All his current approach has succeed in doing is spooking the markets and alienating the US's allies while making China look not so bad. The Uruguay Round of GATT - which resulted in the formation of the WTO - started in 1986 and took 8 years to conclude. The rules governing world trade have slowly evolved ever since. The US is the world's most powerful nation, however, the idea that the rest of the world will simply tear up the existing rule book, roll over and be bullied into accepting US-centric trade conditions is imo extremely unlikely. Moreover, it is even more unlikely that any wide-ranging agreements could be reached before the end of Trump's term in office. If Trump persists with his bullying techniques, I suspect that the rest of the world will simply reduce their bi-lateral trade with the US as much as possible, accept that their will be an economic hit (while obviously trying to mitigate the effect as much as possible), and just wait until January 2029 when the hope will be that a sense of normality can be restored.

The article criticises China for a policy aimed at making itself self-sufficient, whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that is one of the goals of Trump's current measures. The article warns Europe about the dangers of being exploited by China whilst implicitly implying that we should simply follow the US without question. An ill thought out, irrational article reeking of hypocrisy.

In which case - assuming US manufacturers don't have a monopoly on a particular type of CNC machine or component(s) - China will simply substitute European and Japanese-made products for US-made products. In such a scenario, there may be short-term supply issues and an increase in product prices, but I guess that these types of products are not purchased every day, so it shouldn't affect the individual Chinese company too much in the MT/LT. It seems to me that, at an aggregated level, the biggest loser in this scenario is likely to be the US manufacturing as it loses both market share and revenue.

😂 You've been predicting that for at least 5 years.

What does "actually implement Brexit" entail specifically?

Macron's what? How is the EU trying to bully the UK?

Funnily enough being a member of the EU does not prohibit a member state exporting to the US (for the time being at least). I've posted numerous links umpteenth times which detail the damage done to the UK by Brexit. Here's a reminder for you:

It's one thing to elect charlatans to run the country - as the UK frequently does - but quite another to elect not one, but two, individuals in succession, both of whom appear to be at best, senile and, at worse in the latter stages of dementia. How did the US end up with both Biden and Trump?

Unfortunately, the AfD have increased in popularity. Fortunately - unless the other parties change tack - they need to more than double their current level of support to gain power at the national level, something which is extremely unlikely to happen.

Not sure where it leaves Tesla, but the AfD won't be part of the German government unless the other parties change their stance towards it.

Have you no pity? This thread is bad enough without having Genesis inflicted upon us😧

The cost of membership is insignificant when compared to the cost of leaving to UK companies and the wider UK economy, and the ability of the UK to be heard on the world stage.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Trump's position, the fact remains that the funds given to Ukraine by the EU are not all in the form of loans as you wrote: Indeed, 2/3rds of the money is non-repayable.

We voted to leave. I thought it foolhardy but fully supported the decision to implement that decision. However, 9 years on from the vote and 5 since we formally left the EU, it's clear that the Brexit implemented by Johnson is not in the countries' best interests, so any sensible politician would take steps to rectify the situation.

Which is completely different to implying that the markets are unimportant ("Who cares about the markets").

Yes, the economic benefits of Brexit are plain for all to see. Only a fool would seek to reverse them🤦

Yes, I know what a concessional loan is but, unfortunately, you apparently don't know what grants or in-kind support are. You stated that " ... EVERYTHING (my caps) the EU has done has not been given as with the US but as a loan". That is untrue.