Post

1/ If you target me with tariffs, that's bad for your consumers who have to pay more to buy my products, and it's bad for my producers who will probably sell you fewer things. For my government, the negative impact on your consumers is irrelevant unless it changes your behaviour.

2/ If I retaliate with tariffs, that's bad for my consumers who will have to pay more for your goods and bad for your producers who will sell me fewer things. It is good for my producers who compete in my market with yours, but that is likely a different group than those hit with your tariffs.

3/ In other words, if you hurt both of us by hitting me with tariffs then my only retaliation option basically also consists of hurting us both - which only helps if it brings us to a truce or prevents you escalating further.

Tariffs are problematic, but how about retaliating by allowing violations of copyrights/patents from the country that targeted you with tariffs? Hurts them, helps you! Or place restrictions on their social media companies? Arguably has a similar result!

Then the US retaliates by invalidating every GI and...

Well sure, escalation is always a risk, but that's a separate issue from the shooting yourself in the foot point

I completely agree and i've long thought that the countries which in trade negotiations with the US were obliged to adopt onerous and anti-development intellectual property rules should now simply ignore them or amend the legislation.

I'm with you karmically, but who is going to go first? US copyright has never actually been enforced by TRIPS and always by the implicit threat of US (et al) punitive measures. Who is going to be the first hero who makes it official policy not to enforce US patents and how does that play out.

5/ The case for aggressive resistance is that if you can cause the US real economic pain, their public may be less willing to endure it than yours - because you have the more compelling story to tell about being the aggreived party... ... and that such pain will make them back off.

6/ The counterargument is that the US may escalate considerably and that pain is... well, painful. Additionally, when faced with your resistance the US could simply offer others better deals and leave you locked out of while your competitors devour your market share.

7/ There's also the non-trade counterargument, which is that the US is important in a bunch of ways like in the context of Ukraine, or Pacific security, and alienating them too badly may endanger that engagement.