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.

4/ This means that those confronted with a US willing to hurt itself with tariffs have no good options. I think you can make a credible case both for aggressive resistance and for appeasement. Anyone pretending the choice is easy is, in my view, kidding themselves.

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

Ok, but I just don't think ceasing copyright enforcement is the ONE WEIRD TRICK, ECONOMISTS HATE HIM to get out of this situation. For one thing, you'd at a stroke be invalidating the existing copyright leasing/distribution agreements of every EU business that uses US copyrighted/patented stuff.

It would indeed generate a tonne of fascinating academic writing I would refuse on principle to read but nag you to explain to me.