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!

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.