“A Europe that faces increasingly transactional American trade policy…”
Good piece, well-written.
I agree with all your major premises here: mercantilism bad, narrow national security interests are legit, etc.
My objection is that near the end of your piece you start to obfuscate the difference between protections for legit national security interests and things like trade disputes. Specifically U.S - Europe, where in fact there are zero such national security concerns, just potential economic relative advantage concerns - which you imply/blur as being “economic security”.
Which leads me to the quoted line: imo your objection is much more with Trump’s *tactics* in seeking reduced protectionism from European trading partners, rather than trade policy per se. You as Europeans prefer the deal as currently negotiated and as practically implemented and enforced today, because you (probably correctly) believe it benefits Europeans in the short and medium run, and benefits European politicians with their voters.
Trump wants reduced protectionism from Europe (and also for Europe to pay more for Europe’s defense). There are no more global trade talks.
My point being you are objecting to tactics and words more than actual “trade policy”. You prefer/preferred the America that meekly went along with the trade status quo.
That Trump and some of his supporters talk “mercantilist” some of the time notwithstanding, the reality re: U.S - European trade is that Europe has more barriers to trade than the U.S. does. One of the many things Trump wants to do is change that.
For legit free marketers, he should be applauded for that and Europe should be castigated for their position, rather than the reverse.
But I’ve yet to see notable free market defenders like yourself make this point.
Once you do, criticisms of the rest of Trump’s policies and exclamations can be legitimate.
Absent such commentary, those same criticisms, especially coming from Europeans, ring hollow and self-serving.
I think you've missed the point of the article, also if you've read Luis other articles you'd know that he'd be the first one to deregulate and consolidate the EU market.
I accurately commented that there was ZERO criticism of existing European protectionist policies mixed in with the multiple implicit (and occasionally explicit) critiques of Trump strategy/tactics and the realpolitik suggestions for how Euopeans should react to Trump.
There was NO acknowledgement of any possible benefits to free trade of Trump changing tactics from prior American administrations, only discussions of the losses.
And to repeat, I am not a defender of mercantilism.
I stand by my assertion that the otherwise very good, well-written piece would be substantially more credible if it anywhere noted that the EU still has plenty of protectionist trade policies (agriculture, anyone?) and is not merely an innocent free trader being attacked by the evil mercantilist Trump.
The article is about how countries in general should behave in order keep free trade but not have other countries have leverage over them and the game theoretical considerations. US-China is explicitly mentioned in the article, EU-US is also mentioned, but also EU-China.
The article is not about who has more protectionism.
There are MANY other posts on this Substack about what the EU should do about its over regulation/protectionism and general uncompetitiveness relative to the US.
It seems to me you are helping to make my point rather than the reverse.
The OG article in question here makes *many* points, not solely the one you claim in your first sentence. I already said I agree with most of them. But one of the points it makes repeatedly is that mercantilism is bad.
And I agree with that point as well.
But it CLEARLY implies that it is only Trump who is doing the mercantilist and bad policy. That it is Trump who is the protectionist, while the EU is [fairly] innocent.
And your first sentence claim of "in order keep free trade" does the very same thing!
That the author "liked" your first comment to me, but neither "liked" nor chose to respond to my comment is further evidence of my claim.
In grading terms, I basically said the piece gets about a B+, and would get an A if it made the point that Europe is not innocent.
By failing to make that point in this piece (I freely acknowledge I have not read other pieces by the author, but surely no one should be expected to have done so) - while repeatedly asserting Trump's "mercantilist" guilt - it risks coming off as hypocritical, and it makes it too easy for anyone intelligent who does not hold an EU establishment view to write off the author as merely being a self-serving - if practical and sensible - part of the EU establishment.
I get that it is probably said EU establishment the author is most talking to and trying to influence. Nevertheless, "speak truth to power" is applicable here.
This framework explains well why Chinese Goverment have subsidized the EV. Very smart people over there.
“A Europe that faces increasingly transactional American trade policy…”
Good piece, well-written.
I agree with all your major premises here: mercantilism bad, narrow national security interests are legit, etc.
My objection is that near the end of your piece you start to obfuscate the difference between protections for legit national security interests and things like trade disputes. Specifically U.S - Europe, where in fact there are zero such national security concerns, just potential economic relative advantage concerns - which you imply/blur as being “economic security”.
Which leads me to the quoted line: imo your objection is much more with Trump’s *tactics* in seeking reduced protectionism from European trading partners, rather than trade policy per se. You as Europeans prefer the deal as currently negotiated and as practically implemented and enforced today, because you (probably correctly) believe it benefits Europeans in the short and medium run, and benefits European politicians with their voters.
Trump wants reduced protectionism from Europe (and also for Europe to pay more for Europe’s defense). There are no more global trade talks.
My point being you are objecting to tactics and words more than actual “trade policy”. You prefer/preferred the America that meekly went along with the trade status quo.
That Trump and some of his supporters talk “mercantilist” some of the time notwithstanding, the reality re: U.S - European trade is that Europe has more barriers to trade than the U.S. does. One of the many things Trump wants to do is change that.
For legit free marketers, he should be applauded for that and Europe should be castigated for their position, rather than the reverse.
But I’ve yet to see notable free market defenders like yourself make this point.
Once you do, criticisms of the rest of Trump’s policies and exclamations can be legitimate.
Absent such commentary, those same criticisms, especially coming from Europeans, ring hollow and self-serving.
Respectfully.
I think you've missed the point of the article, also if you've read Luis other articles you'd know that he'd be the first one to deregulate and consolidate the EU market.
I didn't miss the point of the article.
I accurately commented that there was ZERO criticism of existing European protectionist policies mixed in with the multiple implicit (and occasionally explicit) critiques of Trump strategy/tactics and the realpolitik suggestions for how Euopeans should react to Trump.
There was NO acknowledgement of any possible benefits to free trade of Trump changing tactics from prior American administrations, only discussions of the losses.
And to repeat, I am not a defender of mercantilism.
I stand by my assertion that the otherwise very good, well-written piece would be substantially more credible if it anywhere noted that the EU still has plenty of protectionist trade policies (agriculture, anyone?) and is not merely an innocent free trader being attacked by the evil mercantilist Trump.
The article is about how countries in general should behave in order keep free trade but not have other countries have leverage over them and the game theoretical considerations. US-China is explicitly mentioned in the article, EU-US is also mentioned, but also EU-China.
The article is not about who has more protectionism.
There are MANY other posts on this Substack about what the EU should do about its over regulation/protectionism and general uncompetitiveness relative to the US.
I'd recommend that you start with https://www.siliconcontinent.com/p/the-end-of-luxury-rules if you want to read about the disiplining effect of Trump on EU.
Thanks for that excellent link.
It seems to me you are helping to make my point rather than the reverse.
The OG article in question here makes *many* points, not solely the one you claim in your first sentence. I already said I agree with most of them. But one of the points it makes repeatedly is that mercantilism is bad.
And I agree with that point as well.
But it CLEARLY implies that it is only Trump who is doing the mercantilist and bad policy. That it is Trump who is the protectionist, while the EU is [fairly] innocent.
And your first sentence claim of "in order keep free trade" does the very same thing!
That the author "liked" your first comment to me, but neither "liked" nor chose to respond to my comment is further evidence of my claim.
In grading terms, I basically said the piece gets about a B+, and would get an A if it made the point that Europe is not innocent.
By failing to make that point in this piece (I freely acknowledge I have not read other pieces by the author, but surely no one should be expected to have done so) - while repeatedly asserting Trump's "mercantilist" guilt - it risks coming off as hypocritical, and it makes it too easy for anyone intelligent who does not hold an EU establishment view to write off the author as merely being a self-serving - if practical and sensible - part of the EU establishment.
I get that it is probably said EU establishment the author is most talking to and trying to influence. Nevertheless, "speak truth to power" is applicable here.