197
EU consumers don’t trust US goods: a look into Trump’s trade deficit claims
(theconversation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2025
197 points (99.0% liked)
Global News
3110 readers
688 users here now
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added tothe title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@feddit.org - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you agree that the divided States of America are starting bullshit trade wars, how should the EU react in your opinion if the current way is not to your liking and only smokescreen?
Because as far as I understand, the counter tariffs are just the allowed tit for tat reaction in accordance to international trade law.
I mean yes, system change is needed to protect humanity and life on the planet, but as far as the tariffs go... I don't exactly disagree with the EU way to do it.
The EU’s reaction is just as performative as the U.S.’s instigation. Tariffs are legal under international trade law, sure, but legality doesn’t equal wisdom. It’s a tit-for-tat game that ignores the systemic rot underneath. Both sides are propping up industries that should have been restructured decades ago, clinging to outdated economic paradigms.
The current system isn’t about protecting humanity or the planet—it’s about preserving power structures. The EU’s “precautionary principle” and the U.S.’s subsidy circus are just different flavors of the same poison: corporate welfare masquerading as public interest.
Real change would mean dismantling these systems, not playing within their rules. But let’s be honest—neither bloc has the stomach for that kind of upheaval. They’ll just keep trading blows while the world burns.
No, let me rephrase it again, so maybe it's clearer what I want to know from you:
Let's say for arguments sake, the EU is the perfect government with perfect representation of everyone and perfect economic system to distribute to everyone's need. So the the gay space communist utopia spoken of in ye olde memes of yore.
But they don't have every necessary resource on earth and need to trade with other countries, who are not yet as advanced as they are.
Now one of those countries puts tariffs on the EU for bullshit reasons.
How should this theoretical perfect EU react to those tariffs in your opinion?
And just to be clear, I'm not happy with the current way of the EU at all, there is much change needed, but that is besides the point of my argument.
The perfect EU in your hypothetical would reject the premise of tariffs entirely. Instead of retaliating or lobbying for their removal, it would focus on rendering them irrelevant. It would invest in internal innovation, resource alternatives, and trade partnerships that bypass dependency on the offending nation. A perfect system doesn’t beg for scraps; it redefines the table.
But let’s not kid ourselves—this utopia assumes rational actors in a world where power is never ceded willingly. The reality? Even a "perfect" EU would face sabotage, propaganda, and economic warfare. The problem isn’t how it reacts to tariffs; it’s that the global system is built to punish those who refuse to play its exploitative game. Perfection wouldn’t survive in this cesspool.
Thanks for your perspective.
I don't see counter tariffs as begging for scraps, but rather the easiest and quickest applied method to show that trying to force you is not without consequence and then afterwards you work on the other points your post mentioned.
And your second paragraph is exactly why I asked the question and wanted to know your view. To a certain degree you need to play the bad game, even if you know it's bad, if it's the only way to proceed.
Counter tariffs may seem like the "quickest applied method," but they’re a band-aid on a gaping wound. They perpetuate the same exploitative system you’re trying to resist, reinforcing the very dynamics of coercion and retaliation. It’s not about showing consequence; it’s about breaking free from the cycle entirely. Playing the bad game, even temporarily, is still playing their game.
Your approach assumes that power respects defiance when, in reality, it thrives on it. The only way to proceed isn’t to play better but to flip the board. Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. If your goal is genuine change, you don’t tweak the system—you dismantle it.
Appreciate the discussion—it’s rare to find someone willing to engage beyond surface-level noise.
Same to you!