Trump’s far out negotiating positions

Share Button

March 6, 2025 — I didn’t think Trump would actually follow through with his threatened 25 % tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico on March 4. I thought that even he would be forced to confront the harm that they would cause for the US economy and would have to back off. When March 4 came, it looked like I was wrong. But today’s news from the White House suggests that perhaps I wasn’t so wrong after all.

1. Staking out a negotiating position?

In trade policy, as in other areas, pundits have been hard put to distill a “method to the madness” from the torrent of moves that US President Donald Trump has announced during his first six weeks in office. Typical declarations — such as his designs on Greenland, Panama, or Canada — are so far out as to seem at first like he is joking. But he sticks with them, requiring a radical adjustment in expectations as the initial shock begins to wear off. (The “Overton window” shifts in directions that had previously been unimagined.)

Many analysts have adopted the interpretation that Trump follows a deliberate negotiating strategy. He is said to stake out an extreme position, not because he necessarily expects to get everything that he asks for, but rather as a negotiating tactic, a base from which he plans in the future to make concessions, in exchange for important concessions by others, thereby achieving a glorious bargain.

This is related to the more general characterization of Trump as “transactional” — a polite way of saying that he makes deals that have short-term benefits (possibly financial benefits to himself), while ignoring longer-term considerations of ethics, credibility, the rule of law, and the larger system. Pundits often cite the love of deal-making revealed in his ghost-written book The Art of the Deal, even though it is not certain that he ever read it, let alone wrote it.

This interpretation imputes too much strategic thinking to Trump. I am not sure that he thinks ahead at all. The pattern that generally fits better than a thought-out negotiating strategy: He likes to declare war, cheered by his supporters; and he eventually declares victory even though the US has gained little.

2. 25 % tariffs against Canada and Mexico

Trump initially announced the 25% tariffs on the neighbors soon after his inauguration, in violation of his earlier US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, not to mention the WTO. This was not a move that he had campaigned on, having emphasized rather China and other trading partners as the primary targets for tariff threats. On February 4, he suddenly postponed the tariffs for 30 days. At the same time, a further tariff of 10% against Chinese imports, an “opening salvo,” did go into effect, as did retaliation from Beijing. On March 4, the tariffs against Canada and Mexico went into effect, as well as another 10% against China. Today, as I write, the White House is once again talking about exemptions, suspensions, and postponements. 

If the on-again off-again tariffs are kept on for long, they will seriously damage, not just Canada and Mexico, but the US economy as well. read more

Share Button

DOGE dividends are daft

Share Button

February 22, 2025 — The “DOGE dividends” that Elon Musk is promoting are beyond absurd.  I’m not even completely sure that the Musk-Trump team will succeed in cutting government spending on net.  But assuming it does,

  • the savings will not be enough to fund the renewal of the 2017 tax cuts, which Trump has pledged to do,
  • let alone also finance the new tax cuts he promised in the campaign (e.g., exempting tips),
  • let alone eliminate the budget deficit,
  • let alone pay down the debt.
    Even if he does just some of the tax cuts he has promised, he won’t have any money left over for a DOGE rebate.
    Economists Reveal the Truth Behind Musk and Trump’s ‘DOGE Dividends’,” The Daily Beast, Feb. 20, 2025.
    Trump’s tax cuts and Musk’s Doge show they have no idea about US debt,” the Guardian, Nov. 21, 2024.
  • read more

    Share Button

    Retrospective on the First Year of Trump’s Second Term

    Share Button

    Washington DC, January 11, 2026 — What a difference a year makes.  When Donald Trump took the oath of office for the second time, almost 12 months ago, his supporters and opponents alike were expecting a set of policies very different from what actually unfolded.

    After the November 2024 election, the mood of the American business community began to shift.  Some businesspeople had all along harbored doubts about Trump’s anti-globalization campaign.  But overall confidence began to fall early in the new year when they came face to face with some of the possible consequences of cutting the US economy off from international trade and migration — the prospects of sharply increased prices of imported products and worker shortages in some sectors.

    Anxieties soon multiplied, as mysterious cyber-attacks resulted in a series of failures in the US power infrastructure and water/sanitation systems.  Then came the return of some childhood diseases like measles.  Conspiracy theories abounded.  But from the day of the inauguration, social media no longer felt free to highlight attempts by public health and IT professionals to correct the corresponding misinformation.

    1. The crash of 2025

    Most dramatic in the first half of the year was the correction in the US stock market, by some 35% as reflected in the S&P 500 index.  It had already increased sevenfold between January 2009 and the 2024 election, extended by stronger than expected growth in US output and employment in 2021-24.  But by the end of President Joe Biden’s term, it had launched into bubble territory.  Whether evaluated in comparison to earnings, dividends, capital stock replacement value, or GDP, stock prices were at highs reminiscent of 1929 and other pre-crash years. The market was ripe for a fall.

    1. The debt meltdown

    The immediate catalyst that apparently pricked the speculative bubble in the financial markets was a 2025 intra-Republican deadlock over the national debt.  With Democrats having lost majorities in both the House and the Senate, the Republicans were left to confront the tyranny of budgetary arithmetic alone.

     

    Congressional Republicans split broadly into two factions.  Both believed that it was time for the country to deal with the unsustainable path of the national debt.  One faction, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, saw cutting taxes

    as the way forward, dismissing the “experts’ view” that this would worsen the budget deficit rather than improve it.  (Neither faction followed President Trump’s claim that the path to fiscal virtue was further tariffs.) The other faction was led by Elon Musk, especially after his falling out with President Trump (which followed a humor-motivated claim that he could draw the bigger crowds at rallies).  This second group insisted that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending, but failed to realize that it was now incumbent on them to propose specific spending cuts large enough to do the job.  (Musk’s Department of read more

    Share Button