Flexibilities? Maybe it’s not about reforming MFN but a missed opportunity that the US did not use situation and non-violation complaints *in tandem* with its trade remedies to have managed Chinese practices in non-US markets?
Lutnick’s remarks are immature and bullying. The real story here is the power of consumer preferences and how they dictate government policies.
I don’t dispute the jurispathic functions of courts. However, it is the coequal branch of the legislature that needs to pass laws that more carefully set out how emergency powers are reviewed, now as afterthoughts. Legitimacy and accountability requires focus on the missing middle.
I don’t know, I would say set Congressional checks on sweeping executive powers as a day one task.
Lutnick’s remarks are immature and bullying. The real story here is the power of consumer preferences and how they dictate government policies.
Best to not ask
Greer's statement to the House Appropriations Sub-committee (testifying today but don't make me convert time zones). And let's just say, good news: the executive branch does believe in the Constitution and what it says about trade!
docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/...
That said, the US expects other partners to align with its unilateral approaches, while asking them to account for third country markets. But if you hoped to go beyond addressing unfair (discriminatory, insecure) trade in your own markets, then a multilateral means would make more sense.
Just in case you wondered about papal powers wading into matters of "unholy commerce" and war, see Evans, Leading Cases of International Law (2d edn 1922, 822).
In 1950, a State Department official would report on this history: "The chief weapon of the Papacy was, of course, moral suasion ...."
Great point by Simon! And if you think, oh well, the US can just continue to go it alone on this -- just imagine what US businesses might have to say about other countries' potentially "unreasonable" trade remedy determinations.
And then you have the reason why coordination matters.
On May 8, 2025, the UK agreed to negotiate a trade agreement with the US, and on December 1st, an agreement in principle was reached concerning pharma products.
I think the story evidences an issue in POTUS' understanding of the promise and practice of US-UK trade agreements.
In an interview on Wednesday, the president said the United States had given the U.K. a “good trade deal” that was “better than I had to,” adding that it could “always be changed.”
www.politico.eu/article/dona...
This presumes the investigations will warrant a response by means of tariffs.
Disappointed, though not surprised, I began to describe various life- saving components of USAID’s global health portfolio, highlighting how we prepare for and respond to emerging pandemic threats; support the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV; and immunize millions of children from the deadliest childhood diseases. I spoke for about five minutes, focusing primarily on our infectious diseases work and hoping to keep the attention of people who seemed to have no experience—or interest—in global health. When I finished, the room was silent, the political appointees looking at one another in what appeared to be disbelief. The silence was broken by Ken Jackson, who chuckled softly and shook his head. “Wow, there really is so much that USAID does that we never knew,” he said. “This is the story that needs to get out there.” Joel, also smiling, chimed in next, echoing Jackson’s amazement. “I had no idea you did all this,” he said. “As a Republican, when I think of what USAID does in global health, I assumed it was just, you know, abortions.”
This is NUTS
www.thehandbasket.co/p/trump-usai...
But what tariff rate do those drugs have?
All of this helps explain why, despite everything we know about collective action on problems, it could have been a good idea for many big US trade partners to work together and just refuse to bargain, retaliating in kind.
p.s. my tone! Anyway, I always feel a bit weird replying to someone when they do not disclose who they are. But I suppose that's how this online world works.
And in a way you argued they are both - for China could manipulate them but also they were somehow prohibitive of all subsidies, when they are not. And I think both Slobodian and Klein/Pettis while interesting projects and contributions to the field do not get into the weeds of what these rules say.
Deeper more probing requirements into not just what forms a subsidy but those which merit direct countermeasure.But in fact there is very little in the WTO subsidy rules, though more stringent rules are in China's accession docs. But then its that the rules either do not go far enough or go too far
Let me try again as reading that the tone appears off to me. I will leave Klein/Pettis to a bigger discussion. I have no evidence to see a manipulation but in effect your points may counteract one another. Let me try to explain. If the WTO rules were "anti-Subsidy" and that intrusive, we'd see
“For existential philosophers, AI poses an existential threat because it offers answers faster than humans can ask the questions that help them contemplate their existence. And when humans stop asking existential questions, they stop being human.”
www.forbes.com/sites/pialau...
I honestly do not understand your point regarding the "Trade Wars are Class Wars" logic. I do not think we are in agreement, certainly not with the aims of the multilateral trading system. By what metric is failure Unrelated, but it makes it difficult to engage, why are you an anonymous participant?
Also, because it will drive me bananas not to say, the WTO rules are not anti-subsidy. I agree it fails to capture much of Chinese interventions but the rules aim to publicise and make interventions that disrupt made commitments legible. And afford domestic and multilateral countermeasures.
I’m unclear what that acronym means but if it suggests both countries need to undertake macroeconomic reforms and their interactions and growing tensions go beyond a trade issue, then I agree.
Ok, first thank you. I won’t get into too much on social media on a Sunday but I think that in refining this position (admittedly I also didn’t do that!) we can better assess what happened but I don’t think, at least from that post, you’ve captured the story.
Can you expand on this, not sure I understand the reasoning behind your modification.
What matters now is how many other governments find ways to pool their resources and collective interests to navigate China's export-led approaches and the US’s unilateral actions.
It is a lesson that traverses technological progress and economic globalisation.
I believe trade security will worsen as the US increasingly demands that its market access be bought and paid for by its partners and the third country.
and three centuries of experience demonstrate that under all circumstances they operate to poison international relations and to make more difficult the task of maintaining international harmony".
The question is whether the thick WTO legal system has grown so thick that it has calcified, eliminating all political safety valves as a result.
Viner wrote: "Tariff discriminations are invariably resented by the countries which are discriminated against, and ...