To your point on raising questions to your students. It had me thinking again how poorly we prepare students to understand the engine that powers our society, economics. It affects us every day and yet it is largely left to university students who choose business career paths to study. When I hear about the need for more STEM focus in elementary and secondary schooling, I can’t help thinking we need another “E”.
We are 37,000 billion in debt due to past expert politicians, professors, business leaders, lobbyist, etc. Whether Trump succeeds or not remains to be seen, but kicking the can down the road is going to end badly for all of us, if its not already too late.
How is this Liberation Day tariff regime going to lower the national debt? Even if the tariffs bring in revenue, they will increase costs to consumers and producers and therefore growth and income tax revenue will probably be lower, as can be seen in the stock markets reaction. Exporters will be hurt by retaliatory tariffs and the weakening dollar , and Trump is already talking about bailing farmers out with more subsidies, which will also get added to the debt.
I took an international economics course in college from Dr. Robert Carbaugh. He had just published his first edition of his International Economics text. I loved his class. Later I bought his 10th edition book (used) and I think he is up to his 18th edition. My comments below are based on his 2005 10th edition book. I suspect they are still relevant.
International economics is complicated. It involves trade, exchange rates, national security and other things. I think this Substack post is missing a key topic.
Most of the conversation focuses on the balance of trade deficit in our goods account. That would include things like steel, parts, etc. The U.S has run a deficit in that account for a long time. The goods account is usually combined with services to be the goods and services account. The U.S., according to my 10th edition book has had surpluses in the services account. Services include things such as shipping services, money spent by foreign tourists, and many other things. When we add services to goods, we still run a deficit.
Economics further the definition of goods and services to something called the current account. The current account includes gifts (by individuals or governments through things such as foreign aid) as well as interest payments from invests. In the current accounts (goods + services + unilateral transfers), we still run a deficit. But the story changes when you broaden the definition of international payments to include capital and financial accounts.
Capital and financial accounts include things such as Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds and securities of private business (e.g. stock, bonds). This is money inflows into the U.S. This is the savings and investments not provided by U.S. citizens. A big piece of that savings is provided by foreigners who are helping to finance our federal government’s $36.5 trillion debt. From what I understand, foreigners may not be buying as much of our goods and services, but they are financing our out-of-control federal spending.
If we try to force a change in the goods and services accounts, that must have some impact on the capital and financial accounts as the sum of all these accounts must be balanced
My reaction is that the experts are responsible for the downfall of the American working class. Manufacturing is he base of the economy. If it is all exported our economy will collapse. We are at the mercy of other countries for critical manufactured goods. For example drugs, medical supplies, semiconductors, rare earths and more. The idea that we must fix the disaster with slow and careful change is foolish. Who will be in charge - the same experts? If a rapid move does not work then fix it rapidly. That is the method of Musk an incredible American manufacturing success. Experts are often slaves to outdated theory. They are manipulated by special interests.
Custom duties in 2024 accounted for a puny $60B or so compared to the $trillions our Treasury hauled in. Even if that amount doubles with the new proposed tariffs, the impact on the economy would be minimal. Long term though our terrible trade deficit in goods would abate and the era of the world taking advantage of access to our markets w/o reciprocity may come to an end. To repeat: the US Treasury charges the importer the tariff, say $20 on $100 import. What happens next with the $20 is dependent on many factors: it may be passed on to the consumer (Ferrari car) it may be “eaten” entirely by the exporter (China) it may not last for a variety of reasons as well. There is too much hoopla around tariffs nowadays.
There will be tariffs across the board between 10% and 50% on all imports, with additional tariffs of 25% on automobiles, steel and aluminum. The tariff money will be collected from the importers and flow to the treasury. As you say that increased tax on the imports will either raise the consumer prices, or increase the costs to the importer. The companies who import can either raise prices or lower profits and reduce shareholder value, they can’t be ignored. And there is no way for a Chinese exporter to directly eat the tariff, since they don’t pay them. If an exporter prices an item at $100 the importer will now have to pay that $100 plus $34 to the treasury, so the exporter to eat this will need to lower the price to $75, and the importer will still need to pay $25 in tariffs at the lower price.
Yes, an interesting topic I have not considered for a long time, since my days at MIT getting my SM in finance and economics and listening to lectures by Friedman and Samuelson extolling the virtues of free trade (unilateral if necessary), minimal government interference into the free markets, and the virtues of comparative advantage to increase the wealth and productive capacities of all nations. They many times did not agree on economics fundamentals, but this one they did. I still believe in what they taught. The question is, since so many countries tariff US goods, some at very high rates, how do we get their attention to stop it all? Maybe, like a mule, you get their attention first by hitting them up side the head with a hammer......
Look, if an enterprise sets out to make anything whatsoever, planes, trains, automobiles, computer chips or potato chips, it has to stand on a three-legged stool of three factors: cost of labor, cost of materials, and cost of capital. The enterprise has to compete for capital with other makers of goods and providers of services by offering the promise of a competitive return on investment. Cost of materials has been revolutionized by cheap seaborne transportation. But If labor costs become so high as to endanger that rate of return, the enterprise has two options: shut down or relocate to a low-labor-cost location. Labor costs in the US are very high compared to many other countries because of worker benefits and protective labor laws. These high labor costs must be offset by higher productivity or the three-legged stool described above falls over for lack of one leg. So, factors which hobble labor productivity can make the difference between a viable industry and one doomed to extinction. Redundant union work rules are one such factor. Excessive government regulations, including environmental regulations, are another. Jobs won't come back, with or without tariffs, unless union work rules and crippling regulations are rationalized.
The national security aspect of these tariffs is to bring essential production back to the U.S. This includes having skilled workers in the U.S. should we need to ramp up production in the event of a war or serious conflict. All other effects are secondary.
Then why impose 50% tariffs on Sri Lanka? Do we need tea leaves to maintain our defense supply chains?
If this is a true defense emergency, then the tariffs should be targeted at production, and also exclude allies like Canada, Mexico, Japan, Europe and Australia.
And get viewed as playing favorites? That's what we've done in the past, and see where it has gotten us? This whole idea of reciprocal tariffs, where the tariff we impose is roughly half what the tariffs against us are, is genius.
Interesting read, thank you. If I understand this correctly the idea behind US tariffs is to increase domestic production and move foreign production into the US. Both of those will increase cost to US consumers.
The reason you are importing stuff in the first place is that you always go for the cheapest production. And you could not do that domestically, so you bought from those with the lowest price. If you were able to produce the same stuff cheaper you would already have done it. If the cheap foreign manufacturers thought they could make more money by moving production to the US they would have done it already. And they may not be interested in joining a falling US domestic market.
Another interesting thing is the US insisting that the rest of NATO step up spending on military capabilities. A good thing in itself, but it comes at a time where realization that dependence on others comes at a peril is in full bloom. Knowing full well that all those countries traditionally buy US military products and systems the demand assumes this will continue. However, they may end up spending more by building their own capabilities thus reducing spending towards the US while fulfilling the request. That would be a hard blow to the US. And the US does not seem to be a stable supporter of the free world anymore.
That is not unique to Europe. And if you pay attention you will see that Europe is moving in that direction. In the long term, the current US policy will lead to a stronger European military industry.
One of the problems with expert opinions is that they may be correct in their narrow domain but meaningless (or worse; take covid – please!) when looked thru a wider lens that encompasses their total impact.
Another is that their opinions are usually stated without also stating the underlying assumptions or boundary conditions upon which they are based.
Yet another is in the very nature of becoming an expert. A person who has solved a frequently encountered problem 30 times may be dubbed an expert. But is their expertise as valuable as as that of someone who has solved 30 different problems?
All this by way of saying that policy makers should listen to what experts have to say but should never forget that experts should never make policy. Hedgehogs for advice; Foxes for decisions!
So, it's ok for other countries to have tariffs on US products, but not for the US to tariff imports? Why do I never hear about this story as an outsider (foreigner) looking "in" to the US market explaining why their country must tariff imported US goods? Economics is truly a voodoo science in that in this example of tariffs, you can find oodles of people explaining how tariffs are good and others who agree that they are bad (interesting how you started off the examples with why they are bad). One doesn't find that in a standard physics or math problem.
However, in the trade game, nothing can be compared at face value. Example: the Europeans have ridden the US military umbrella since WWII that only now is it coming to light for the common man because of the Russia-Ukraine war. One could say that the long in the tooth US "military" subsidy of the Europeans so they can spend on their social pet projects is the cause of these Tman tariffs. Even Ike was fed up with European arrogance when he was President vis a vis NATO spending (lack of). Time to pay the piper, as he has arrived to collect.
I like the idea of true reciprocity tariffs on like items if it is hurting our agricultural or manufacturing base. I can certainly tighten my belt and forgo a European product.
You have to be pretty devoid of knowledge on history to conclude that the US has subsidized European military capabilities so European countries could do something else.
Yes, there is a real issue on the level of spending compared to the expressed needs of NATO. But most European countries have invested in US military systems and equipment, making them the largest customer outside the US. And the US has had a sustained self-interest in having direct military presence in the Euroepan theatre.This is a complex issue, and cannot be reduced to simplistic "pay the piper" statements.
No need for personal attacks. No, I am not devoid of such knowledge that you allude to, and I readily recognize the American self-interest that European countries readily and willingly/easily accept as it has allowed them to do other things with their monies. I have never heard of European protests to kick out American forces like I have from locals in, say, Okinawa. No, Europeans have been willing participants, and VP Vance was correct in his observation that Red Sea/Suez shipping traffic mostly benefits EU countries. It is interesting to see Europeans running around with their hair on fire vis a vis how the new American sheriff is shaking things up. I would also love to hear from the European viewpoint as to why it is o.k. to tariff US imported goods but it is bad for the US to do the same to EU goods?
Let me supply some facts. I am Norwegian. The US has an existing 25% tariff on Steel, and 10% on aluminium. The US is not a major trade partner in those commodities, but the tariffs are there. The US also has tariffs on seafood, and that is a major export commodity for Norway. The US tariff shift trade away from the US and toward Asia.
The vast majority of Norwegian seafood is not tariffed by the US; salmon, cod tuna, eels, trout, perch, herring, etc. are not tariffed at all, and the highest tariff is on hake, catfish and tilapias (1.5%). Your statement that the US has a 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminum is not supported by fact. The US tariffs on flat-rolled steel and iron is 0%; stainless steel tubing is 5%; aluminum nails and tacks 5.52%; iron and non-alloy steel 0%; ferro-alloys 5%, of which Norway is one of the largest producers in the world. Those are the highest tariffs on those metals. Those are the facts. Norway does not tariff these US metal products most likely because they are not imported to your country from the US. And I never said that the US does not tariff EU goods - you inferred that yourself. As an aside, I don't eat Asian fish as much of it is farm-raised in an unhealthy environment, but I do savor Norwegian seafood and buy it when I can in US markets (tariffs be damned!).
My grandfathers fought in WWI and WWII on the Continent. I am retired military. I do believe and stand by my statement of EU arrogance towards Americans in general. I encourage you to research the 34th US President's comments on what he thought and said of European attitudes and their participation in NATO back in the 1950's as it would be elucidating for most Europeans today.
Actually Norway was among the countries hit by the tariffs imposed in 2018, 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium. It has had little impact since the US is a minor party to our exports. You are probably right, though on seafood and I stand corrected. I should rather have stated that the US has hit us with tariffs on seafood previously. You wrote initially, as your first sentence: 'So, it's ok for other countries to have tariffs on US products, but not for the US to tariff imports? ' - my replies were to show that is not the case, the US has tariffs on imports for a number of goods.
An interesting perspective is that it seems the US and Norway has a balanced trade, with both sides calculating a slight trade deficit.
Another interesting thing is your current president has indicated that the use by some countries of VAT on imported goods could be reason for US tariffs - even though VAT is a non-discriminatory tax. It is levied on all goods, domestic and imported.
I think you will find a general gratitude in Europe towards those who served for our freedom. And you may know the previous general secretary of NATO, a former Norwegian Labour party prime minister, actually defended Trump in his previous term when he said Europe needed to step up its game on military spending. I agree that Europe has been slacking in efforts to fulfil the goals of NATO, but I do not in any sense see arrogance towards the US. Europe has its own stance and its diversity of opinions - very different from arrogance.
I agree, and that is why there was no personal attack in what I wrote. I did comment on your lack of knowledge, though.
That you haven't heard of European protests against the presence of US military forces is another testament to your lack of knowledge of the subject. There have been many protests, especially during the cold war era. Many European countries do not allow foreign military forces on a permanent basis, although there are a few exceptions.
And to suggest that the US has no tariffs on European goods is again lack of knowledge. The US has always used tariffs to affect trade, as do most other countries. Tariffs are part of international trade, and a common tool to regulate trade within different areas.
With regard to Vance, you can and should do better.
How can you use the statements of economists, when economics is so utterly wrong and false, to weigh up the good or evil of tariffs?
To your point on raising questions to your students. It had me thinking again how poorly we prepare students to understand the engine that powers our society, economics. It affects us every day and yet it is largely left to university students who choose business career paths to study. When I hear about the need for more STEM focus in elementary and secondary schooling, I can’t help thinking we need another “E”.
Professor, now you know where it starts. What are your reflections on the new tariff regime?
We are 37,000 billion in debt due to past expert politicians, professors, business leaders, lobbyist, etc. Whether Trump succeeds or not remains to be seen, but kicking the can down the road is going to end badly for all of us, if its not already too late.
How is this Liberation Day tariff regime going to lower the national debt? Even if the tariffs bring in revenue, they will increase costs to consumers and producers and therefore growth and income tax revenue will probably be lower, as can be seen in the stock markets reaction. Exporters will be hurt by retaliatory tariffs and the weakening dollar , and Trump is already talking about bailing farmers out with more subsidies, which will also get added to the debt.
I took an international economics course in college from Dr. Robert Carbaugh. He had just published his first edition of his International Economics text. I loved his class. Later I bought his 10th edition book (used) and I think he is up to his 18th edition. My comments below are based on his 2005 10th edition book. I suspect they are still relevant.
International economics is complicated. It involves trade, exchange rates, national security and other things. I think this Substack post is missing a key topic.
Most of the conversation focuses on the balance of trade deficit in our goods account. That would include things like steel, parts, etc. The U.S has run a deficit in that account for a long time. The goods account is usually combined with services to be the goods and services account. The U.S., according to my 10th edition book has had surpluses in the services account. Services include things such as shipping services, money spent by foreign tourists, and many other things. When we add services to goods, we still run a deficit.
Economics further the definition of goods and services to something called the current account. The current account includes gifts (by individuals or governments through things such as foreign aid) as well as interest payments from invests. In the current accounts (goods + services + unilateral transfers), we still run a deficit. But the story changes when you broaden the definition of international payments to include capital and financial accounts.
Capital and financial accounts include things such as Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds and securities of private business (e.g. stock, bonds). This is money inflows into the U.S. This is the savings and investments not provided by U.S. citizens. A big piece of that savings is provided by foreigners who are helping to finance our federal government’s $36.5 trillion debt. From what I understand, foreigners may not be buying as much of our goods and services, but they are financing our out-of-control federal spending.
If we try to force a change in the goods and services accounts, that must have some impact on the capital and financial accounts as the sum of all these accounts must be balanced
My reaction is that the experts are responsible for the downfall of the American working class. Manufacturing is he base of the economy. If it is all exported our economy will collapse. We are at the mercy of other countries for critical manufactured goods. For example drugs, medical supplies, semiconductors, rare earths and more. The idea that we must fix the disaster with slow and careful change is foolish. Who will be in charge - the same experts? If a rapid move does not work then fix it rapidly. That is the method of Musk an incredible American manufacturing success. Experts are often slaves to outdated theory. They are manipulated by special interests.
"Among such pivots were Covid-19,..."
Any chance you've got some of that material, and can publish it? :-)
Custom duties in 2024 accounted for a puny $60B or so compared to the $trillions our Treasury hauled in. Even if that amount doubles with the new proposed tariffs, the impact on the economy would be minimal. Long term though our terrible trade deficit in goods would abate and the era of the world taking advantage of access to our markets w/o reciprocity may come to an end. To repeat: the US Treasury charges the importer the tariff, say $20 on $100 import. What happens next with the $20 is dependent on many factors: it may be passed on to the consumer (Ferrari car) it may be “eaten” entirely by the exporter (China) it may not last for a variety of reasons as well. There is too much hoopla around tariffs nowadays.
There will be tariffs across the board between 10% and 50% on all imports, with additional tariffs of 25% on automobiles, steel and aluminum. The tariff money will be collected from the importers and flow to the treasury. As you say that increased tax on the imports will either raise the consumer prices, or increase the costs to the importer. The companies who import can either raise prices or lower profits and reduce shareholder value, they can’t be ignored. And there is no way for a Chinese exporter to directly eat the tariff, since they don’t pay them. If an exporter prices an item at $100 the importer will now have to pay that $100 plus $34 to the treasury, so the exporter to eat this will need to lower the price to $75, and the importer will still need to pay $25 in tariffs at the lower price.
Very good points. I hadn't heard before how small existing tariffs are in our economy.
Tariffs are niche economics.
Yes, an interesting topic I have not considered for a long time, since my days at MIT getting my SM in finance and economics and listening to lectures by Friedman and Samuelson extolling the virtues of free trade (unilateral if necessary), minimal government interference into the free markets, and the virtues of comparative advantage to increase the wealth and productive capacities of all nations. They many times did not agree on economics fundamentals, but this one they did. I still believe in what they taught. The question is, since so many countries tariff US goods, some at very high rates, how do we get their attention to stop it all? Maybe, like a mule, you get their attention first by hitting them up side the head with a hammer......
Look, if an enterprise sets out to make anything whatsoever, planes, trains, automobiles, computer chips or potato chips, it has to stand on a three-legged stool of three factors: cost of labor, cost of materials, and cost of capital. The enterprise has to compete for capital with other makers of goods and providers of services by offering the promise of a competitive return on investment. Cost of materials has been revolutionized by cheap seaborne transportation. But If labor costs become so high as to endanger that rate of return, the enterprise has two options: shut down or relocate to a low-labor-cost location. Labor costs in the US are very high compared to many other countries because of worker benefits and protective labor laws. These high labor costs must be offset by higher productivity or the three-legged stool described above falls over for lack of one leg. So, factors which hobble labor productivity can make the difference between a viable industry and one doomed to extinction. Redundant union work rules are one such factor. Excessive government regulations, including environmental regulations, are another. Jobs won't come back, with or without tariffs, unless union work rules and crippling regulations are rationalized.
The national security aspect of these tariffs is to bring essential production back to the U.S. This includes having skilled workers in the U.S. should we need to ramp up production in the event of a war or serious conflict. All other effects are secondary.
Then why impose 50% tariffs on Sri Lanka? Do we need tea leaves to maintain our defense supply chains?
If this is a true defense emergency, then the tariffs should be targeted at production, and also exclude allies like Canada, Mexico, Japan, Europe and Australia.
And get viewed as playing favorites? That's what we've done in the past, and see where it has gotten us? This whole idea of reciprocal tariffs, where the tariff we impose is roughly half what the tariffs against us are, is genius.
https://library.muhlenkamp.com/free-economies-and-trade/
Channeling Clausewitz, I suspect that for this administration, tariffs are just a continuation of politics by other means.
Interesting read, thank you. If I understand this correctly the idea behind US tariffs is to increase domestic production and move foreign production into the US. Both of those will increase cost to US consumers.
The reason you are importing stuff in the first place is that you always go for the cheapest production. And you could not do that domestically, so you bought from those with the lowest price. If you were able to produce the same stuff cheaper you would already have done it. If the cheap foreign manufacturers thought they could make more money by moving production to the US they would have done it already. And they may not be interested in joining a falling US domestic market.
Another interesting thing is the US insisting that the rest of NATO step up spending on military capabilities. A good thing in itself, but it comes at a time where realization that dependence on others comes at a peril is in full bloom. Knowing full well that all those countries traditionally buy US military products and systems the demand assumes this will continue. However, they may end up spending more by building their own capabilities thus reducing spending towards the US while fulfilling the request. That would be a hard blow to the US. And the US does not seem to be a stable supporter of the free world anymore.
The future will be interesting indeed.
Europe can't build military or any other manufactering capacity without cheap, reliable energy.
That is not unique to Europe. And if you pay attention you will see that Europe is moving in that direction. In the long term, the current US policy will lead to a stronger European military industry.
One of the problems with expert opinions is that they may be correct in their narrow domain but meaningless (or worse; take covid – please!) when looked thru a wider lens that encompasses their total impact.
Another is that their opinions are usually stated without also stating the underlying assumptions or boundary conditions upon which they are based.
Yet another is in the very nature of becoming an expert. A person who has solved a frequently encountered problem 30 times may be dubbed an expert. But is their expertise as valuable as as that of someone who has solved 30 different problems?
All this by way of saying that policy makers should listen to what experts have to say but should never forget that experts should never make policy. Hedgehogs for advice; Foxes for decisions!
The 30 30 observation is very good.
So, it's ok for other countries to have tariffs on US products, but not for the US to tariff imports? Why do I never hear about this story as an outsider (foreigner) looking "in" to the US market explaining why their country must tariff imported US goods? Economics is truly a voodoo science in that in this example of tariffs, you can find oodles of people explaining how tariffs are good and others who agree that they are bad (interesting how you started off the examples with why they are bad). One doesn't find that in a standard physics or math problem.
However, in the trade game, nothing can be compared at face value. Example: the Europeans have ridden the US military umbrella since WWII that only now is it coming to light for the common man because of the Russia-Ukraine war. One could say that the long in the tooth US "military" subsidy of the Europeans so they can spend on their social pet projects is the cause of these Tman tariffs. Even Ike was fed up with European arrogance when he was President vis a vis NATO spending (lack of). Time to pay the piper, as he has arrived to collect.
I like the idea of true reciprocity tariffs on like items if it is hurting our agricultural or manufacturing base. I can certainly tighten my belt and forgo a European product.
You have to be pretty devoid of knowledge on history to conclude that the US has subsidized European military capabilities so European countries could do something else.
Yes, there is a real issue on the level of spending compared to the expressed needs of NATO. But most European countries have invested in US military systems and equipment, making them the largest customer outside the US. And the US has had a sustained self-interest in having direct military presence in the Euroepan theatre.This is a complex issue, and cannot be reduced to simplistic "pay the piper" statements.
Anders,
No need for personal attacks. No, I am not devoid of such knowledge that you allude to, and I readily recognize the American self-interest that European countries readily and willingly/easily accept as it has allowed them to do other things with their monies. I have never heard of European protests to kick out American forces like I have from locals in, say, Okinawa. No, Europeans have been willing participants, and VP Vance was correct in his observation that Red Sea/Suez shipping traffic mostly benefits EU countries. It is interesting to see Europeans running around with their hair on fire vis a vis how the new American sheriff is shaking things up. I would also love to hear from the European viewpoint as to why it is o.k. to tariff US imported goods but it is bad for the US to do the same to EU goods?
Let me supply some facts. I am Norwegian. The US has an existing 25% tariff on Steel, and 10% on aluminium. The US is not a major trade partner in those commodities, but the tariffs are there. The US also has tariffs on seafood, and that is a major export commodity for Norway. The US tariff shift trade away from the US and toward Asia.
Anders,
The vast majority of Norwegian seafood is not tariffed by the US; salmon, cod tuna, eels, trout, perch, herring, etc. are not tariffed at all, and the highest tariff is on hake, catfish and tilapias (1.5%). Your statement that the US has a 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminum is not supported by fact. The US tariffs on flat-rolled steel and iron is 0%; stainless steel tubing is 5%; aluminum nails and tacks 5.52%; iron and non-alloy steel 0%; ferro-alloys 5%, of which Norway is one of the largest producers in the world. Those are the highest tariffs on those metals. Those are the facts. Norway does not tariff these US metal products most likely because they are not imported to your country from the US. And I never said that the US does not tariff EU goods - you inferred that yourself. As an aside, I don't eat Asian fish as much of it is farm-raised in an unhealthy environment, but I do savor Norwegian seafood and buy it when I can in US markets (tariffs be damned!).
My grandfathers fought in WWI and WWII on the Continent. I am retired military. I do believe and stand by my statement of EU arrogance towards Americans in general. I encourage you to research the 34th US President's comments on what he thought and said of European attitudes and their participation in NATO back in the 1950's as it would be elucidating for most Europeans today.
Actually Norway was among the countries hit by the tariffs imposed in 2018, 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium. It has had little impact since the US is a minor party to our exports. You are probably right, though on seafood and I stand corrected. I should rather have stated that the US has hit us with tariffs on seafood previously. You wrote initially, as your first sentence: 'So, it's ok for other countries to have tariffs on US products, but not for the US to tariff imports? ' - my replies were to show that is not the case, the US has tariffs on imports for a number of goods.
An interesting perspective is that it seems the US and Norway has a balanced trade, with both sides calculating a slight trade deficit.
Another interesting thing is your current president has indicated that the use by some countries of VAT on imported goods could be reason for US tariffs - even though VAT is a non-discriminatory tax. It is levied on all goods, domestic and imported.
I think you will find a general gratitude in Europe towards those who served for our freedom. And you may know the previous general secretary of NATO, a former Norwegian Labour party prime minister, actually defended Trump in his previous term when he said Europe needed to step up its game on military spending. I agree that Europe has been slacking in efforts to fulfil the goals of NATO, but I do not in any sense see arrogance towards the US. Europe has its own stance and its diversity of opinions - very different from arrogance.
I agree, and that is why there was no personal attack in what I wrote. I did comment on your lack of knowledge, though.
That you haven't heard of European protests against the presence of US military forces is another testament to your lack of knowledge of the subject. There have been many protests, especially during the cold war era. Many European countries do not allow foreign military forces on a permanent basis, although there are a few exceptions.
And to suggest that the US has no tariffs on European goods is again lack of knowledge. The US has always used tariffs to affect trade, as do most other countries. Tariffs are part of international trade, and a common tool to regulate trade within different areas.
With regard to Vance, you can and should do better.
A gentle reminder that here at THB there is no need to seek to characterize other commenters in any way. Play the ball, not the man.