I hope they do make the details public, but it does look like EU bent the knee with this one.

  • SebaDC ( SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anyone disappointed should just boycott everything coming from the USA, from companies owned by the USA (PE, stock market, etc).

    Start with easy stuff. Like benzin/diesel for your car. Don’t go to esso or jet. Then, stop drinking Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc. or going to the McDonald’s. Boycott Tesla, Ford & Co.

    Cancel your Netflix and Amazon prime, and buy CDs, DVDs and blue rays.

    Stop buying iPhones. Move away from Microsoft and Google as much as possible. In your private life and your companies. Go open source.

    Trade wars are a problem only for the seller if there are no buyers.

    • vga ( vga@sopuli.xyz ) Banned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anyone disappointed should just boycott everything coming from the USA

      This is the lazy and ultimately wrong way. Sure, it doesn’t hurt, but its actual effect is not very powerful.

      The better way to get back at USA is to start doing things better than they do. Stop fucking around and do stuff. We might be there in some limited areas, but in general the US rules over the world economically because they’re good at making things.

      • A_norny_mousse ( A_norny_mousse@feddit.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong but you’re wrong when you say “ultimately wrong”.

        More than one thing can help here.

        And your counter-proposal to “stop fucking around and do stuff” is not so hot.

        Better advice: contact your MP’s right now because this hasn’t been ratified yet.

        edit:

        in general the US rules over the world economically because they’re good at making things

        oof. 🤪 Even in the glorified 1950s neither part of this statement has been (generally) true.

      • SebaDC ( SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do they? Most founders located in the USA are either heirs of Fortunes or foreigners.

        They’re especially good at:

        • Financing: they have been printing money line there’s no tomorrow and pumped their stock market

        • Marketing: many of us here aren’t native English speakers and yet, we communicate in English. This puts native speaker at an advantage

        So no. They don’t do so much better things. They are just reckless their own people for the sake of the economy.

        And yes. Not buying from them, especially for things that are commodities (benzin, diesel) or bad for your health (soda, junk food) is actually hurting them.

      • Ragnor ( Ragnor@feddit.dk ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I disagree with your statement about quality. For instance, I’d much rather have a German car than an American one. America doesn’t really make things any more anyway, most of it has been outsourced to China or other countries. The manufacturing expertise has mostly left the US. See for instance some of the most recent videos done by Smarter Every Day on YouTube where he talks about how hard it is to make a purely American made product.

        What they have in the US is money so they can buy stocks and other things like that, so they make money off of things that others make.

        They also make a ton of money off of everybody using the dollar as the global trade currency. That means that they can print a lot more money in the US without it causing as much inflation as it would otherwise, and the money they print are released into the US economy. They basically get to tax the holdings of companies all over the world that way.

      • Saleh ( Saleh@feddit.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the lazy and ultimately wrong way. Sure, it doesn’t hurt, but its actual effect is not very powerful.

        If consumer boycotts wouldn’t be powerful, why did the US pass anti-boycott bills? Why is there so much lobbying against consumer boycotts?

        Also the US isn’t good at making things. If they were, they would have a positive trade balance with most countries. Instead they have a negative balance and a lot of their exports are crude resources and other low-level refined products from them.

        • vga ( vga@sopuli.xyz ) Banned
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Also the US isn’t good at making things. If they were, they would have a positive trade balance with most countries. Instead they have a negative balance and a lot of their exports are crude resources and other low-level refined products from them.

          Yeah, perhaps I’m being a bit myopic here because I’m in IT. And it seems to me that in my field almost everything is either made in USA or significantly funded by them.

    • Did not know oil was #1. Are the USA also the #1 provider of oil for the EU?

      Anyhow, asssuming the 15% are higher than what it was before, this just plays into Russia’s hands. Trump is such an idiot, and von der Leyen is not much better, although the EU going for this cannot be completely her responsibility.

      • Melchior ( Melchior@feddit.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US is the biggest source of oil for the EU, but only has 15% market share in Q1 this year. However Russia was at 25% in Q1 of 2022. So it is certainly possible to replace it. Especially by driving less and going for EVs.

        But also the EU basically not charging tariffs on US exports to the EU. This is insanely one sided and should be shut down.

  • Do note that a lot of early reporting on Trump’s “deals” in the past have often been grossly misleading. Often counting existing agreements as new one or leaving critical details out

    For instance, I recall a lot of people were questioning a deal with Mexico earlier as bending the knee that turned out to largely be just be puff agreements that they had already made before Trump

    There’s a decent chance that this is continuing that pattern. Though I can’t say for certain of course

  • Asked about what concessions, if any, the US had made in the talks, the Commission chief replied with a general remark about shared prosperity.

    “The starting point was an imbalance, a surplus (of goods) on our side and a deficit on the US side. We wanted to rebalance the trade relation, and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic,” she said.

    Let me get this straight… EU has a lot of goods the US needs. US does not have a lot of goods the EU needs. So the EU, which seems to have the upper hand, agrees to sell their goods to the US at a lower price? Is this mainly to avoid stepping on the toes of EU merchants that would like to sell to the US market specifically?

  • Nico198X ( Nico_198X@europe.pub ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah, just puff stuff to make him feel good. Mostly we’re buying more energy from the US which, frankly, we need.

    No one wants a trade war. It will just hurt us all.

    • Hubi ( Hubi@feddit.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Adding to that, it’s only laying the ground work for a deal. It will have to be approved by all member states (which I doubt will happen in its current state) and months and years will pass until the lawsuits and debates are over. Who even knows what the US government will look like at this point. Yes, it may be bad optics right now, but I feel like a lot of people assume this is a done deal and not just regular politics.