By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU proposed a “zero-for-zero” tariff deal on cars and industrial goods to the US weeks before the trade war began, but this offer was rejected by Trump. Despite this, the EU remains open to negotiations but will not wait indefinitely to implement retaliatory measures against the US tariffs on steel and aluminum, targeting up to €26 billion in US goods. Disagreements among EU member states exist regarding the scope of retaliation, with some advocating for exemptions while others emphasize a united front. The EU is prepared to utilize its anti-coercion instrument if necessary to defend its interests.
Read the original article here
The EU’s offer of a “zero-for-zero” trade deal with the US, weeks before a tariff announcement, underscores a crucial point in the unfolding trade drama. This seemingly straightforward proposal, eliminating tariffs on both sides, was made years prior, and repeatedly rejected. This revelation casts doubt on the stated rationale behind the US tariff imposition.
The rejection of this simple solution suggests that the tariffs were not about addressing specific trade imbalances, but stemmed from other motivations. This opens the door to other interpretations of the situation.
One could argue the tariffs are rooted in a desire to reshape global manufacturing, specifically to bring high-value-add manufacturing back to the US. The idea seems to be that tariffs, by making imports more expensive, incentivize companies to relocate production within the US, creating jobs and boosting the domestic economy.
However, this strategy presents some inherent contradictions. While tariffs are meant to make US-produced goods more competitive, the simultaneous push to lower the value of foreign currencies through other means undermines this effort. A weaker foreign currency makes imports cheaper, negating the effect of the tariffs. This policy seems to exhibit conflicting goals.
Another proposed element of the US strategy involves leveraging tariffs to force foreign nations to reduce regulations, aligning them with US standards. However, such a tactic is unlikely to succeed uniformly, as some countries may choose to respond reciprocally with their own tariffs. There’s no guarantee of success, and potential negative outcomes are substantial.
The public announcement of the EU’s “zero-for-zero” offer served as a calculated political move, exposing the lack of seriousness of the US threats. It highlights the discrepancy between the public posturing and the behind-the-scenes negotiations.
The persistent rejection of the EU’s offer also points to a lack of faith in the US’s willingness to negotiate in good faith. This repeated rejection fosters a lack of trust, impacting future negotiations not only with the EU, but also with other nations.
Some commentators point to the influence of certain individuals and organizations shaping the US’s trade policy, suggesting a broader agenda beyond simple trade negotiations. The influence of powerful political and financial figures is frequently discussed.
The proposed strategy also includes a complex financial mechanism that seeks to manipulate currency exchange rates to offset inflation caused by tariffs. This currency manipulation is viewed by some as an economic policy mistake, not only for its potential for domestic economic harm, but also for the risk of triggering retaliatory actions from other countries.
The US approach is characterized by a lack of comprehensive planning and strategic thinking, choosing a heavy-handed approach instead of a gradual, nuanced method. Such behavior appears to jeopardize long-term relationships rather than promoting cooperation. The broader implications of this reactive strategy are not insignificant.
A fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic principles is also evident, indicated by the emphasis on tariffs to protect low-value-add manufacturing, a sector where domestic competitiveness is naturally weaker. The strategy ignores the reality that companies, not countries, dictate the location of manufacturing, and higher production costs in the US will likely deter investments.
The US approach is further complicated by contradictory desires for both cheap imports and increased domestic manufacturing. These opposing goals highlight the lack of a cohesive economic plan in the current trade strategy.
The overarching goal, it is argued, goes beyond trade deals; it is a move to consolidate power and exert control over global economics, a goal which may have unintended and negative global economic consequences. The complete disruption to global trade patterns may have consequences that extend beyond the targeted countries.
In essence, the EU’s repeated offer of a mutually beneficial “zero-for-zero” deal, rejected by the US, reveals a trade policy guided by conflicting motivations and strategic blunders. The resulting lack of trust undermines the foundations of international cooperation and risks long-term economic instability. The lack of a clear, coherent economic strategy is clear.