kevinhorourke.bsky.social
Economist and economic historian. Directeur de Recherche, CNRS and Professor of Economics, Sciences Po, Paris.
Website: kevinhorourke.com
130 posts
7,926 followers
1,905 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Thank you.
comment in response to
post
When next a teaching and learning person inquires as to my teaching methods I shall reply that I favour the in-person podcast.
comment in response to
post
It is the US administration that has been behaving extraordinarily and nobody else. Countries are under no obligation to only retaliate in areas where the US has an advantage. The way to save the world trading system is to make them regret their choices by retaliating where they are vulnerable.
comment in response to
post
That is indeed the question. Have there been studies on the impact of TRIPS on the US? But you would think that Big Tech and the stock market would not enjoy the experience.
comment in response to
post
Or you could do both.
comment in response to
post
The second is to ask what it was that the US was particularly keen on obtaining in the Uruguay Round and withdraw those benefits from it.
#nocherrypicking
comment in response to
post
On the other side of the equation European firms are now at a major advantage in the Chinese market vis à vis the US. Shouldn’t be forgotten either.
comment in response to
post
I agree.
comment in response to
post
One entirely predictable irony in all of this is that Trump will end up creating what had previously existed only as a fantasy in that strange brain of his, namely a world in which the US faces discriminatory tariffs in all its major markets. So be it.
comment in response to
post
Nor are we in a Great Depression caused by flawed macroeconomic policies, the main reason why the total value of trade fell in the 30s. The rest of the world just needs to obey the rules vis à vis each other, retaliate intelligently against the US, and the big loser will end up being the US.
comment in response to
post
It’s a very fundamental point. Generalized MFN was article 1 of the GATT for a reason. This is the US effectively saying goodbye to the WTO, or at least to the rules that define it
comment in response to
post
Important that the rest of the world not abandon this fundamental principle, for political as well as economic reasons. If that happens the damage can be limited, while as countries retaliate the US will eventually find itself with the least favorable trading relationships of any major economy.
comment in response to
post
I am no expert but this seems promising (and Swiss):
proton.me
comment in response to
post
Wonderful piece.
comment in response to
post
He will eventually regret having so casually flushed away the leadership role that the US traditionally enjoyed in the West. Perhaps he is slowly beginning to figure out some of the implications.
comment in response to
post
Hopefully he also spelled out that the EU can retaliate in various ways that the US might not like. (I am sure he did.)
comment in response to
post
For more opining on the subject, see
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
comment in response to
post
Yes