Unknown Speaker 2 (10:14)
It's on Prime. All right. First up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right praises Trump for the recent slew of deals, suggesting they are unequivocally good for the United States. Many say Trump has proven the experts wrong again. The New York Post editorial board said the deal proves Trump's a great deal maker. Make no mistake, these were no easy negotiations. Trump reached terms with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after talks in Scotland she described as very difficult. On Friday, Trump put the chances of agreement at 50 50, the board wrote. But von der Leyen praised the president as a tough dealmaker. Trump said he thought both sides wanted to make a deal and that it would bring us very close together. Hmm. Just a few months ago, his critics blasted his tariff program, predicting practically every disaster but the full collapse of the worldwide economy. Trump has now secured key trade deals with Japan, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, China at least partially, and now the eu. That's going to bring much stability to the markets and relief for businesses trying to plan ahead, the board said. Sure, there's more work to be done. Trump's Liberation Day tariffs kick in Friday for nations that lack a deal, but his accomplishment in rebalancing international trade to America's benefit are already enormously impressive. In hot air, David Strom argued Trump's tariff strategy is working. Almost every economist got it wrong, not because the underlying theory that trade barriers are dangerous, but because they failed to see the bigger picture. As is so often the case, expertise is a two edged sword. You may know your subject well while simultaneously missing the outside variables that shape the ultimate outcome, strahm wrote. Since the end of the Cold War, momentum and a level of indifference have prevailed in Washington, which was accustomed to subsidizing Europe and allowing the continent to run roughshod over our interests. Trump decided enough was enough and bullied everyone into deals that are asymmetrically good for America. Instead of our allies, Trump is cutting deals where our trading partners pay to access US markets while the US gets free access to theirs. After all the threats of crushing tariffs and counterthreats of retaliation, it turns out that access to US markets is so valuable that everyone is willing to pay a substantial tax to get in the door, Strom said. For all the brave talk, our trading partners realized that their economies would be devastated if the US made accessing our markets more difficult. European countries, if forced to choose between being in Europe and being in the US would choose the latter. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is mixed on the impact of the deal. Though many acknowledge the short term benefits for the us, Some say Trump's tactics hurt our alliances but are relieved that a trade war seems averted. In Bloomberg, Lionel Laurent wrote Europeans, not Trump, ended up chickening out. The US is the EU's biggest trade partner and a dominant defence and technology supplier. A spiral of tit for tat tariffs is something Europeans simply cannot afford. Leron said. Sealing the deal before the August 1 deadline at a level big companies say they find manageable is market positive, lifting the tariff fog and avoiding a worst case scenario drag on Eurozone gross domestic product of 1.2% according to Barclays Plc. From German autos to French aerospace, transatlantic trade is looking a little less stuck. Yes, it is hard to fully reconcile the we dodged a bullet rhetoric with the reality that European's 27 countries single market faces a real hit. The combination of a 15% tariff rate and the euro's 13% rise against the US dollar year to date represents a competitiveness double whammy with little in return, leroin wrote. Of course, tariffs cut both ways. The US Consumer will, all things being equal, suffer as protectionist levies are passed on and the global economy suffers a $2 trillion hit that saps investment. A lot now depends on the strategies of multinationals and industries. Some will choose to absorb the tariff impact themselves. Others will try to keep negotiating with the promise of new factories to come in CNN David Goldman suggested Trump's EU deal averts disaster, but few are cheering. The details remain murky. Europe will increase its investment in the United States by $600 billion and commit to buying $750 billion worth of U.S. energy products. It eliminates tariffs on a variety of items, including aircraft and airplane parts, semiconductors, generic drugs and some chemicals and agricultural products, Goldman said. But the 15% baseline tariff applies to most goods, so the EU member states and American importers will have to come to terms with the fact that higher tariffs will raise prices for European goods in America. The agreement also deals another blow to Detroit automakers, which objected to a similar deal the Trump administration reached with Japan. The 15% auto tariff on EU cars imported to the United States undercuts the 25% tariff American automakers pay if their cars are built in Mexico, Goldman said. Still, in the eyes of the hard working negotiators and for the sake of the global economy, a deal is better than no deal. Alright, that is it for what writers from the right and the left are saying. Which brings us to what writers in Europe are saying. Many European writers say the deal is a clear loss for the eu, but note their disadvantage in negotiations. Others argue the deal could have long term consequences for the entire bloc. Le Mans editorial board called the deal a bittersweet compromise for the eu. The outcome of the talks, with its ambiguities, leaves a bitter aftertaste. Given the size of the market, 450 million consumers and its status as the U.S. s second largest supplier of goods, Europe seemed at first to have stronger leverage than Japan in seeking a lower rate than 15%, the board said. The uneven compromise advocated by the commission underscored how difficult it was for the 27 member states to assert themselves against a former ally who not only seeks to impose its own rules on the rest of the world, but is pursuing a political agenda to weaken the eu. Deeply involved in transatlantic trade, Germany and even more so Italy, were not ready for confrontation. The need to secure US Support in Ukraine and America's contribution to European defense also weighed heavily in the decision the board wrote. Presented as the lesser evil, the 15% tariff followed previous increases imposed by Trump on steel and aluminum as well as on automobiles and auto parts. These measures are bound to affect the competitiveness of the companies involved and drive prices higher. In exchange, von der Leyen and the business world are clinging to the hope of stabilizing the economic environment. In reality, they have no such guarantee. In Unherd, Thomas Fazzi said the deal is a capitulation to America. The 15% tariff on EU goods entering the US is significantly higher than the 10% that Brussels had hoped to negotiate. Meanwhile, as Trump himself boasted, the EU has opened its countries at zero tariff to American exports. Crucially, EU steel and aluminum will continue to face a crushing 50% tariff when sold into the US market, Fazi wrote. This asymmetry places European producers at a severe disadvantage, raising costs for strategic industries such as automotive, pharmaceuticals and advanced manufacturing sectors that underpin the EU's $1.97 trillion transatlantic trade relationship. Trump is not entirely wrong when he accuses the EU of engaging in unfair trade practices. Over the past two decades, Brussels has embraced a hyper mercantilist export driven growth model which systematically suppresses domestic demand in order to bolster price competitiveness on the global stage in keeping imports low, Fazi said. A rebalancing was indeed long overdue, but this agreement represents the worst possible kind of rebalancing. Instead of using the moment as an opportunity to rethink its fundamentally flawed economic strategy by raising European wages, boosting internal demand and accepting that exports might become less competitive as a result of the EU has doubled down on the very model that hollowed out its own economic resilience. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
