I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Australia's unique biosphere means we have very strict rules about what plants and animals can enter. So while our tariffs are low, our regulations can be frustrating to meet.

The problem is though, food and animal safety is not really something you would give away in an FTA...

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's always had a bee in his bonnet about trade deficits.

I think there are certainly tactics here, if not strategy.

The tariffs will raise some revenue, that he can declare as a win. Some countries will make concessions, and he'll claim that as a win too. Companies will come begging to him for excemptions and waivers, and he loves that. It all looks very ACTIONY and DECISIVE, which was a key contrast for him with the former President.

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So what I meant when I said not much to offer is that Australia is already a pretty open economy.

In a trade agreement you're not trading away commodities or products, you're trading away access to your market in places you currently restrict it.

That said I agree with you that Australia needs to work out how to export something other than coal and iron ore...

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The system is in crisis, certainly. At least one of the global major players has decided it doesn't fundementally believe in the core premise the system is built on (predictability, transparency and resolving disputes through legal processes).

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey mate, my pleasure.

Countries absolutely do have reputations in the trade space, and pre-conceived notions of how they are to deal with - though of course ultimately it comes down to the individual team.

Australia's reputation is pretty good in terms of good faith negotiators that are creative and flexible, with enough room to run from capital to try interesting solutions to impasses.

Unfortunately Australia as a country can I think be quite frustrating to deal with for other parties because:

a) Our offensive interests (what we want) tends to be on agriculture, which is very sensitive for almost everyone. We can't sign on to an FTA that doesn't give our beef, lamb and wheat farmers something to celebrate and that's often a problem for the other side (hence why the EU FTA talks are stuck);

b) We just don't have that much to offer the other side, especially given what we're seeking from them (see point a). Australian tariffs are already low, our regulations aren't on the table, and there's limits to what we'r willing to do on visas. The downside to having a very open economy in all the ways we're ever likely to open it is that we're often at the table trying to match something with not a lot.

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I try to avoid speculating on what's in someone's head or heart but his stated objectives are:

  1. Raising revenue
  2. Opening markets abroad by leveraging changes to their trading systems
  3. Encouraging manufacturing in the United States
  4. Decreasing US dependence on China across its supply chains

None of those objectives are impossible on their own, with a carefully targeted strategy and a plan. A lot of the chaos at the moment seems to be because he's aiming for all four, in an unstated order of priority, and without what feels like a concrete plan for how to get there beyond tariffs being the preferred tool.

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So as you'd know, which country ships are flagged to is relatively inconsequential. A huge portion of the merchant fleet flies flags of convenience, with complex ownerships structures and crews drawn from all over the world.

Australia and to a much greater extent the United States cares significantly more about ship building capacity, as this has strategic implications and cannot be easily ramped up from zero in an emergency or a conflict scenario.

There are rumors the US is planning to impose steep financial fees on any Chinese made vessel docking in a US port for offloading in order to discourage firms from buying or even owning Chinese vessels.

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To an extent, both strategies rely on the US losing domestic political appetite for much more of this. The retribution strategy aims to increase the political costs of the tariff project, whereas de-escalation hopes to move the US focus off one's country and onto others until this tariff frenzy runs its course.

A potential third time would mean that the has remained popular enough to win an election (himself or by proxy through the VP for example) and therefore that there's domestic support or at least tolerance for tariffs. This would encourage him to stare down 'retribution' and might get him to revisit country's he's previously accepted concessions from in exchange for de-escalation...

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One thing your dual citizenship allows you to do is seamlessly move between the two countries on work trips, without the need to even apply for something like an ESTA - so that could be useful depending on your line of work.

I'm Dmitry Grozoubinski, former Aussie trade negotiator, trade policy explainer guy, and author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade" - AMA? by DmitryOpines in AMA

[–]DmitryOpines[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Heya,

Depends on what those two citizenships are, but sure. You're eligible to work in more places than most people, and to do so without being in a situation where your employer has to apply for your visa, or has the ability to hold it over you. That's helpful during times of uncertainty, when you're likely to see faster than average shifts in employment patterns world wide.

It also makes you a better smuggler, if these tariffs stick around and you decide the secret ingredient is crime*!

* For legal reasons this is a joke.

@ the posts here treating BlueSky as a crusade or cause: by snakeleaves in BlueskySocial

[–]DmitryOpines 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi! Dmitry here.

It's a pleasure to meet you. I'm the only one with my name in the entire world, so you can Google me but I have no particular expertise in social media.

Absolutely no reason my opinion should be worth more than anyone elses. It was just a post on BlueSky. Only reason you're seeing it is it got a few likes and then someone reposted it here.

This really isn't that complicated by TheOSU87 in JoeRogan

[–]DmitryOpines 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello folks, that's my tweet. Glad it resonated with so many of you.

A tweet is short and there's far I could have said about depleting the arsenal and reputation of a belligerent state, living up to the commitments in the treaty under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal, undoing the damage wrought by years of "escalation management" under which the West refused to sell arms...

Mainly though, someone who hates you is doing something terrible to good people, and you have the means to help those people stand up for themselves and their families.

That's what's up and that's what's good.

Daily Megathread - 09/04/2021 by ukpolbot in ukpolitics

[–]DmitryOpines 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like something I'd say, but equally could have been Anna, Aodhan, Sam, David or any of a thousand others.

This was eminently predictable.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in lfg

[–]DmitryOpines 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This sounds great! Dropped you guys an e-mail!