I would argue “rule of law” is not relevant to American oligarchs. There is no difference between say a russian oligarch and an American oligarch with the exception that American oligarchs have a stronger preference for theatrics/PR and copytext that references terms like “freedom” and “rule of law” and “personal responsibility”. Russian oligarchs just don’t bother because paradoxically they are more honest than American oligarchs.

It’s not a matter of knowing how much they REALLY earned. It’s about telling them that they will pay this much and if they don’t, they are welcome to go along with lawsuits or whatever they feel like.

They can make a statement in the UN about discrimination against the most discriminated group in the world; freedom loving American billionaires. Tell them they can get Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift and Snoop Dog to perform a modern supergroup track as a legacy to the 40th year anniversary of We are the World called “We are Silicon Valley” (or “We are Wall Street”).

Just warn them that if “We are Silicon Valley” doesn’t change the course of human history (let alone become #1 in every single country in the world), things might not work out for them as they would like.

Thank you to Howard G. Buffett!

I am glad that Howard Buffett has a sober understanding of how the russians operate. They will not engage in good faith unless you demonstrate that you are able and willing to fuck them up.

The so far hits so hard because it is true.

I honestly don’t know what to say other than I wish you luck (no irony intended); it will benefit both you and me and you and our countries (and the world).

See, you’re still thinking on their terms. It’s a fundamentally a reactive approach. You let American oligarchs (and their supporters among the American population) define the rules of the game. I will note that I agree with you that you’ll never beat their army of lawyers (on their own terms).

I am saying develop and implement approaches where the lawyers don’t matter. You tell the US oligarchs that they must pay X billion additional tariff fees based on data that identifies their commercial activity in Europe (I worked in tech market research at one point and there are reliable private data sources that allow you to make relatively accurate estimates around US company sales in Europe; irrespective of legal structure).

You tell them that they are welcome to say no and you’d happy for them to engage in lawsuits or bawsuits or do whatever they want. But you warn them that they might not like the outcome.

When they do say “no!” you go all in and de facto ban all American IT services and shut down their business in Europe.

Now I am not saying this has to be done immediately (or done at all). You can initially try and work with them for a long time, but all throughout this process you keep a full menu of options open, including de facto seizing their assets and implementing a blanket ban (either explicit or a fee structure that makes their business non-viable) on all American IT services.

I am just saying that we need to expand our horizon of capabilities beyond the rules set by Americans. It stupid to come to a gun fight with boxing gloves.

As I said, no disrespect to sane Americans.

I’ve lived in the US and travelled extensively around the country (not only Manhattan and north-western part of LA), there are many sane Americans even in provincial pro-corruption hotspots.

But until the sane Americans implement true anti-corruption, judicial and election reforms (no Obama style “hope and change” bullshit), it is reasonable to expect nothing good to come out of the US. Even if a hypothetical Michelle Obama administration takes power in the next election (which is a giant if), that’s not going to change anything until the Americans stop treating their oligarchs and criminal groups as sacred cows.

I definitely agree, I work in the industry so I have no childish illusions about how painful this would be.

That being said, it is not completely out of the realm of reality. China still uses Windows/Android/iOS, but they have their own cloud providers and they are making massive inroads with respect to semiconductors and homegrown components. And they are working on getting rid of American operating syste6m and I think in ~10 years they will succeed.

At some point you need to make a call around whether using American tech is in your interests. Moving off American tech will never be easy, the question is when and how you do it and how you manage the pain.

And mark my words, the Americans are only going to get even volatile and chauvinistic. Unfortunately, the sane Americans lack risk-tolerance and motivation (they are in a broad sense too well off to care if their country moves from current early proto-fascism to full on facism).

That windows tax sounds like a way to bring about the year of the Linux desktop and I like that idea.

I recognize the irony of “year of linux on the desktop”, but we (not only EU, I say this as someone from non-EU Europe) should not be giving the Americans money. They’ve proven that they are unreliable and unwilling to deal with corruption and degeneracy in their country. No disrespect to sane Americans, but at the end of the day they too need to make things happen.

I recognize that this is not exactly a reasonable approach.

But sometimes (when the situation is dire and you’re dealing with unreasonable, profoundly corrupt individuals that lack humanity) you need to take an active (not reactive) approach.

Literally just say “You made $20B (revenue) in Europe as per your 10-K, you will pay $4B and we don’t care what you have to say because we both know you are dishonest and corrupt. Lying is not going to work!”

I am not saying that now is the time to use such measures. But to completely deny any active postures and solely leverage a reactive approach does not work.

Taxes are hard and people who employ literal armies of layers have the edge over slow law making.

While this is true, it’s also a matter of desire and commitment.

Case in point, the US companies all publish consolidated accounts and often break out Europe, albeit sometimes it’s EMEA not Europe.

You can target the final consolidated accounts and focus on revenues if the companies don’t provide actual numbers for Europe (or if it looks like there is something fishy going on, which there is).

Target HQ based on consolidated financial account reporting not regional HQ. Doesn’t matter if you have a regional subsidiary in Ireland or Moldova. If the final accounts/HQs are US-based all transactions in Europe get hit with massive on-going subscription-style tariffs (since ICT services are largely subscription based).

Yes, that would be part of it. Windows on enterprise is just a good, simple example.

No, bourbon and food is small fry.

Internet services headquartered in the US. That’s the real deal.

Require a $100/per computer/per year on-going tax (phased in very slowly over 36 months, with extremely slow ramp in the first 18 months) for every enterprise Windows installation. Then figure out a similar approach for cloud computing and mobile enterprise (targeting Android/iOS). That’s how you grab the Americans by the balls.

Found this in US politics out of all places. Check this article out if you want a more (moderately) long form analysis of US tariffs from a systematic and South African perspective.

I thought it was more interesting than many (mainstream English-language) articles. Beyond the core topic, I learned who Egyptian political economist Samir Amin is and that Maynard Keynes’ last project was something called ‘Bancor’ International Currency Union, which by modern standard sounds like a radical Utopian approach to international trade.

Sounds like there won’t be any good faith negotiations with the US.

This sounds like BS, does the US even have enough capxitt or export $350 billion worth of energy (oil, LNG?).

“The US threat to escalate tariffs on China is a mistake on top of a mistake,”

The threat “once again exposes the blackmailing nature of the US,”

“China will never accept it. If the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.”

I don’t speak Chinese and I’ve never lived in China, but I get the impression that official statements in Chinese culture (language?) tend to be very measured and diplomatic. This time they are not mincing words. Fight to the end? They are calling the Americans’ bluff.

Fair point.

I don’t actually think US will act in good faith. While there are a lot of sane Americans, IMO they lack gumption and risk-tolerance to address corruption and degeneracy in their society. I genuinely hope I am seriously wrong on this, but we’ll see.

While I am rather sceptical of EU’s negotiation approach (I am from Ukraine so I have real life experience with Merkel and russia), with this particular case I think it makes sense to give it just but more time.

I wouldn’t be so categorical. Negotiation require some level of flexibility.

If the Americans fail to act in a good faith manner, you can always implement reciprocal tariffs later on.

No, they are backed by the economies of the issuing countries.

Gold standard is not viable in a modern economy.