We should have embargos on the US for pursuing a climate change program that destroys the planet.
Yeah, except that the US has reduced emissions more than any other country and is highly competitive on a per-capita percentage basis.
you just gonna throw this out or will you back up your claims by some sources? because looking here[0] tells a very different story. while there has been a reduction since 1980, it has not been "more than any other country". and crucially, per capita emissions are pretty bad in the US.
> mechanical power generators Well I never ... I wouldn't have thought that would be something the US would need to import ... > works of art Doesn't this refer to a lot of the branding work done by the likes of Starbucks, Amazon etc. which then get written off against tax or something (hence value is quite inflated).
I don't think the UK would be exporting Starbucks or Amazon branding?
They totally would. It's a tax thing. IP transfer happens between national operating units all the time for just this reason.
You've misunderstood. Practically speaking, the UK needs to buy shit, the US needs to sell shit. UK has effectively blocked out 1/3 of the world (Europe) from a trade deal because we'd never get one as good as the current free trade agreement with the EU. Our politicians won't be stupid enough to say "we've left the EU, but have made a worse deal with Europe than we had before". Similarly EU won't make a deal with th…
> when your cheap stuff comes from China Yeah except neither party to this deal is producing "cheap stuff". Both consider themselves to be very much "top tier". > edit - to clarify, the point i'm trying to make is that it really doesn't cost much to ship stuff halfway around the world, especially en masse Yeah, if the stuff is "cheap". Like dramatically cheaper than what you can produce at home.
lol mate you're really not getting it. You said "the geography is a bit of an issue for physical goods". I'm saying, when you can order a sheep from new zealand, or a USB stick from China, and have it show up a few days or a week later, this isn't really a good argument.
That’s the thing with all the “soft” power the US has: you can maybe use it once or twice to bully allies into doing your bidding. But that’s a terrible way to spent all the good will built over decades of mutually beneficial cooperation.
Some people in the US think that this good will is God given and not the result of decades of hard work so they are very willing to squander it.
I'm surprised that Britain is even behind this, as they might have been a bit nervous about the US response, considering their ongoing Brexit. This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world. I do think that this is a win for world stability though, trading tends to help relations, which helps stops all sort of unpleasantness. Whether this will be enough i don't…
Why? This means Britain will actually have one trade agreement by the time it leaves the EU. "This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world" Agreed, it does seem very short sighted. Once a system is in place, and it works, suddenly its very easy to apply that system to any other regime where the US doesn't agree with the rest of the world. Plus what's the point…
Because it'll be the worse trade deal anybody has signed in the history of the world for Britain.
I don't think the UK would be exporting Starbucks or Amazon branding?
They totally would. It's a tax thing. IP transfer happens between national operating units all the time for just this reason.
Yes, transfer pricing - but that's how the parent companies would move profits from the UK to elsewhere by licensing their IP to their legal entities in the UK.
Of course, it might be UK brands licensing their IP?