You're going ot keep seeing more of this. The Japanese went through multiple rounds of the WH announcing they'd reached a deal and the Japanese saying politely but firmly that negotiations were still ongoing. The Japanese insisted on having everything in writing, and if you look at the executive order that was eventually published it's full of loopholes like 'best efforts' and 'aspirations' that articulate shared goals, but little the in the way of binding commitments.
>“Without a currency swap, if we were to withdraw $350 billion in the manner that the U.S. is demanding and to invest this all in cash in the U.S., South Korea would face a situation as it had in the 1997 financial crisis,” he said through a translator.
So do a currency swap? South Korea isn't failing, do surely there would people to offer liquidity or financing to make it possible.
“Trump says the investments will be "selected" by him and controlled by the U.S., meaning Washington would have discretion over where the money will be invested.”
If one country manages to outpace all others in the race to better AI, all other countries are at the mercy of that one country.
Depending on how the one country treats the others, it might be ok - like it is kind of ok for some animals to live in a zoo, I guess. Or it could turn out very bad - all other countries becoming slave colonies of the one that rules the world.
Currently it seems like only two countries are really taking part in the AI race. The USA and China.
On a political level, I am not sure if there is still time for the rest of the world to try and avoid becoming 100% dependent on them. It looks like there is not even awareness of the issue.
On a personal level, it is an interesting question, how one should brace themselves for the times ahead.
It isn't immediately clear that the administration's heterodox approach to state capitalism is more destructive than what passes as orthodox. Personally I'm not a fan of either option. Given the general mainstream preference for interventionism, one could characterize it as a "progressive" approach to central planning.
A more coherent critique might lay out the shortcomings of both flavors of economic interventionism. Instead, we're stuck in a partisan debate over who has a better central planning approach. Maybe there are reasonable or pragmatic points to be made there, but admitting as much allows the possibility that perhaps Trump's interventions should be measured empirically, rather than rejected based on the a priori flaws of interventionism.
Partisans are free to pick and choose which statistics and time periods they feel best illustrate their case. Easy to see how this devolves into incoherence.
Without commenting on any of the details or economics, the smart thing to have done would have been to make the $350bn thing be over 10 years and be slow to ramp up, then wait Trump out. I'm surprise he didn't do that.
One condition that Washington has been broadly mandating is, when they ask for the money then it should be deposited in the treasury's account within a short period. Basically they control the pace of the investment and the detail is not even a part of the deal.
The tariffs. The overall situation. I do not understand why Wall Street isn't yet in a freefall. Did they find good sources of bubble fuel then to keep on the heat?
At this point, the real economy is completely decoupled from financial markets who are perfectly happy "investing" in bubble after bubble. If the markets were at all representative of the country's actual economic health, they'd have crashed long ago.
I was just reading an FT article mentioning the "inelastic markets hypothesis" that markets are predominantly driven by cash flows rather than rational analysis of value. People invest in index funds etc because the market goes up, the market goes up because people are buying. It's a bit of a bubble.
The dollar's down fairly severely, which does skew things a bit (US assets are priced in dollars, but most S&P500 companies would have substantial foreign income). S&P500 is down YTD in euro terms, say.
It's mind blowing to witness the speed and rapidity with which we have
* Completely alienated key allies via an erratic and unpredictable tariff policy
* Significantly undermined faith in US economic data and fiscal policy via overt politicization of key economic institutions
* Increased the deficit by almost $3 trillion after vowing to reduce the deficit
* Signaled far and wide that pay for play is the new norm, whether for pardons or favourable policy. Preferably paid in crypto, but with in kind payments being acceptable.
Is there any wonder that other countries are unwilling to trust the US? The only hope we have is that the current bout of madness in Washington DC is a one time aberration, but who knows!
This may, in the end, be for the best - if it dents American power over the long term.
I like America and Americans very much, but no state should wield the kind of power the United States currently holds, precisely for the reasons the Trump administration exemplifies. When a responsible government is in office, all is well and good. But when the political winds shift and a more capricious actor takes charge, such concentrated power can become dangerous.
I hope America’s allies have taken note and will adjust their policies accordingly.
The supporters of these lunatics don't look into any of that. It's Americans destroying America basically out of spite for "the other side". These people are terrorists in my opinion, but they view themselves as the true Americans.
I'm curious how the average Korean feels about what's going on in the US, or even how much they think about this stuff?
I know for example that in Canada and Europe, we're mostly all pretty disturbed about these trade disruptions, but I'm curious if Korean's feel equally 'put off'. Are they as dependent on the US as Canada and Europe?
Many comments focus on Trump, but I think the deeper problem lies with America itself. After all, America elected Trump twice.
I don't agree with Peter Zeihan on many of his views, but I think his point about the collapse of the global order set up by America is what's happening.
Trump is dismantling the global order/rule of laws established by America after WWII and the Cold War. I find it ironic that Ian Bremmer said the Chinese care more about the rule of law (established by America) than Americans do in this interview
The focus on trump is to not blame and upset the individual people. Reality is we all know that it's the Americans own fault, and basically what they wanted and obviously decided for and still do.
I think it's pretty significant that President Lee mentioned the 1997 financial crisis: arguably, it was Korea's version of 9/11. It shook the country in a way people didn't realize was possible, and the country was, in a sense, never the same after that.
Imagine a US politician saying "agreeing to this would be a disaster at the same level as 9/11."
Lee is basically telling Koreans that this is something he can never let go through, and he'll do everything to stop it from happening. (Of course whether Koreans buy it is another matter, but after watching ICE arresting hundreds of workers, I think most are willing to believe Lee rather than the US government.)
I heard that he was considering going to the recent Beijing meeting where Putin was, however he heard that Kim Jong Un would also be there, so he decided against it.
Converting allies into vassals is logical mid point of 'America First'. Best ROK can do is string US along and hope for a more benign successor regime.
America has made more profits than countries that take manufacturing jobs from USA. It was totally win-win. Now America destroying these relationships by themselves. Even asking allies economic failure to fulfill their (or trump administration's) greed. Those economic failure possibilities will make their allies' manufacturing capabilities degrade. They don't even have any capabilities and proper plans for re-buliding domestic manufacturing industries to satisfy their needs. (price, capability)
Crazy request of $350 billion investment by SK. That's 20% of it's estimated 2025 GDP of $1700 billion. Could the US pledge 20% (6000 billion) to some other country?
Awfully nice of Myung to be so understanding after the US arrest of 300+ SK workers in Georgia a month ago.
No one needs to make an investment. The playbook—as all countries are figuring it out—to navigate the crisis is simple: agree in principle to the demands, let the narcissistic toddler self-pat, brag about how fantastic of a deal maker he is. Stall, delay to make things official. Let it all die down slowly. Need more time? How about blatant corruption like approving Trump Towers, or gifting a corporate jet? Or make a token investment, just enough to let him brag again.
What every country is doing is buying time. Just enough till the next election or (hopefully) sooner.
I remember some estimates made after the US elections of what Stephen Miller's policy would cost. According to these estimates, following Miller's plan would require more or less the entire world's GDP to be invested in the US for several consecutive years. Obviously, this would require more than a little bullying to get there.
So far, we got the bullying, plenty of non-binding agreements, 100% of goodwill and soft power loss, increased soft power for China, a looming financial crisis, two wars between major powers getting closer by the day. We'll see whether the investments are coming, too.
Being an unreasonable, unmeetable deal on paper is just a feature. You're not supposed to meet the text of the deal. You're supposed to get under the table and ask "how can we facilitate this?" while palming a hundred dollar bill. It's like a police shakedown in less stable countries.
A more serious question for Korea is the US military protection against North Korea and/or China. They may yet end up in the unthinkable alliance with their historic enemy, Japan.
On November 5, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Trump even has the authority to impose tariffs. Nobody should make a deal until that's decided.
What's missing from this is China making a lot of soft calls to SK, basically saying 'we like you, we can pressure NK into a more peaceful position, invest with us, we're all Asians', and SK seems to be responding positively.
SK being closer to China would be a game changer for geopolitics, and they would need _very strong_ guarantees from China, so strong I don't think it's possible in the short term (unless NK has a regime change).
Do not assume that the rest of the world follows the US view of ethnic identity. Groups that would all be classified under “Asian” in the US would be considered different races in China. Regardless it is true that the PRC, even despite political differences, would be more in tune with the ROK culturally due to the long history of Korea falling under the influence of the Sinosphere which is something the United States should be more wary of as a competitive disadvantage when trying to maintain influence over the region.
59 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 71.6 ms ] threadSo do a currency swap? South Korea isn't failing, do surely there would people to offer liquidity or financing to make it possible.
It is the US who refuses to do.
“Trump says the investments will be "selected" by him and controlled by the U.S., meaning Washington would have discretion over where the money will be invested.”
Depending on how the one country treats the others, it might be ok - like it is kind of ok for some animals to live in a zoo, I guess. Or it could turn out very bad - all other countries becoming slave colonies of the one that rules the world.
Currently it seems like only two countries are really taking part in the AI race. The USA and China.
On a political level, I am not sure if there is still time for the rest of the world to try and avoid becoming 100% dependent on them. It looks like there is not even awareness of the issue.
On a personal level, it is an interesting question, how one should brace themselves for the times ahead.
A more coherent critique might lay out the shortcomings of both flavors of economic interventionism. Instead, we're stuck in a partisan debate over who has a better central planning approach. Maybe there are reasonable or pragmatic points to be made there, but admitting as much allows the possibility that perhaps Trump's interventions should be measured empirically, rather than rejected based on the a priori flaws of interventionism.
Partisans are free to pick and choose which statistics and time periods they feel best illustrate their case. Easy to see how this devolves into incoherence.
(article https://www.ft.com/content/6f549890-c2a6-4823-a095-c8ea73f7e...)
There’s already a market forming in trading the right to tariff refunds.
* Completely alienated key allies via an erratic and unpredictable tariff policy
* Significantly undermined faith in US economic data and fiscal policy via overt politicization of key economic institutions
* Increased the deficit by almost $3 trillion after vowing to reduce the deficit
* Signaled far and wide that pay for play is the new norm, whether for pardons or favourable policy. Preferably paid in crypto, but with in kind payments being acceptable.
Is there any wonder that other countries are unwilling to trust the US? The only hope we have is that the current bout of madness in Washington DC is a one time aberration, but who knows!
I like America and Americans very much, but no state should wield the kind of power the United States currently holds, precisely for the reasons the Trump administration exemplifies. When a responsible government is in office, all is well and good. But when the political winds shift and a more capricious actor takes charge, such concentrated power can become dangerous.
I hope America’s allies have taken note and will adjust their policies accordingly.
After vowing to and dismantling half the federal government services, ostensibly in order to reach the goal of a reduced deficit...
I know for example that in Canada and Europe, we're mostly all pretty disturbed about these trade disruptions, but I'm curious if Korean's feel equally 'put off'. Are they as dependent on the US as Canada and Europe?
I don't agree with Peter Zeihan on many of his views, but I think his point about the collapse of the global order set up by America is what's happening.
Trump is dismantling the global order/rule of laws established by America after WWII and the Cold War. I find it ironic that Ian Bremmer said the Chinese care more about the rule of law (established by America) than Americans do in this interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvvzx-ecTrw
He’s doing nothing of the sort.
He’s dismantling how every country sees, trust, trades and deals with the US, and only the US.
Everyone else will just look to everyone else and the US won’t be involved
Imagine a US politician saying "agreeing to this would be a disaster at the same level as 9/11."
Lee is basically telling Koreans that this is something he can never let go through, and he'll do everything to stop it from happening. (Of course whether Koreans buy it is another matter, but after watching ICE arresting hundreds of workers, I think most are willing to believe Lee rather than the US government.)
America has made more profits than countries that take manufacturing jobs from USA. It was totally win-win. Now America destroying these relationships by themselves. Even asking allies economic failure to fulfill their (or trump administration's) greed. Those economic failure possibilities will make their allies' manufacturing capabilities degrade. They don't even have any capabilities and proper plans for re-buliding domestic manufacturing industries to satisfy their needs. (price, capability)
If everyone came together and signed up for a Chinese-style reciprocal tariff system then wouldn't this whole charade be over instantly?
I get some nations decided flattering Trump would work out (Vietnam? UK?) but even in the best case they still get tariffs.. just lower..
And how has the tariffs not completely tanked the stock market? Are markets assuming this is just temporary madness and it'll get rolled back?
The US dollar is down. The market is tanking, you just need to change your POV
Awfully nice of Myung to be so understanding after the US arrest of 300+ SK workers in Georgia a month ago.
Maybe to destroy it? :)
Of course US can do that, it can provide a temporary boost to the leader of that country. It doesn't mean anything other than that.
Qatar pledged 1 trillion dollars investment in US: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-pr...
Their GDP is 200B USD. EU is similar, on 200B Budget they promised 600B investment.
As you can see, %20 of GDP investment is a rookie number. People do 3x to 5x of GDP these days.
I don't know why Koreans are making fuss of it, maybe they don't get the Western politics?
What every country is doing is buying time. Just enough till the next election or (hopefully) sooner.
Is that enough? I do not think this is about one person. US seems to be changed.
So far, we got the bullying, plenty of non-binding agreements, 100% of goodwill and soft power loss, increased soft power for China, a looming financial crisis, two wars between major powers getting closer by the day. We'll see whether the investments are coming, too.
Being an unreasonable, unmeetable deal on paper is just a feature. You're not supposed to meet the text of the deal. You're supposed to get under the table and ask "how can we facilitate this?" while palming a hundred dollar bill. It's like a police shakedown in less stable countries.
A more serious question for Korea is the US military protection against North Korea and/or China. They may yet end up in the unthinkable alliance with their historic enemy, Japan.
Whoever wrote that is making stuff up now, even worse than Sam Altman asking for trillions of dollars to build data centers
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-seeks-trillions-of-do...
SK being closer to China would be a game changer for geopolitics, and they would need _very strong_ guarantees from China, so strong I don't think it's possible in the short term (unless NK has a regime change).