Maurice Obstfeld just dropped an interesting take on the US-South Korea tariff deal that's making waves. The guy's basically saying yeah, sure, Seoul might be getting some sweet promises around their shipbuilding industry – that's the carrot. But here's the kicker: he's arguing that a chunk of what South Korea agreed to amounts to nothing more than straight-up tribute money flowing to Washington.

Think about it. Trade negotiations are supposed to be give-and-take, right? Both sides walk away with something. But Obstfeld's framing suggests this one's lopsided. Korea gets industrial policy wins in one sector while potentially giving up way more in other areas – stuff that doesn't even create reciprocal benefits, just payments that look suspiciously like the old tribute systems.

It's a harsh assessment, but not entirely shocking when you look at how bilateral trade deals have been structured lately. The question now: will this pattern repeat with other countries lining up to cut their own deals? And more importantly for markets – how does this reshape global trade flows and investment strategies when relationships start looking less like partnerships and more like... well, tributes.