Trump’s Tariff War - “Ruination Day”

“Ruination Day”: The new Economist cover amid Trump’s tariff war.

Trump has launched a global trade war, calling it a “Liberation Day.” As an economist, I know a thing or two about tariffs. So here are some predictions of what we should expect if this tariff war continues.

2/ First, let’s clarify what tariffs will not do:

- Tariffs will not fix the U.S. trade deficit. That’s simply wishful thinking. Tariffs will reduce both exports and imports, leaving the overall balance of trade largely unchanged

3/ - Tariffs will not rebuild U.S. manufacturing. First, tariffs will make American exports less competitive in global markets. Second, tariffs will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, making U.S. goods more expensive to foreign buyers.

4/ As a result, it will become costly to produce “American products” — and nobody will want to buy them.

5/ Now, what will likely happen if tariffs persist:

- Americans will pay higher prices. Tariffs are a tax on domestic consumers. They raise the cost of imported goods, and that cost is passed on to Americans as inflation.

6/ - Other countries will retaliate. This will hurt American companies that sell products abroad — which includes nearly all major U.S. firms.

7/ - Reduced consumer choice. Some products will become too expensive or unavailable altogether, disappearing from store shelves.

8/ - Significant job losses in export-dependent industries. Sectors like agriculture and manufacturing will be hit hard.

9/ - Major supply chain disruptions. Many businesses rely on cheaper inputs from abroad. With tariffs, they’ll be forced to find more expensive alternatives, driving up costs and reducing competitiveness.

10/ - Slower economic growth — or even a recession. When you add it all up — higher prices, job losses, disrupted trade — the result is likely to be a significant economic slowdown.

Roman Sheremeta @rshereme

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What did Trump’s 2nd impeachment accomplish?

  That’s happening Former President Donald Trump was  acquitted  by the Senate on Saturday of the charge that he incited the insurrection on Jan. 6. The impeachment trial ended with 57 senators, including  seven Republicans , finding Trump guilty — well short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict. Over the course of a  week of testimony , House impeachment managers laid out the case that Trump was directly responsible for the deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol carried out by a mob of his supporters. Trump’s attorneys countered by arguing that his baseless claims of election fraud were protected by the First Amendment and that the Senate lacked the constitutional authority to convict a president who was no longer in office. Several GOP senators cited the latter argument in explaining their decision to acquit. Senate Minority Leader  Mitch McConnell  said Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the violence at the Capitol in a scathing...
Read more

When to start receiving Social Security

Many Americans take Social Security early, at age 62, because they really need it. They're in poor health or unemployed or both. Others take benefits early because they're worried they'll lose out on what's rightfully theirs if benefits are reduced. But few people try to figure out the best age to take Social Security -- and that's a serious mistake. Even though it's challenging, calculating the best time to take benefits is well worth it, especially given that Social Security represents about one-third of the average retiree's income. What's key is evaluating the so-called break-even period to determine whether it would be better to delay Social Security benefits (delaying them means a higher monthly benefit), take a reduced benefit early, or start them at "normal" retirement age. Of course, there's a good reason why so few people really do the calculations. "When to begin Social Security retirement benefits is a challenging question ...
Read more

Justices Reject Diversity Plans in Two Districts

WASHINGTON, June 28 — With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared today that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race. Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools. Both programs had been upheld by lower federal courts and were similar to plans in place in hundreds of school districts around the country. Chief Justice Roberts said such programs were “directed only to racial balance, pure and simple,” a goal he said was forbidden by the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating...
Read more