By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump issued a threat on Truth Social to impose 100 percent tariffs on BRICS nations—including Russia and China—unless they commit to using the U.S. dollar as their reserve currency and refrain from developing alternative currencies. This follows the BRICS nations’ exploration of “de-dollarization” to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar for global trade. Trump’s statement expresses confidence in the dollar’s continued dominance, despite economists’ skepticism regarding a successful BRICS alternative. The threat comes amidst ongoing negotiations with Canada and Mexico regarding potential tariffs on their goods, highlighting Trump’s hardline stance on trade.
Read the original article here
Trump’s threat to impose 100% tariffs on Russia and China is a dramatic escalation, but one that raises many questions. The broad scope of the threat, potentially encompassing all BRICS nations if they shift away from the dollar, seems unrealistic and impractical. Many are questioning the feasibility of such a move, especially given existing sanctions against Russia that largely restrict US businesses from engaging with the country. What goods would these tariffs even apply to, given the already limited trade? The oil sector, for instance, presents a significant challenge, as Russia primarily exports to countries like China and India, leaving little direct impact on the US.
This brings up the absurdity of the threat’s practicality, particularly when considering the impact on US consumers. A 100% tariff on Chinese goods would effectively double the prices of countless products, impacting every aspect of daily life. This might seem strategically sound to some who see it as a way to force China’s hand, but it’s a gamble with potentially devastating consequences for the average American consumer who would bear the brunt of higher prices. It’s a move that feels more like spectacle than a well-thought-out economic strategy.
The reaction to the tariff threat is a mixture of bewilderment and apprehension. There’s a strong sense that Trump misunderstands the complexities of international trade and the implications of such sweeping tariffs. The idea that he would use tariffs on every country is met with skepticism, particularly as there is seemingly no strategic reasoning behind such a strategy. It appears to be more of a display of power and a reaction to the perceived slight of countries moving away from US economic dominance. This move ignores the fact that the US is no longer the sole global manufacturing hub and its power is waning. The proposed tariffs, therefore, seem more like a desperate attempt to maintain the US’s perceived economic leadership than a viable economic policy.
Concerns extend beyond the mere economic fallout. The perceived lack of understanding, even within his own party, of what tariffs are and how they function is alarming. The perceived lack of strategic planning underscores the potential for unintended consequences and further instability in the global economy. The threat itself seems more like a rhetorical flourish than a calculated maneuver. It’s akin to threatening to burn down a barn because someone refused to let you play with their tractor – destructive and ineffective.
Further adding to the complexity is the seeming lack of consistency in the reasoning. The apparent contradiction of advocating for aggressive isolationism while simultaneously expecting global adherence to US economic demands is striking. It ignores the fact that actions have consequences and that a country’s reputation on the global stage is closely tied to its economic and political actions.
Moreover, many view this as a play designed to appeal to a specific base, rather than a serious policy proposal. There’s a prevalent feeling that the potential suffering of Trump’s voters is not a concern in this calculation, as long as the appearance of strength is maintained. The casual throwing around of such drastic measures reveals what some perceive to be a stunning lack of understanding of the interconnected nature of the global economy and the potential for cascading negative effects on allies, enemies, and the US itself. It’s a dangerous game of economic chicken, played with little regard for the potential consequences.
Ultimately, the threat of 100% tariffs on Russia, China, and potentially other BRICS nations feels more like a desperate attempt to reassert waning dominance than a sound economic strategy. It is a move that highlights the perceived disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and the realities of the complex global economic landscape. This is compounded by the perception that he does not fully understand the implications of his own threats. The overall sentiment, ranging from amusement to outrage, underscores the immense uncertainty and potential risk this brash move poses to the world.