This article is protected by copyright © 2024 Fortune Media IP Limited. Use is governed by their Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The FORTUNE trademark is registered in the U.S. and elsewhere. Note that compensation may be received for certain product links, and offers are subject to change.
President-elect Trump is considering invoking the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify widespread tariffs on both allies and adversaries, aiming to reshape global trade. This action would grant him broad authority to implement tariffs without needing to demonstrate national security concerns, a feature appealing to Trump. Alternative legal avenues, including sections 338 and 301 of US trade law, are also under consideration, but IEEPA offers a faster route to implementing tariffs. While no final decision has been made, the potential for a national economic emergency declaration is actively being discussed.
Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Denmark over Greenland is, to put it mildly, perplexing. The very idea of using tariffs as leverage in this situation demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how tariffs actually function. It’s not as if Denmark is going to suddenly feel the pinch of reduced exports to the US; their share is minimal. Furthermore, targeting Denmark specifically would be incredibly foolish, given its membership in the European Union. This would essentially mean a trade war with the entire EU, a far more significant and damaging conflict than any minor trade friction with Denmark alone.
The notion that imposing tariffs on Danish goods would somehow pressure Denmark to cede Greenland to the US is completely unrealistic.… Continue reading
President-elect Trump’s claim that Gilded Age tariffs spurred economic growth is contradicted by economic historians. While tariffs were a major government revenue source during this period (due to the absence of income tax), research indicates that economic success was despite, not because of, high tariffs. Industries with high tariff protection experienced less productivity and innovation compared to those with less protection. Therefore, tariffs did not contribute to the rise of American manufacturing, and instead likely inflated prices for consumers.
In December, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index plummeted 8.1 points to 104.7, falling below expectations and marking a sharp reversal from the previous two months. This decline was largely driven by a 12.6-point drop in the Expectations Index to a five-month low of 81.1, nearing the recessionary threshold of 80. Consumer concerns cited included political uncertainty and the anticipated impact of tariffs on the cost of living, outweighing any potential job creation benefits. The significant drop in consumer confidence is reflected in Walmart’s stock decline, prompting speculation of an impending recession.
Despite previous claims of lowering grocery prices, Trump acknowledges the difficulty in reversing price increases. He cites improved energy supply and supply chain fixes as potential solutions, pointing to congested ports as evidence of ongoing supply chain issues. However, his proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, major sources of US fruits and vegetables, directly contradict this goal and will likely raise consumer prices. This suggests a disconnect between Trump’s stated objectives and the likely consequences of his economic proposals.
Despite widespread warnings from economists, President-elect Trump’s proposed tariffs face criticism for potentially increasing consumer costs. When pressed on Meet the Press, Trump initially denied that consumers would pay more but later conceded he couldn’t guarantee it, contradicting his campaign promises of lowering prices. He further deflected responsibility, claiming previous tariffs had no negative impact, a claim directly contradicted by evidence of price increases on various goods. While he expressed uncertainty about restricting abortion medication, Trump definitively committed to ending birthright citizenship upon assuming office.
Trump ‘can’t guarantee’ Americans won’t pay more if tariffs enacted. This statement, while seemingly simple, encapsulates a complex economic reality that many seem to be overlooking. The core issue is straightforward: tariffs, by their very nature, increase the cost of imported goods. This isn’t some debatable point; it’s a fundamental principle of how tariffs function.
Adding a tariff, essentially a tax on imported products, doesn’t magically disappear. The added cost isn’t absorbed by the seller, who’s already operating within their profit margin. It’s almost always passed on to the consumer, resulting in higher prices for everyday goods. This is true regardless of whether the ultimate goal is to boost domestic production.… Continue reading
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.
President-elect Trump’s proposed tariffs on goods from Canada, China, and Mexico to combat drug trafficking would impose a significant tax burden on American consumers and businesses, potentially costing the average family nearly $1200 annually. These tariffs, unlikely to effectively curb the drug trade, could disrupt vital supply chains and invite retaliatory measures from affected countries, jeopardizing American exports and jobs. Furthermore, such actions might simply shift the drug trade to more dangerous substances, exacerbating the crisis. Ultimately, this approach risks harming the U.S. economy while failing to address the core issue of drug addiction.
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood