The EU’s response to Trump’s tariffs is a complex dance of unity and self-preservation. The initial reaction, focusing on retaliatory tariffs on goods like bourbon and toilet paper, feels somewhat symbolic, highlighting the absurdity of the situation but potentially lacking the impact needed to sway Trump. The question of whether some member states might simply absorb the tariffs to avoid escalation is very real, mirroring Australia’s hesitant stance, a strategy rooted in the fear of worsening the situation and the understanding that counter-tariffs would only increase domestic prices. However, other nations, including Canada and much of Europe, are prepared to push back, accepting the inevitable rise in inflation as a consequence.… Continue reading
Trump’s tariffs, according to a conservative think tank, stemmed from a fundamental miscalculation. The entire policy was built upon a flawed understanding of basic economics, leading to significantly inaccurate estimations of their impact. This wasn’t simply a minor oversight; it was a profound error in judgment that had far-reaching consequences.
The core issue lay in the formula used to determine the tariff levels. The administration’s approach fundamentally misunderstood how tariffs affect import prices, resulting in drastically inflated levies. They incorrectly assumed that a minimal portion of the tariff would be reflected in the final price paid by consumers.
The reality, as highlighted by the think tank, is far different.… Continue reading
Trump’s tariffs represent a potentially catastrophic economic blunder, arguably the worst in nearly a century. The sheer scale of the economic disruption they’ve caused is unprecedented, recalling historical parallels like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, a period synonymous with economic hardship. The comparison isn’t arbitrary; the potential consequences are strikingly similar.
The timing of these tariffs is also alarmingly reminiscent of past failures. Similar large-scale tariff implementations have been spaced roughly a century apart, suggesting a cyclical pattern of forgetting the disastrous consequences. This pattern underscores a failure to learn from history, a failure that now threatens to repeat past mistakes on a potentially even larger scale.… Continue reading
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is advising against immediate retaliation to President Trump’s newly announced tariffs, urging global partners to avoid escalation. These tariffs include a 10% baseline tariff on all goods, alongside significantly higher rates on specific countries such as China (34%), the EU (20%), Japan (24%), and Taiwan (32%), with a 25% tariff on foreign automobiles commencing at midnight. Bessent emphasizes that retaliatory measures historically disadvantage surplus countries, advising a measured response. The 10% tariff takes effect Saturday, with reciprocal tariffs beginning April 9th.
Read More
President Trump’s newly implemented “Liberation Day” tariffs, impacting imports from 60 countries and including a universal 10% increase, have been met with widespread criticism and confusion. Experts widely condemned the methodology, citing the use of seemingly fabricated tariff numbers and a flawed formula based on bilateral trade deficits, lacking any economic rationale. The tariffs sparked a stock market sell-off and fears of a global recession, with economists and commentators labeling the approach as absurd and illogical. Many believe the tariffs are a politically motivated attempt to address trade imbalances rather than a sound economic policy.
Read More
In response to new U.S. tariffs, China’s Finance Ministry announced a 34% tariff on all U.S. imports, effective April 10th. This action, deemed a violation of international trade rules by China, follows the U.S.’s imposition of additional levies totaling 54% on Chinese goods. Furthermore, China added 11 U.S. companies to its “unreliable entities list” and implemented export controls on several rare earth elements. These retaliatory measures underscore escalating trade tensions between the two nations.
Read More
President Trump announced a 17 percent tariff on Israeli goods imported to the US, a move met with frustration by Israeli officials. This tariff, part of a broader initiative imposing a 10 percent baseline tariff on all imports, is retaliatory for what the White House considers higher Israeli tariffs on US products. The impact on Israel’s $22 billion annual export volume to the US, particularly its high-tech sector, remains uncertain but is expected to be significant. Israel, having recently eliminated tariffs on US goods, is seeking to reverse the decision, while critics condemn the action as damaging to the US-Israel relationship.
Read More
President Trump’s new tariffs, set to take effect in April, have been widely criticized for their seemingly arbitrary calculations. Instead of considering both tariff and non-tariff barriers as claimed, the administration’s formula essentially divided each country’s trade deficit by its imports from the U.S. This resulted in significantly increased effective tariff rates, potentially rivaling the Smoot-Hawley Act in scale, prompting sharp market declines and international condemnation. Retaliatory measures from countries such as Mexico, Canada, China, and the European Union are expected, raising concerns about a global trade war. The Commerce Secretary has indicated that exemptions are unlikely.
Read More
President Trump announced a 31% tariff on Swiss goods in retaliation for what the US claims are 61% Swiss tariffs on American products. This action, part of a broader trade policy shift dubbed “Make America Wealthy Again,” also includes a 20% tariff on EU goods and a 34% tariff on Chinese imports. Trump framed the tariffs as a response to unfair trade practices by various countries, with a 10% minimum tariff applied elsewhere. The announcement led to a drop in the US dollar against the euro.
Read More
China’s recent restrictions on its companies investing in the United States are escalating tensions between the two global powers. This move is a significant development with far-reaching consequences, and it seems to be a direct response to existing trade conflicts and rising geopolitical anxieties. The impact on both economies will likely be complex and multifaceted.
The stated goal of previous trade tariffs was to encourage American companies to return jobs to the US. However, restricting Chinese investment in the US directly undermines this objective. It creates a paradoxical situation where the intended outcome is hampered by the very actions taken to achieve it.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker