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
President Trump announced sweeping new tariffs, including a 34% tax on Chinese imports and a 20% tax on European Union goods, aiming to address what he termed a national economic emergency and bolster domestic manufacturing. These tariffs, levied under the 1977 International Emergency Powers Act, represent a significant escalation of trade tensions and risk triggering a global trade war. The move is expected to increase prices for consumers and potentially cause a global economic slowdown, despite the administration’s claims of increased revenue and job creation. Experts warn of severe consequences, including potential recessions in multiple countries, and bipartisan criticism highlights concerns about the lack of congressional approval and potential negative impacts on the U.S. economy.
Read More
Urban Grocer, a Victoria grocery store, has eliminated nearly all U.S. fruits and vegetables from its inventory in response to decreased sales of American produce following the implementation of U.S. tariffs. This decision, made after customer purchasing patterns clearly indicated a preference for non-American products, resulted in the replacement of 380 items with produce sourced from Canada and other international locations. Despite absorbing increased costs to avoid price hikes, the store reports increased overall sales and customer satisfaction. This action reflects a broader trend of Canadian consumers prioritizing locally sourced and non-American goods in response to the trade dispute.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker