Business Daily Media

The Times Real Estate

.

These 3 arguments are part of the long game in Trump’s trade wars

  • Written by Markus Wagner, Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong

Since returning to office in January, US President Donald Trump has doubled down on using trade measures – mostly tariffs – to reshape global trade. He plans to impose reciprocal tariffs[1] on what he has labelled “Liberation Day[2]”, April 2.

The Trump administration claims[3] US producers face higher tariffs and more restrictions abroad than foreign producers when they export to the US.

The administration also examined tax systems such as Europe’s Value Added Tax and Australia’s GST, import regulations and other factors. It believes – mostly wrongly – these unfairly disadvantage American businesses and contribute to the US trade deficit.

As with many Trump initiatives, actual tariffs often change significantly between announcement and implementation, if they are implemented at all.

His reciprocal tariffs have been narrowed to imports from the US’ largest trading partners[4] instead of imports from all countries. There may also be tariffs on specific sectors. Last week, Trump announced 25% tariffs on cars[5] from overseas. At the weekend said he “couldn’t care less[6]” if this made cars more expensive for US consumers.

Coercive control, revenue and re-shoring

President Trump has raised a myriad of puzzling arguments in favour of tariffs. They largely fall into three categories:

The first is the use of tariffs as a coercion tool against other countries. In the first Trump presidency, trading partners were pressured to renegotiate trade agreements[7] such as the renamed but largely identical US-Mexico-Canada agreement.

Similarly, the Trump administration used the threat of tariffs to gain market access, elicit better trade terms or as a form of weaponised trade[8] to achieve unrelated foreign policy goals.

Last week, Trump suggested he would consider a reduction in tariffs on China in exchange for a sale of TikTok[9] by its Chinese owner.

The second category is the use of tariffs as a source of revenue. The Trump administration envisions tariffs to be collected by a yet-to-be-created External Revenue Service[10]. This would form the flip side of the powerful and much-maligned Internal Revenue Service.

Trump claims tariffs will be paid by the exporting country. This would be in theory to finance future tax cuts[11]. In practice, tariffs are almost always paid by the importer of goods and usually get passed on to consumers[12].

There is a potential contradiction between these two rationales. It appears the Trump administration wants to make at least some tariffs permanent[13]. But doing so would almost nullify the use of tariffs as a bargaining chip and coercion tool.

The final category is to encourage companies to “re-shore” production to the US to avoid tariffs and to support US jobs.

This would signal a reversal of what 1994 presidential candidate Ross Perot, speaking of the North American Free Trade Agreement, called the “giant sucking sound going south”. Some manufacturing may return to the US. But the high costs of building new factories, re-routing supply chains and uncompetitive US labour costs will hinder large-scale re-shoring efforts.

A long-term plan?

The Trump administration’s trade moves can be seen[14] as part of a larger strategy to reshape the US domestic and the global economic system.

In a recent speech, US Vice-President JD Vance argued for a structural reshaping of the US economy, to increase domestic innovation capacity[15].

Vance warned “deindustrialisation poses risks both to our national security and our workforce”. Vance himself sums up this approach by characterising tariffs as a “necessary tool to protect our jobs and our industries”.

This line of argument overlooks a number of critical factors. Tariffs lead to higher prices for consumers. Unless currencies adjust, the inflationary impact could disadvantage the very people that can least afford it[16].

The same is true if other countries respond to US trade measures by responding in kind[17], as Canada and the European Union already have.

American farmers and other export-oriented industries will be hard hit. From a strategic perspective, the US position as global leader has suffered a severe blow. Some countries are openly pivoting to[18] its geopolitical and economic rival, China.

If this scenario comes to pass, the US pullback – an outright withdrawal is unlikely – from the highly integrated international trading system might end up a more chaotic version of the UK’s pursuit of Brexit.

A step back in time

The world of liberalised trade that followed the end of the Cold War in 1990 is ending. Countries will turn inwards, prioritising their economic security and resilience. The costs of this turn away from multilateralism and international institutions, however, are not just economic.

The close economic integration we have witnessed post-1990 has led to reduced uncertainty in international economic relations, increased international security[19] and greater prosperity[20].

A return of the “beggar thy neighbour[21]” policies of the 1930s would be a dangerous path, with the world inching closer to the abyss. “Liberation Day” might push the world over the edge.

Read more: What are non-tariff barriers – and why is agriculture so exposed?[22]

References

  1. ^ reciprocal tariffs (www.cfr.org)
  2. ^ Liberation Day (www.youtube.com)
  3. ^ administration claims (www.whitehouse.gov)
  4. ^ largest trading partners (ustr.gov)
  5. ^ 25% tariffs on cars (www.theguardian.com)
  6. ^ couldn’t care less (www.theguardian.com)
  7. ^ pressured to renegotiate trade agreements (www.nytimes.com)
  8. ^ weaponised trade (economiccoercion.com)
  9. ^ in exchange for a sale of TikTok (www.theguardian.com)
  10. ^ External Revenue Service (apnews.com)
  11. ^ finance future tax cuts (www.reuters.com)
  12. ^ get passed on to consumers (www.cfr.org)
  13. ^ to make at least some tariffs permanent (www.afr.com)
  14. ^ can be seen (www.linkedin.com)
  15. ^ increase domestic innovation capacity (www.presidency.ucsb.edu)
  16. ^ least afford it (www.nytimes.com)
  17. ^ responding in kind (ecfr.eu)
  18. ^ pivoting to (www.foreignaffairs.com)
  19. ^ increased international security (www.wto.org)
  20. ^ greater prosperity (reports.weforum.org)
  21. ^ beggar thy neighbour (www.project-syndicate.org)
  22. ^ What are non-tariff barriers – and why is agriculture so exposed? (theconversation.com)

Authors: Markus Wagner, Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong

Read more https://theconversation.com/these-3-arguments-are-part-of-the-long-game-in-trumps-trade-wars-252516

Cutting edge AI technology designed for doctors to reduce patient wait times launched in NZ

New Zealand specialist doctors now have access to Artificial Intelligence technology to help reduce patient wait times and experts say it could be...

Launchd Takes Off: Former AFL Stars Lead Tech-Powered Platform Set to Disrupt Talent and Influencer Marketing

Backed by Institutional Capital, Launchd Combines Five Leading Agencies and Smart Technology to Deliver Measurable Results Influencer marketing i...

Meet the Australian fintech unlocking rewards for small businesses

Small businesses make up 98 per cent of all businesses in Australia, yet they continue to bear the brunt of economic uncertainty. According to Credi...

Teleperformance (TP) Business Insights Report Reveals Key Shifts in Consumer Behaviour

TP’s Business Insights report  into consumer behaviors and preferences, taking in more than 57,000 respondents across 19 sectors, is shedding new li...

HubSpot launches platform-wide AI tools to help businesses close the adoption gap

HubSpot today unveiled more than 200 updates across its customer platform to help businesses grow better. The release introduces smarter tools, new AI...

Why Every Leader Needs a Personal Branding Strategy in 2025

One of the best investments you can make in 2025? Your Personal Brand.In today’s competitive and digitally driven business world, authenticity and...

Sell by LayBy