Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

Published

on

New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).

The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.

Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

GDP impacts with retaliation

Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.



The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).

Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

GDP impacts without retaliation

In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.



Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.

Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

The trouble with Trump’s Greenland strategy

Published

on

Trump’s annexation of Greenland seemed imminent. Now it’s on much shakier ground.

Eric Van Rythoven, Carleton University

Looking at headlines around the world, it seemed like United States President Donald Trump’s annexation of Greenland was imminent. Buoyed by the success of his military operation to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric and threatened tariffs on any nation that opposed him.

Adding insult to injury, he openly mocked European leaders by posting their private messages and sharing an AI-generated image of himself raising the American flag over Greenland.

But behind these headlines a different story has emerged that has likely forced Trump to back down on using military force against Greenland and to drop threatened tariffs against Europe.

Trump’s military threats had toxic polling numbers with the American public. His Republican allies openly threatened to revolt. European countries are sending reinforcements to Greenland, hiking the costs of any potential invasion. And Europeans started to contemplate what economic retaliation might look like.

Far from being inevitable, Trump’s Greenland gambit is now on shaky ground.

No good options

Trump has three options to take control of Greenland: diplomacy, money and military force. The latest diplomatic talks collapsed as Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers left the White House in “fundamental disagreement” over the future of the territory.

Simply buying the territory is a non-starter. Greenlanders have already said the territory is not for sale, and U.S. Congress is unwilling to foot the bill. That’s left military force, the worst possible option.

It’s difficult to convey in words just how stunningly unpopular this option is with Americans. A recent Ipsos poll found that just four per cent of Americans believe using military force to take Greenland is a good idea.

To put that in perspective, here are some policies that are more popular:

If your official foreign policy is less popular than pardoning drug traffickers, then your foreign policy might be in trouble.

Sensing this unpopularity, Trump has already begun to walk back his military threats. Using his platform at Davos, he claimed “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.” He also said he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland.”

It’s too early to tell whether Trump is being sincere. Not long after claiming to be the “president of peace,” he was invading Venezuela and bombing Iran.

The broader point is that if diplomacy has failed, money is a non-starter, and now military action is ostensibly being taken off the table, then Trump has no good options.

The danger of defections

Trump’s political coalition, in fact, is increasingly fragile and in danger of defections. The Republican House majority has shrunk to a razor-thin margin, and Republicans are already signalling a loud break with Trump over Greenland.

Nebraska congressman Don Bacon recently told USA Today: “There’s so many Republicans mad about this … If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency.”

The situation in the Senate looks even worse. Multiple Republican senators have pledged to oppose any annexation, with Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski visiting Copenhagen to reassure the Danish government. With enough defections, U.S. congress could sharply curtail Trump’s plans and force a humiliating climb-down.

There’s yet another danger of defection. Senior military officers can resign, retire or object to the legality of orders to attack America’s NATO allies. Just last year, Adm. Alvin Holsey, the leader of U.S. Southern Command, abruptly retired less than year into what is typically a multi-year posting.

Holsey’s departure came amid reports that he was questioning the legality of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean. Americans still have a high level of confidence in the military, so when senior officers suddenly leave, it can set off alarm bells.

Creating a tripwire

In recent days, Denmark and its European allies have rushed to send military reinforcements to Greenland. These forces, however, would have no hope of defeating a committed American invasion. So why are they there?

In strategic studies, we call this a “tripwire force.” The reasoning is that any attack on this force will create strong pressure at home for governments to respond. If Danes and Swedes — and other Europeans for that matter — saw their soldiers being captured or killed, it would force their governments to escalate the conflict and retaliate against the United States.

The Trump administration would like to seize Greenland, face no European forces and suffer no consequences. But the entire point of a tripwire force is to deny easy wins and to signal that any attack would be met with costly escalation. It creates a price to invading Greenland for an administration that rarely wants to pay for anything.

The B-word

Amid the Trump administration’s economic and sovereignty threats, people are forced to grapple with what comes next. European governments are already quietly debating retaliation, including diplomatic, military and economic responses.

Chief among these is the European Union’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, colloquially known as the “trade bazooka,” that could significantly curb America’s access to the EU market.

But for ordinary Europeans, a different B-word will come to mind: boycott.

Some Europeans began boycotting U.S. goods last year amid Trump’s trade threats — but never to the same level as Canadians. That could quickly change if the U.S. engages in a stunning betrayal of its European allies. Fresh anger and outrage could see Europeans follow Canada’s lead.

Trump repeatedly threatened Canada with annexation, and it triggered a transformation of Canadian consumer habits. Canadians travel to the U.S. less, buy less American food and alcohol and look for more home-grown alternatives. Despite Canada’s small population, these boycotts have caused pain for U.S. industries.

Now imagine a similar scenario with the EU. In 2024, the U.S. exported almost US$665 billion in goods and services to the EU. It’s one of the largest export markets for the U.S., fuelling thousands of jobs and businesses.

The real danger for American companies, however, is when consumer pressure moves upwards to governments and corporations. European governments and corporations who buy from American giants like Microsoft, Google and Boeing will start to see public pressure to buy European — or at least not American. America’s most valuable corporate brands risk being contaminated by the stigma of the U.S. government.

Will he, won’t he?

None of this will stop the Trump administration from trying. Trump’s own words — that there is “no going back” on his plans for Greenland — ensure he’s backed himself into corner.

The more likely scenario seems to be starting to play out — Trump will try and then fail. His threats to annex Greenland will likely be remembered next to “90 trade deals in 90 days” and “repeal and place” in the pantheon of failed Trump policies.

The tragedy here is not simply a Trump administration with desires that consistently exceeds its grasp. It’s that the stain of betraying America’s closest allies will linger long after this administration is gone.The Conversation

Eric Van Rythoven, Instructor in Political Science, Carleton University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Market Watch: Greenland deals, Japan bonds & Australia jobs

Join David Scutt as we dissect fast-moving global markets and key insights from Greenland to Japan and Australia.

Published

on

Join David Scutt as we dissect fast-moving global markets and key insights from Greenland to Japan and Australia.


From Greenland to global bonds, and right here at home in Australia, markets are moving fast—and we break down what it all means for investors.

David Scutt from StoneX joins us to give expert insights on the key risks and opportunities shaping the week.

First, the U.S. is back in Greenland with its “Sell America 2.0” strategy. We explore the geopolitical wins, the potential economic gains, and the hurdles that could derail this ambitious plan.

Then, Japan’s bond market meltdown has shaken global investors. Scutt explains what triggered the rout, whether it’s over, and the implications for markets across Asia and the US.

Finally, Australia’s December jobs report is more than just numbers—it’s a critical piece of the RBA rates puzzle. We break down the scenarios and what a surprise result could mean for the economy and local markets.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MarketWatch #GlobalMarkets #GreenlandDeals #JapanBonds #AustraliaJobs #RBA #DavidScutt #TickerNews


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Backlash over AI “Indigenous Host” sparks ethical debate

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.

Published

on

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.


A viral social media account featuring an AI-generated “Indigenous host” is drawing criticism from advocates and creators alike, raising questions about authenticity, representation, and ethics in the age of artificial intelligence. Critics argue that AI characters can displace real Indigenous voices and mislead audiences.

Dr Karen Sutherland from Uni SC discusses how AI is reshaping identity on social media and why the backlash over this account has ignited a wider conversation about “digital blackface” and the ethics of AI-generated personalities. She explores the fine line between education, entertainment, and exploitation.

The discussion also dives into monetisation, platform responsibility, and the broader risks AI poses to media and cultural representation. As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, audiences and creators alike must consider what authenticity truly means online.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIControversy #IndigenousVoices #DigitalBlackface #SocialMediaEthics #AIIdentity #OnlineBacklash #MediaEthics #RepresentationMatters


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now