“If Trump’s goal here is to strike deals that will lower foreign barriers to American exports and deliver better trading conditions for American manufacturers (who rely on imports), then hiking tariffs on South Korea makes startlingly little sense.”
…
“the new tariffs seem to violate an existing trade deal between the U.S. and South Korea. That deal, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, was signed in 2007 by President George W. Bush and implemented in 2012. Under the terms of the deal, about 95 percent of the goods traded between the two countries are imported tariff-free. Among other things, that deal put an end to high South Korean tariffs on American cars and light trucks, which has boosted American exports and U.S. auto manufacturing jobs.
On the whole, the deal has been good for both countries. Bilateral trade between the U.S. and South Korea expanded nearly 70 percent in the first 10 years that the deal was in place. As the Heritage Foundation noted in 2022, the deal was particularly good for American farmers (who saw exports to South Korea hit record highs) and for foreign investment in American industries (South Korean investment in the U.S. nearly tripled during the deal’s first decade in force).”
…
“Trump himself signed a renegotiated version of that same trade deal in 2018. The so-called KORUS 2.0 rolled back some of the free trade provisions in the original deal—most notably, it limited exports of Korean steel to the U.S. and postponed a planned elimination of the U.S. tariff on imported light trucks.
Still, it was mostly “a minor tweak” to the previous deal, as the Cato Institute termed it at the time.
Trump called the reworked deal “fair and reciprocal” and said it was “a historic milestone in trade.”
Now, less than seven years later, he’s effectively torn up that deal. Or he’s pretending that it never existed (or he forgot about it).
So, here’s the question: What is the White House hoping to accomplish with this latest maneuver?
If the goal is to lower tariffs across the board, then KORUS already did that. If the goal is to increase American exports to foreign countries by getting them to lower their trade barriers, then KORUS has already done that too. If the goal is to allow Trump to renegotiate the supposedly flawed trade deals from previous generations of American leaders, then KORUS 2.0 did that.
And, of course, if the goal is to strike more deals with more countries—as the White House keeps claiming—then this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. What other leader will be willing to negotiate seriously with this administration, knowing full well that it does not respect the deals it reaches?”
“Trump said the tariffs on Japan and South Korea would be separate from any “sectoral” tariffs that he imposes. That appears to refer to the duties that he has already imposed on autos, auto parts, steel and aluminum under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which gives the president broad authority to restrict imports to protect national security.”
…
“Trump said he was imposing the duties to help reduce the “very persistent” trade deficits with the two countries — meaning they export more goods to the U.S. than they buy from the U.S. — which the president blamed on Japan and South Korea’s tariffs and other trade barriers.
However, most economists disagree with that analysis, saying that macroeconomic factors like relative savings rates play more of a role in driving the overall U.S. trade deficit.”
“Tariffs will revert back to their April 2 rates on Aug. 1 for countries that fail to nail down new trade deals with the United States, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday, just three days before the Trump administration’s initial July 9 deadline for tariffs to return.
Bessent told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Trump administration would be sending out letters to 100 smaller countries “saying that if you don’t move things along, then on August 1st, you will boomerang back to your April 2nd tariff level.””
“Asked whether the U.S. would be flexible with any countries about on the July 9 deadline, Trump said, “Not really.”
“They’ll start to pay on Aug. 1,” he added. “The money will start to come into the United States on Aug. 1, OK, in pretty much all cases.”
…
Tariffs are paid by importers — which can pass on part or all of the costs to consumers — and not necessarily by entities in the goods’ country of origin.”
“That unwillingness to significantly budge on his array of tariffs has bogged down trade negotiations and hindered the administration from crafting substantial trade deals. As the U.S. has set out to negotiate deals with more than 60 trading partners, world leaders have grown increasingly frustrated with what they say are unbalanced demands from the U.S.
Other trading partners, including the European Union, have bristled at the terms of the UK framework and said they would not agree to a similar deal. That arrangement left a 10 percent so-called baseline tariff in place, while laying out a path to slash sector-specific tariffs.
The bloc isn’t alone, and Trump’s numerous demands and “do-it-or-else” approach have made it challenging for countries to corral the domestic political support they’ll need in order to sell any deal at home.”
“Trump’s all-sticks-and-no-carrot approach to trade talks is making it difficult for even friendly foreign governments to reach an agreement they fear could be political suicide back home — no matter how much the White House threatens their economies.”
“Foreign manufacturers will have to lower their prices to accommodate tariff rates, Miran believes. If they don’t, then U.S. importers will turn to factories in other markets rather than absorbing the cost of tariffs themselves.
“We can move our demand across borders, but a factory can’t get up and move across borders,” he said.
You might say, his theory is that the customer is always right.
This line of thinking, a theme of his work since before he joined the administration, is an important way Miran’s reasoning diverges from that of most of his fellow economists. Critics point to examples — such as Trump’s tariffs on washing machines in his first term — where consumers seemed to be the ones who paid the price.
The question of who will bear the cost burden of import taxes is an important puzzle piece for gaming out how much inflation will rise and how much growth will slow. It is a particularly critical dilemma for the Federal Reserve, which is trying to decide when to ease off the decelerating economy.”
…
“For this to work, foreign firms have to believe that, unless they capitulate, U.S. companies really will relocate their supply chains elsewhere, Miran told me. That’s one of the many tricky parts for proponents of Trump’s agenda — and Miran conceded as much.
“The truth is that for a lot of products, there’s not a credible alternative for a supply chain available instantaneously, right?” he said.
The recalibration, in other words, will take some time.
And that time could come at a price for the economy, as Trump’s shifting tariffs and fluid negotiations leave businesses hesitant to take action. If firms knew where tariffs would land, they could make investment decisions — on where to build factories, on what size workforce they need, on whether they need to change their business model. In the meantime, many executives are frozen in place, a paralysis that itself could take a bite out of growth.
Right now, manufacturers have been scaling back production as new orders dry up, and confidence in business conditions among CEOs collapsed during the second quarter at its fastest pace in roughly half a century.
Miran was straightforward about acknowledging that policy uncertainty is a challenge, repeatedly suggesting that there could be volatility — in growth, in prices — ahead.”
“When industries can boost profits more easily by lobbying for tariff exemptions than by competing in the marketplace, they will—and those incentives grow stronger as government intervention in the economy increases.”
Wealthy people and great entrepreneurs aren’t going to not start that great business because they will pay more taxes if they make it big. Either way, if successful, they would have done something great and will be rich.
The most profitable and flexible workforce for Americans is illegal immigrants.
When we put tariffs on China, we are saying every country on Earth can get low inputs from China except America, making American business less competitive.