“As ugly as the stock market losses have been, the big hit from Trump’s tariffs probably haven’t even arrived yet. As always, the stock market is not the economy—it’s an aggregated indicator of what investors think the economy will look like in the future. Right now, they think it will be bad. Really bad.”
…
“In addition to crashing Americans’ retirement accounts and wiping out huge amounts from American companies (Apple and Nike were among the biggest losers in Friday’s rout), Trump’s move will soon raise taxes, wreck supply chains, and make basic goods more expensive or difficult to obtain.
In other words, even if you aren’t affected by the stock market sell-off, you’ll feel the effects of the tariffs before long.
Take each of those things in order. First, the tax increase. Tariffs are a form of taxation. According to the Yale Budget Lab’s analysis, Trump’s tariffs will reduce the average household’s income by nearly $3,800 this year. That’s because lots of things will get more expensive. Tariffs could triple the cost of a new iPhone, for example.
Second, the supply chain chaos. Ryan Peterson is the CEO of Flexport, a tech platform that helps companies with global logistics. He reported last week that 28 percent of the companies in Flexport’s system are “pausing all ocean freight bookings from Asia until there’s more clarity on where tariffs will end up.”
That means that even if some American companies are willing to pay the tariffs to keep supply chains flowing, they may not be able to find importers and shipping services right now.
Finally, the tariffs (and the associated supply chain disruptions) will have an immediate impact on prices and the availability of goods.
“A trade war triggered by Trump’s chaotic tariffs is the same type of aggregate shock as the Covid crisis, but worse,” warns Ben Golub, a professor of economics at Northwestern. As the tariffs degrade the ability of modern international supply chains to function, he wrote on X, the results will be “supply shortages and price spikes.”
To give just one example, consider the morning cup of coffee you might still be nursing. Americans consumed 1.6 billion pounds of coffee last year, but the United States produces only about 11 million pounds annually (all of it in Hawaii).
America also exports a lot of coffee—more than $900 billion of it last year. That’s possible even though we don’t grow very much here, because America-based coffee companies can buy beans from other countries, roast them, and then export them abroad. What are those middle-of-the-supply-chain companies supposed to do? Coffee-drinkers are screwed and coffee exporting companies that employ American workers are doubly boned.
Now repeat that same process for every industry connected to global supply chains. It’s grim.”
“On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to put a tariff of between 10 percent and 20 percent on all imports to the United States, along with a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods and a 25 percent import surcharge on Canadian and Mexican wares — at least, until our neighbors choke off the flow of all migrants and drugs across America’s northern and southern borders.
This protectionist agenda is far more radical than anything Trump attempted during his first term. It threatens to hamper American tech companies by increasing the cost of semiconductors, depress stock valuations by reducing economic growth and fueling a global trade war, and disrupt the US auto industry, whose supply chains were built around the presumption of duty-free trade with Mexico.
Thus, American investors, executives, and entrepreneurs watched Trump’s first day in office with bated breath: Would his inaugural address and initial executive orders prioritize corporate America’s financial interest in relatively free global exchange — or his own ideological fixation on trade deficits?
Trump’s Day 1 actions did not fully clarify his priorities on this front. In his inaugural speech, the president reiterated his broad commitment to protectionism. Meanwhile, his administration prepared to launch federal investigations into America’s trade deficit in general, as well as the trade practices of China, Mexico, and Canada in particular.
Nevertheless, Trump did not actually establish any new tariffs on his first day in office, as his administration’s arch-protectionists had hoped that he would.
Investors interpreted Trump’s caution as a sign that he would be heeding his advisers’ push for a more limited and incremental tariff policy; stocks rose Monday while the US dollar fell (stiff tariffs would increase the value of America’s currency).
Wall Street’s relief may be premature. Trump appears as ideologically perturbed by America’s trade deficit as ever.”
…
“Imposing even a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods would not only harm various business interests, but would also likely increase costs for consumers. Thus, such a duty would harm both Trump’s donors and voters.
If Trump’s first term is any guide, his universal tariff would not even redound to the benefit of American manufacturers, who would be vulnerable to higher costs and retaliatory tariffs from foreign nations. Generally speaking, presidents seek to avoid enacting policies that harm the bulk of their coalition, to the benefit of a narrow band of ideologues. And this is what implementing Trump’s grandest visions for trade policy would likely entail.
Second, the imposition of a universal tariff would roil stock markets. During Trump’s first term in office, he monitored the markets’ performance obsessively, tweeting about it incessantly and suggesting that stock values were a barometer of sound policy, warning in 2018, “If Democrats take over Congress, the stock market will plummet.”
Finally, Trump has recently shown some sensitivity to the interests of his newfound friends in tech, even when those interests conflict with the tenets of rightwing nationalism. Over the holidays, Elon Musk feuded with their co-partisans over the desirability of high-skill immigration and the H-1B visa, which help American tech companies to hire foreign talent. Trump ultimately expressed support for Musk’s position.”
“Fears have ticked up since Friday because the unemployment rate has risen enough in the past year to trigger a statistical threshold, known as the Sahm rule, that has historically been a sign that we’re in the early stages of recession.
But the U.S. economy actually still looks fine: Joblessness is at 4.3 percent, which is only bad by comparison to 3.4 percent, where it stood in early 2023. A higher percentage of people in their prime working years are employed than at any point since 2001, and the unemployment rate — which measures the number of people looking to be employed against the total number of people participating in the labor force — has risen largely because more people are seeking work, including immigrants.
U.S. GDP grew at a 2.8 percent pace in the second quarter of the year, which is faster than would be expected, especially given how high interest rates are. (Recessions are associated with an economy that is contracting, not expanding.)
Claudia Sahm, the creator of the Sahm rule, said that she doesn’t think we’re in a recession and that this time her rule might not hold.
But one thing seems clear: The economy is now slowing. The question is how much and how fast.”
“China promised to keep its stock markets stable and implement measures to boost its economy, according to a state-run media report of a meeting of the country’s financial stability and development committee. The committee also stressed that regulators should “actively introduce market-friendly policies.
Significantly for U.S. investors, the committee said China continues to support companies’ listing of shares overseas and has maintained “good communications” with U.S. regulators, with a cooperation plan in the works. That’s quite the development – just last week the Securities and Exchange Commission named five Chinese companies that could face delisting.
So what’s changed? The pressure on Chinese stocks had ramped up in the past week as regulatory concerns returned and surging Covid cases led Beijing to lock down millions of people. The country’s links to Russia also spooked investors as U.S. officials said the Russian government has asked China for military aid. If it did help Russia, sanctions would surely follow.”
“In a 662-page report analyzing the ’08 crash, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission identified a broad cast of villains that caused or contributed to the crisis. They include 5 investment banks that at the time fueled a surge of trading in “toxic” mortgage-backed securities, and derivatives of those securities: Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. AIG insured billions of dollars of overvalued securities without the reserves to cover losses. Horrible underwriting standards at mortgage issuers such as Countrywide and Wachovia produced millions of loans borrowers were doomed to default on.
Bond-rating agencies such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s failed to identify the risk and rated mortgage-backed securities destined to blow up as safe as US Treasuries. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government agencies that securitize mortgages, became insanely overleveraged and collapsed. Regulators such as the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission did nothing to intervene until it was far too late. Years of federal policy meant to encourage homeownership allowed some buyers to borrow far more than they could afford. And a 1999 law that eased bank regulations allowed banks to take risks that ultimately threatened the entire financial system.
Hedge funds had little to do with this. There were two hedge funds run inside investment bank Bear Stearns that bet heavily on mortgage-backed securities and collapsed in 2007. But those weren’t the types of hedge funds run by independent operators mostly working with wealthy individuals’ money. A 2012 Rand report found that hedge funds played little role in the housing bubble that caused the crash.”
“What we are realistically looking at now is not containment of a virus that is already on multiple continents, but efforts to mitigate the harm that it does by slowing its spread.”
…
“Even with effective mitigation a lot of people get sick, but the caseload is spread out and society can continue to function.”
…
“Mitigation is essentially what the world is doing now. We are slowing the spread of the disease, both from place to place and within the hardest-hit countries.”