“President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime will completely transform America’s economic relationship with the rest of the world, all in the name of revitalizing domestic manufacturing.
And yet, many businesses won’t be rushing to shift their supply chains to U.S. shores.
For all the detail in Trump’s Wednesday announcement, his endgame is still shrouded in confusion. That’s lethal for long-term investment, making confident planning all but impossible.”
…
“I’ve asked multiple corporate executives in recent weeks whether companies are likely to start investing in manufacturing in the United States in response to Trump’s policies, and the message has basically been: That’s an unanswerable question right now. Because making those decisions requires understanding the relative costs of doing it versus not doing it, and Trump is far too unpredictable to allow for that kind of calculation.”
“”I have never felt more uncertainty about our business in my entire 40-plus-year career,” said one survey respondent. Another respondent called “uncertainty” the “key word to describe 2025,” adding, “There cannot be ‘U.S. energy dominance’ and $50 per barrel oil,” a stated goal of the Trump administration. (The current cost of oil is about $70 per barrel.) At that price, “We will see U.S. oil production start to decline immediately and likely significantly (1 million barrels per day plus within a couple quarters). This is not ‘energy dominance.'”
“The administration’s chaos is a disaster for the commodity markets. ‘Drill, baby, drill’ is nothing short of a myth and populist rallying cry,” one comment succinctly said.
It’s not just Trump’s rhetoric that has the energy industry on edge; it’s his trade policies, too. One respondent noted that tariffs “immediately increased the cost of our casing and tubing by 25 percent.” Another said, “Washington’s tariff policy is injecting uncertainty into the supply chain.””
“The high tariffs that America imposed during the late 19th century did not make America rich and did not make American manufacturing strong. It’s also absurd to claim that the country was at its wealthiest in an era when most people did not have access to indoor plumbing, electricity, or modern medical care—and when the average person was, objectively, much poorer.”
…
“If tariffs are as great as Trump says they are, he should be implementing them no matter what the leaders of any other silly little countries say or do. We can tax our way to prosperity, Trump claims, but we’ll just…not do that, I guess?
That’s the problem with Trump’s theory about tariffs. Either tariffs are an inherently good and prosperity-generating policy that enriches America, or they are a threat to get other countries to do as Trump says. Both things can’t be true.”
“An increase in tariffs of 10 percent on all imports would reduce America’s gross domestic product (GDP) by about 0.3 percent, while 60 percent tariffs on all imports from China would knock GDP down by another 0.3 percent, the CBO projects.
Meanwhile, the tariffs would “make consumer goods and capital goods more expensive, thereby reducing the purchasing power of U.S. consumers and businesses,” the CBO found. The productivity of American businesses would decline due to “limiting competition from imports and causing resources to be used less efficiently than they otherwise would have been used.”
The higher tariffs would lower the budget deficit by about $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years, the CBO also estimated. In other words, American consumers would be paying $2.7 trillion more in federal taxes over the next 10 years if Trump’s tariff plans are implemented”
“The U.S. economy grew at a 2.3% annualized rate in the final three months of 2024, the Commerce Department said on Thursday — closing out a year of strong growth.”
…
“The fourth-quarter growth figures are aslowdownfrom the 3.1% rate in the previous three-month period.”
“Unless Congress puts the country on a different fiscal course, Walker believes there is a 70 percent chance of a serious debt crisis before the end of the decade. That crisis would have “serious adverse economic security, national security, diplomatic, and domestic tranquility consequences,” he warned, adding that the middle class would “be affected the most on a relative basis” if standards of living are suddenly hit with a debt-induced shockwave.
This week’s hearing was intended to highlight bipartisan agreement on the seriousness of the federal government’s fiscal problems, said Rep. Jodey Arrington (R–Texas), the committee’s chairman.
“We’ve got major fiscal problems and a completely unsustainable fiscal trajectory. I haven’t heard anyone, Democrat or Republican, witness or member, that [sic] doesn’t accept that fact,” he said. “We won’t know when the dominoes fall on us in a sovereign debt crisis, it’s going to be difficult to put the pieces back together and maintain our global leadership.”
Those remarks echo warnings issued in recent years by governmental entities like the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office, as well as outside groups like the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Since 2015 the gross national debt has doubled, from $18 trillion to over $36 trillion. Debt held by the public, which most economists consider the more significant measure, sits at more than $28 trillion, or 99 percent of GDP. Deficits of nearly $2 trillion are expected for the foreseeable future.”
Chinese economic growth has slowed despite not yet being a rich country.
Instead of allowing free market actors to flourish, the Communist Party is clamping down so that private actors won’t be a threat to their control. This will damage their attempt to return to high economic growth.
“Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink and Donald Trump’s Treasury pick Scott Bessent all agree: Turbocharging economic growth is the best route to reining in the U.S.’s massive $36 trillion debt. History is not on their side.
Bessent warns that this is the “last chance” for the country to grow its way out of the record debt without becoming a “European-style socialist democracy.” Fink, who heads the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, urged the incoming administration in an Election Day op-ed to promote artificial intelligence and infrastructure investments to grow the economy and tame the deficit. And Amazon founder Bezos told economic power brokers at the DealBook Summit this month that the only way to solve the problem is to expand the economy by 3 to 5 percent a year while simultaneously trimming annual deficits.”
…
“That’s a tall order that few modern presidents have managed to achieve for any sustained period. Bill Clinton famously generated budget surpluses while the economy soared at rates of more than 4 percent in the late 1990s. Ronald Reagan brought down deficits in 1984 and 1987 but otherwise ran up the red ink. And Trump himself will face even more significant challenges if he follows through on tax and tariff pledges that budget forecasters say could add $4.1 trillion to $15.6 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
Trump promised during the campaign that a combination of lower taxes, more energy production, looser regulations and punishing tariffs would generate “explosive” growth to pay down the debt. And government budgets would shrink by “trillions,” he said, with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy tasked with tackling government waste.
But Trump has also vowed that he won’t touch entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are by far the chief drivers of the debt and are projected to be insolvent by the mid-2030s. Imposing tariffs on imports could trigger reprisals that would harm growth, and even if they didn’t, many economists believe it would take a historic economic boom to meaningfully address the country’s fiscal challenges.
“You can’t improve this with growth,” said Tom Porcelli, the chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “You’d have to have 5 percent growth for a pretty decent amount of time to have any real notable impact.””
…
” Fiscal watchdogs and credit-rating agencies have been clanging alarms for years about the U.S.’s growing debt, which is the accumulation of annual budget deficits. Rising deficits — which can be inflationary and push up interest rates — could become more acute as the population ages and spending for mandatory entitlement programs climbs. Even steep cuts to discretionary federal programs wouldn’t make a meaningful dent in the debt without extensive structural reforms.”
“Were Trump to implement Musk’s vision while simultaneously honoring his promise to avoid cutting entitlements and the GOP’s commitment to avoiding defense spending cuts, then he would need to slash all other government programs by 80 percent. That would involve gutting all social services for low-income Americans, food inspections, air safety, health insurance subsidies, and infrastructure investments, among countless other things.
This would abruptly and massively reduce demand in the US economy, potentially triggering a recession.
There is little reason to expect such severe and haphazard spending cuts to benefit the economy in the long term. After all, government investments in education and infrastructure often increase the economy’s growth potential — slashing funding for such programs could impair America’s economic performance in the coming decades.”
North Korea has been showing no signs of serious negotiation with the U.S. or South Korea. They are not interested and want to develop their military capabilities.