Trump did, for once, deliver on his promises. He said he would impose tariffs, and he did.
The tariffs in question are at exceptional levels, as this chart from the FT, which reflects the uncertainty in their impact, shows:
All we know about tariffs at the rate Trump is proposing is that the last time they were tried, we headed for the Great Depression of the 1930s. That might happen this time, too. That depends on the reactions of other states.
What is certain is that these tariffs will not benefit the people of the USA. I very much doubt that they are designed to. I explain my logic for that in today's video. They will most likely hit those on the lowest incomes in the USA hardest.
Bizarrely, this will also be true internationally. The richest country in the world, by far, is imposing the highest tariffs on some of the poorest ones, as this FT chart shows:
Rarely has international effort to increase inequality been so obvious, but that appears to be at least a part of the motivation for these tariffs.
The real question is what to do now. There are a number of routes, from responding in kind to cold-shouldering the USA. A combination is most likely, with the most obvious required response being to create a widely flung free trade bloc to protect as much of the rest of the world as possible from the impact of tariffs.
The obvious immediate members would be the EU, Canada, Mexico and the UK. I suggest them simply because they have more experience of such things. The moves would have to be made to bring in other major trading nations, whilst also seeking to protect developing countries. In effect, a new form of World Trade Organisation is required as a matter of urgency, with the US excluded. Special measures to protect some of the countries hit hardest, such as Cambodia, Vietnam, South Africa, Bangladesh, and others, would be high on the agenda.
Negotiations with China and Japan would be necessary.
Is that possible?
The answer is that anything is possible, of course. This is all about political will.
The possibility is that, however, the combined will of these nations might be challenged by one outlier, deliberately created by Trump, no doubt to preserve the chance of his state visit to see King Charles. That is the UK. If we refuse to cooperate because of our 'special relationship' with the USA, and our desperation for a trade deal with its despotic regime, which would be profoundly harmful to the UK's best interests, we could do considerable harm to the chances of coordinated world responses to Trump's trade war.
The world would not forgive us for that.
Starmer's robotic pro-USA, anti-EU responses cannot work now. We are in a new world this morning. What is he going to do? What is worst for the UK, I suspect. That's where his instincts lie.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
No Steer Keir, is relieved only 10% tariffs on everything. This is being presented as a “success”.
Byline Times reports that in the negotiations with the US it appears that King Don is being offered a very long lease around Clacton to build a free port.
Does not sound like a plus deal for no Steer and the UK.
Talk about bending the knee in supplication to King Don.
Excuse me while I go and get a bucket to be sick into. Has anyone else noticed how Starmer is only too eager to appease or buy off bullying, shouty know nothing right wingers like Trump, Murdoch and the revolting Jenrick? Labour ‘s total capitulation to Jenrick ‘s wholly false story about the Sentencing council’s advice to judges is evidence of their complete lack of moral integrity.
There are reasons to think international trade may decline. Certainly change. I listened, last week, to a Radio 4 program on powering ships. Ships use large amounts of fossil fuel and alternatives are costly in both monetary and environmental ways. Part of the discussion suggested that the world may do more local production and less moving things around between continents.
Is this another reason we are sailing into uncharted territory?
If only the world could do some joined up thinking.
@Ian Stevenson, Maybe we should go back to sail? I think there may be better sail options nowadays than there were back in the 1900s/2000s?
eg: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/23/sailing-ships-cleaning-up-sea-transport-oceans
Where there are consistent winds, it is option or a way of supplementing another propulsion system. However, I think it would not work on the large bulk carriers so would mean more, smaller ships losing some economies.
I do think more local production is vital for the health of the planet.
I think that from now on the UK should focus on the barriers to trade it has with itself. After all at around 75% the biggest trading partner with the UK is the UK. Getting those obstacles down needs someone who notices them first and I don’t think anyone in the overly lawyered cabinet can even see them. It’s an obvious point but you can’t take a chainsaw to something you’re not seeing.
What are those barriers?
I am struggling with this claim.
A new WTO or something like it, excluding the US is certainly necessary.
And yes, expect our spineless, weak and dishonest UK government to refuse to be part of this and pathetically reduce the DST, refuse to get closer to the EU and generally try anything it can because labour, like Tory/reform, has too many idiotic US worshippers in its ranks.
Memo to labour. Most of the UK hate Trump, and are on the side of the Canadians. Most of the UK, even leave voters, now recognize Brexit was a huge mistake. Most of the UK don’t want a trade deal with Trump’s US.
I feel that in our system, most of the UK do not count anymore. We have a Government elected on about 20% of the total vote.
2024
Registered 48,208,507
Turnout 28,924,725 (59.8%)
Labour 9,708,716
The Don’t Vote Party 19,283,782
I hope we in the USA see the same voter reaction in the 2026 national mid-term elections that we saw in the recent Wisconsin election for a State Supreme Court Judge.
It is just a matter of very short time until the true effects of these tariffs hits the average USA household smack in the checkbook.
Agreed
I wish the fools supporting Reform here realised that is Trumpism
Exactly MarP, it’s a ******* disgrace. Thanks to FPTP, my vote has never counted. No wonder so many don’t bother to vote any more. And the useless labour twerps no more want to change this than the disgusting Tories.
Rather than do the democratic thing, labour would rather endlessly chase right wing voters and then turn round to the rest of us and say “you can’t vote green, youll split the vote” It’ll all be your fault if Tory/reform get elected”
Arrogant, stupid, duplicitous labour clowns.
Robert Reich’s prescription, after yesterday’s announcement, is the same as yours. What seems like a sensible measure to you both almost confirms what course Starmer won’t take!!
We have an opportunity to salvage some of the worst of Brexit’s self harm …. And I have no confidence this mob will even see it.
I must go and read him….
“ All we know about tariffs at the rate Trump is proposing is that the last time they were tried, we headed for the Great Depression of the 1930s”
I note a few news blogs are comparing the tariffs of those of the 25th President of the United States, William McKinley (the “Napoleon of Protection”) in 1890 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinley_Tariff) which caused the ‘Panic of 1893’ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893). One news editor, Rajat Mishra, began by citing Marx’s dictum, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce” (https://www.republicworld.com/business/donad-trumps-tariff-gamble-a-return-to-protectionism-or-prelude-to-peril) and the subsequent depression (even after some small Democratic government reduction in tariffs in 1894.
An Aria AI answer for to a request for a summary of why McKinley’s failed gave the following reasons:
The McKinley Tariff, enacted in 1890, is often considered a failure for several reasons, both politically and economically. Here are the key factors that contributed to its downfall:
High Tariff Rates: The tariff raised duties on many imports to unprecedented levels, which led to increased prices for consumers. This was particularly unpopular among the agricultural sector, which relied on imported goods.
Economic Distress: The tariff did not alleviate the economic difficulties faced by farmers and laborers. Instead, it coincided with a period of economic depression, leading to business failures and high unemployment.
Political Backlash: The unpopularity of the tariff among voters resulted in a significant political backlash. Many blamed the Republican Party for the economic hardships, leading to losses in the subsequent elections.
Failure to Address Agricultural Needs: The tariff was intended to protect American industries, but it failed to address the needs of farmers who were struggling with low prices for their products. This disconnect alienated a significant voter base.
International Relations: The tariff strained relations with other countries, particularly those that were affected by the high duties, which complicated trade negotiations.
Overall, the McKinley Tariff is a classic example of how protective tariffs can backfire when they do not consider the broader economic context and the needs of all stakeholders.
Many thanks for this.
Were the McKinley Tariffs reduced, redacted or expunged when Theodore Roosevelt took office?
Yes, fairly quickly
It appears that four countries have escaped the new US tariff changes; Belarus, Cuba, North Korea and ……. Russia. If the UK had been successful in its calculated diplomacy, we would have joined this illustrious list. Of course we are not under the sanctions that remain against these countries, but it should make us think.
What is Britain trying to do here? Even if we are not heading slowly to a 52nd State status in Trump’s acquisition list, we do begin to look a little like an elephant-in-the-room-never-mentioned appendage to the US, in the same way as Belarus is an appendage to Russia. But without the guarantees of US commitment to the UK that Russia retains over Belarus. Who are Britain’s ‘thick-or-thin’ friends in this new world? Are we now going to choose our friends purely transactionally? Is nobody supposed to be impolite enough to notice? After all, the world the UK will always have to live in remains a European world, with all that means – and that is just a fact of life.
Good questions, John.
The answer lies in the book that Mike Parr suggested we read – ‘Vassal State’.
The U.S. Neo-libs and the U.K. Establishment have a lot in common – always did – it was always about being on top and being second to no-one.
It is about the raw use of power, fuelled by wealth. It’s about the ‘capital order’ that has been a part of Western democracies and effectively undermined them.
As the chickens have come home to roost – as the rents extracted have diminished the services and reified the problems (water, railways, utilities) all they have done is increased their grip on them and are seeking even now other things they can extract value from such as the NHS.
One day we will wake up and realise that you cannot argue with extreme greed. It is an illness (pleonexia) that the Greeks said was an illness of philosophy, an illness just as bad as Covid, rabies, Ebola etc. Nazism was an illness of philosophy and we would not bear that (though some would and did).
And what do you have to do to life threatening illnesses? We have to find a cure and/or eradicate the causes.
There you go.
Exactly John. When will you we get a UK government that drops the ludicrous special relationship?
Japan, China and South Korea are already working to strengthen ties in response to this.
As somebody said on another site you have to have messed massively to get these countries to collaborate.
It’ll be interesting to see what form these new trade block take. The old ones did seem to have been taken over with protecting, mostly American, corporate interests.
The UK should rejoin the EU for starters and once back in – if permitted, collectively negotiate very good trade deals with APAC region. Exclude the US – most of their Tech is manufactured in China so things in the EU should be cheaper here. US residents would start flying to Europe to buy things.
Scott Bessent, Secretary of State of the Treasury, having been asked about China on CNN, said that the 34% tariff applied to China yesterday was on top of the 20% tariff already in place – so a 54% tariff.
Those MAGA hats, etc., are going to become very costly for the cult.
From the Telegraph:
“Donald Trump has told Sir Keir Starmer that Britain must start selling chlorinated US chickens if it wants lower tariffs.
The US president has called for the concession after imposing a 10pc levy on goods from the UK to America, claiming that the UK’s restrictions on chlorine-washed poultry and hormone-treated beef were flawed.
After announcing a barrage of sweeping global tariffs on Wednesday, the White House released a statement saying: “The UK maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict US exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products.”
The USA is going to impose its appalling food standards on the UK.
The question is, will Starmer cave into this?
If he does, he undermines health in the UK for good
If the UK accepts that, it will further distance the UK from the EU. Looks like a method of sowing further division…..