Indeed, the “deal” with the UK is merely a “deal to work out a deal.” So far, Trump’s “trade wars are good annd easy to win” record is about 0 for 90. Ninety being approximately the number of nations on which Trump imposed tariffs April 4. Any team with that kind of record would see its manager fired.
I'm for free trade, yet theory shows that "Harberger triangles," the actual welfare losses due to tariffs because of import substitution, are small, unless tariff rates get very high.
The uncertainty could be worse than the inefficiency. This looks like a bad time for business investment. And yet It might be a bad time anyway, because of uncertainty related to AI. Should all tools now have a button to activate an AI that can explain how to use them? If we don't know whether they should, or we don't know how to do that yet, maybe we shouldn't be investing in tools until we know.
For the moment, I'm weirdly optimistic that the US economy can weather too much long-term damage.
Obviously the collapse in imports was the ostensible rationale for Trump tariffs (plus tariff revenue … which of course will now collapse along with imports … which reminds me, do gold imports bear a tariff too?) while the decline in exports was unwelcome, since the deal was supposed to make tariffs one-way (which was a silly thought). Meanwhile it’s a bit weird to scan economic data that is just about to catch up with “Liberation Day”.
Would be great to see up top, just total imports and total exports on a line graph. Do the dollar figures in these graphs depict pre-tariff or post tariff spending/receipts? (IOW spending including or not including tariff fees.) Thanks.
I would really love to hear a more detailed look on how tariffs are directly impacting the cost of living in the states themselves. So far this is of course atrocious long-term and will not achieve any of the so-called "goals" of these voodoo economic measures, but proponents can still look at the data and tell "well yeah, but USA has been ripped off all these years, now the money will flow!". Imports have fallen, but some will be present and will be paid into USA treasury. It would be great to see some data to prove that these incomes are not real incomes into the economy but instead money that will be directly taken from the public in one way or another to fill the treasury from the "tariffs"
it is not clear to me how you adjust your trade numbers to account for changes in the supply lines or the elimination of demand,, such as deferral of luxury or non essential items.
National security reasons is what the Biden admin would cite. A strong, but not economically harmful posture against China was their position. And protection of advanced tech, on which we levied tariffs toward even allies like Europe.
Joey, i am wondering why tariffs have not crept into inflation data yet. Also, what happened with shipping traffic situation? The drop in imports should've translated into shortages on shelves by now.
‘Detailed’ but shallow. This is why economists are considered the fortune tellers of finance. Talk to a cfo and you get real detail eg impact, alternatives, competition, pricing. Companies are resilient and flexible. A 25% tariff is only 5% price impact if the tariffed parts make up 20% of the end product. The company may eat it, if the competition is tight. I get bombarded with ads from non-tariff impacted companies everyday taking advantage. Sure, some disruption, confusion but ultimately right now tax revenues are way up with minimal impact on the Trump electorate. If the impact does hit, they’ll likely have the tax policy in place. In isolation, tariffs will do what he needs to do and the people ultimately impacted can afford it. A Mercedes may go up 25% but do we care? We haven’t touched on the immigration, energy, crypto and de-reg initiatives yet. All of which has my short term bearish position mid-term very bullish.
A lot of assumptions in that comment. The impact has already been showing up and is clearly described in the data provided by this article. To dismiss all of that research as "shallow" is interesting, since you picked very specific situations where something "might happen" and assume that there is advance planning (which has already proven to be wrong, considering how many times the tariffs have changed).
I think we should care if prices are going up, since inflation is bad (or is inflation not bad anymore?). We should care if trade is reduced, since free trade increases economic growth (or is economic growth not good anymore?).
Good points. Trump is beginning to appear more interested in the tariff tax revenues, rather than his economically illiterate premise that it would increase U.S. manufacturing (without cost), given the significant increase in deficits and national debt that his recent bill brings on. In other words, we now face the risk that Trump, not fully understanding the deleterious impact of a trade war, but being slapped in the face by the markets after "liberation day", may shift his rhetoric to emphasize how "rich" we are becoming from the revenue (to save face).
Indeed, the “deal” with the UK is merely a “deal to work out a deal.” So far, Trump’s “trade wars are good annd easy to win” record is about 0 for 90. Ninety being approximately the number of nations on which Trump imposed tariffs April 4. Any team with that kind of record would see its manager fired.
Next post should be why these substack comments are so bad
They still haven’t gotten rid of the tariff taxes on the penguins.
This is wrong. The US made around $40 billion Dollars each month so far in tariff money. Climate Change Science is never settled
The wildfires are arson, not from climate change: https://cctruth.org/wildfire/
https://rcmp.ca/en/manitoba/news/2025/05/manitoba-rcmp-make-two-arson-arrests-following-wildfires
https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=newtab&addon=chrome&addonversion=7.1.0&q=Rowena+Fire+arson+arests
https://rosedogbookstore.com/climate-crisis-changed-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-reports-are-deliberate-science-fiction-ebook-text/
Because the high schools teach the fear mongering of the media and UN. Nothing they have said will happen has ever happened.
Trees release terpenes which induce rain.
The high school teach our published high-school textbook and the arson fires will stop.
Climate Change is about Fear mongering and removing people from the earth.
I'm for free trade, yet theory shows that "Harberger triangles," the actual welfare losses due to tariffs because of import substitution, are small, unless tariff rates get very high.
The uncertainty could be worse than the inefficiency. This looks like a bad time for business investment. And yet It might be a bad time anyway, because of uncertainty related to AI. Should all tools now have a button to activate an AI that can explain how to use them? If we don't know whether they should, or we don't know how to do that yet, maybe we shouldn't be investing in tools until we know.
For the moment, I'm weirdly optimistic that the US economy can weather too much long-term damage.
Obviously the collapse in imports was the ostensible rationale for Trump tariffs (plus tariff revenue … which of course will now collapse along with imports … which reminds me, do gold imports bear a tariff too?) while the decline in exports was unwelcome, since the deal was supposed to make tariffs one-way (which was a silly thought). Meanwhile it’s a bit weird to scan economic data that is just about to catch up with “Liberation Day”.
Would be great to see up top, just total imports and total exports on a line graph. Do the dollar figures in these graphs depict pre-tariff or post tariff spending/receipts? (IOW spending including or not including tariff fees.) Thanks.
I would really love to hear a more detailed look on how tariffs are directly impacting the cost of living in the states themselves. So far this is of course atrocious long-term and will not achieve any of the so-called "goals" of these voodoo economic measures, but proponents can still look at the data and tell "well yeah, but USA has been ripped off all these years, now the money will flow!". Imports have fallen, but some will be present and will be paid into USA treasury. It would be great to see some data to prove that these incomes are not real incomes into the economy but instead money that will be directly taken from the public in one way or another to fill the treasury from the "tariffs"
it is not clear to me how you adjust your trade numbers to account for changes in the supply lines or the elimination of demand,, such as deferral of luxury or non essential items.
Why did President Biden renew President´s Trumps initial tariffs ? Are tariffs just oficial US policy?
National security reasons is what the Biden admin would cite. A strong, but not economically harmful posture against China was their position. And protection of advanced tech, on which we levied tariffs toward even allies like Europe.
Joey, i am wondering why tariffs have not crept into inflation data yet. Also, what happened with shipping traffic situation? The drop in imports should've translated into shortages on shelves by now.
‘Detailed’ but shallow. This is why economists are considered the fortune tellers of finance. Talk to a cfo and you get real detail eg impact, alternatives, competition, pricing. Companies are resilient and flexible. A 25% tariff is only 5% price impact if the tariffed parts make up 20% of the end product. The company may eat it, if the competition is tight. I get bombarded with ads from non-tariff impacted companies everyday taking advantage. Sure, some disruption, confusion but ultimately right now tax revenues are way up with minimal impact on the Trump electorate. If the impact does hit, they’ll likely have the tax policy in place. In isolation, tariffs will do what he needs to do and the people ultimately impacted can afford it. A Mercedes may go up 25% but do we care? We haven’t touched on the immigration, energy, crypto and de-reg initiatives yet. All of which has my short term bearish position mid-term very bullish.
A lot of assumptions in that comment. The impact has already been showing up and is clearly described in the data provided by this article. To dismiss all of that research as "shallow" is interesting, since you picked very specific situations where something "might happen" and assume that there is advance planning (which has already proven to be wrong, considering how many times the tariffs have changed).
I think we should care if prices are going up, since inflation is bad (or is inflation not bad anymore?). We should care if trade is reduced, since free trade increases economic growth (or is economic growth not good anymore?).
Good points. Trump is beginning to appear more interested in the tariff tax revenues, rather than his economically illiterate premise that it would increase U.S. manufacturing (without cost), given the significant increase in deficits and national debt that his recent bill brings on. In other words, we now face the risk that Trump, not fully understanding the deleterious impact of a trade war, but being slapped in the face by the markets after "liberation day", may shift his rhetoric to emphasize how "rich" we are becoming from the revenue (to save face).