Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Trump Tariffs - First Administration

edited March 31 in Other Investing
The following comments regarding Trump's tariffs were excerpted from an AP article published on Oct. 27, 2020.
Although the situation is somewhat different this time, historical information is useful in providing context.

Please limit comments to how tariffs may impact the economy or investing.
This thread is not intended for political diatribes - please use Off Topic for that.

"Trump set his sights on shrinking America’s vast trade deficits, portraying them as evidence
of economic weakness, misbegotten deals and abusive practices committed by other countries.
He pledged to boost exports and to curb imports by imposing tariffs — import taxes — on many foreign goods."


"America’s deficit in goods and services now exceeds what it was under President Barack Obama.
Steel and aluminum makers have cut jobs despite Trump’s protectionist policies on their behalf.
His deals made scarcely a ripple in a $20 trillion economy.
For most Americans, Trump’s drastic trade policy ultimately meant little, good or bad, for their financial health."


"Yet the belligerent approach has made scant difference in the number he cares about most:
The overall trade deficit in goods and services.
It barely dipped last year — by 0.5% to $577 billion, still higher than in any year of the Obama administration.
This year, the gap has widened nearly 6%, with the coronavirus pandemic having crushed tourism, education
and other service 'exports.'”


"Contrary to his assertions, too, Trump’s tariffs have been paid by American importers, not foreign countries.
And their cost is typically passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Princeton and Columbia universities
have estimated that the president’s tariffs cost $831 per U.S. household annually."


“His administration’s approach has delivered few tangible benefits to the U.S. economy while undercutting
the multilateral trading system, disrupting long-standing alliances with U.S. trading partners
and fomenting uncertainty, said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist who formerly
led the International Monetary Fund’s China division."


https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-virus-outbreak-global-trade-trade-policy-mexico-39aadae9a6d18de2b91889f1e552b605

Comments

  • edited March 31
    The difference this time is deportations (losing many workers as base level jobs) , Federal job losses, agency closures, spending reductions and something I don't think is being taken into account. All the research and educations grants that will also shrink college staffing. All these job loses will lead to more job loses in the supporting base (the small businesses where workers got their coffee in the morning or lunch etc..) Then you have pissed off allies not buying USA products, what will that do? Tariffs alone didn't make much difference last time (I can't remember how long they lasted) but all the funding cuts and jobs losses this time I think will show up in Q2,Q3. Maybe privatization of some of the above will help but that will take time. This time may actually be different (famous last words) in the investing world but time will tell.
  • edited March 31
    One major item to watch... oil. If oil comes down a lot (OPEC is increasing production) that could change things. Oil is a factor in just about everything in the economy. Reduced costs to produce/ship goods could lead to no need to past tariffs onto the consumer. Then what?
  • edited March 31
    Why did you start another tariff thread on an investment forum?
    This belongs in the Off Topic one. It's obviously a political one.

    Can you show me the high correlation between this article and our portfolios?
  • edited March 31
    FD1000 said:

    Why did you start another tariff thread on an investment forum?
    This belongs in the Off Topic one.

    @FD1000,

    As stated in the OP, the thread was created to discuss how tariffs may impact investing or the economy.
    It is perfectly acceptable to include this thread in the Other Investing
    forum so long as overt political commentary is avoided.
    Tariffs will have economic repercussions regardless if some individuals refuse to acknowledge this fact.
  • FD1000 said:

    Why did you start another tariff thread on an investment forum?
    This belongs in the Off Topic one. It's obviously a political one.

    Can you show me the high correlation between this article and our portfolios?

    Your "political" card has been used up. This is our new reality.

    And if you don't like it, too damn bad.


  • edited March 31
    The sad investment and economic realities of the current adm's fiscal polices, the most notable of which is his asinine tariff strategy, are concisely and accurately explained in the OP's linked article. This article is exemplary of hundreds, if not thousands of articles, that have been written over the past 5 months in investment letters, magazines, newspapers, etc.

    I posted several times today on a parallel, appropriately placed tariff thread, about the significant impact his asinine tariff strategy has had on my investment strategy and thinking, and cited it as THEE reason I broke a golden rule of portfolio strategy.

    So there's that.

    On a macro level, anyone not understanding how tariffs may impact investing or the economy, or how tariffs, you know, have been THEE biggest market mover since he started spewing about them months ago, probably shouldn't be taken seriously on an investment forum.
  • edited March 31
    Excerpts from today's WSJ Market Talk:

    "President Trump’s plans to impose 25% tariffs on imported vehicles will hike the average price of cars by as little as $5,000 and as much as $10,000 to $15,000, Wedbush analysts say in a research note. The analysts say the tariffs will wreak havoc on auto supply chains, since even automakers that make cars in the U.S. source around half of their parts from abroad. That means it will take around three years to move 10% of the auto supply chain to the U.S., costing hundreds of billions that will be passed directly to the consumer and push down demand, the analysts say."

    "European equity prices have not fully priced in the risk of tariffs escalation and they therefore risk falling further, UBS strategists say in a note. Stocks in sectors likely to be impacted by tariffs could decline by a further 10% as earnings outlooks are revised lower, the strategists say. 'A lot of this will depend on the price elasticity of demand given the most sensitive stocks tend to be in areas with lower competition.' These include pharmaceuticals and higher-end consumer sectors such as luxury and high-end vehicles, UBS says."
  • edited March 31
    Some common sense from Kevin O’Leary.

    https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370809982112
  • edited March 31
    Kevin O'Leary (aka Mr. Wonderful) has certainly differentiated himself from many other prognosticators.
    Time will tell if he has truly delivered "common sense."
  • edited March 31
    Today's PBS News Hour episode includes a segment about tariffs and their impact on manufacturing.

    University of London trade economist Ha-Joon Chang
    "It is going to take a lot of time, and you don't have that time. You have run down the industrial base over the last four decades. It cannot be built up in two years or whatever tariff policies that you have. In the meantime, things will be very expensive, especially if you are putting tariffs on the main trading partners like Mexico and Canada.
    And can people tolerate any more inflation?"


    Harvard Business School, Professor Willy Shih
    "Let's say you wanted offshore production from the U.S. to China. You had to set up a new factory. You had to hire the work force. You had to train the work force. You had to bring in suppliers. You had to set up your logistics. And what paid for that was, you got lower cost of product."

    "That's going from a high-cost country to a low-cost country. Now, if you want to bring stuff from a low-cost country to a high-cost country, and you have to set up a factory and you have to hire the work force, and you have to train the work force and bring in your suppliers, what's going to pay for it? Your product cost is going to be higher."

    Robert Zoellick, U.S. trade representative under George W. Bush, economic adviser under Bush I
    "So, the problem with Trump's approach is, it combines incoherence and protectionism. And you have to look at both parts. So the protectionism will add costs. And then you also have the retaliation."

    "We tried this in the 1930s. We raised tariffs to an average of 59 percent, and other people hit back. We had a trade surplus, but we also had unemployment at 25 percent. So it's a policy that reverses 70 years of America's international economic leadership."

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/examining-trumps-claims-that-tariffs-will-revitalize-american-manufacturing
  • @Observant1 , I saw those interviews on PBS tonight. Thank you for the link and the excerpts - if only to make it easier to find them again. The presentations are so clear it's a wonder any investor (even a bond trader, ahem) would want to stifle this reality.
Sign In or Register to comment.