Showing posts with label Trade war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trade war. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 9, 2025

Tariff Tantrums – Where do we stand?

The global markets are shaken by the trade war initiated by the US by announcing arbitrary unilateral tariffs on all of its trade partners. Some large trade partners of the US, like China and EU, have reportedly threatened to join the war with full vigor, making the global market extremely jittery.

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Trade war cannot quick-fix

In the year 1689, British monarch William of Orange put steep tariffs on French wine. He wanted to encourage the British to drink their own booze - make and drink. It was not a great idea because without wine, Britain turned to the hard stuff - gin. So, for the next 50 years, England was in the grip of the so-called gin craze. And newspapers wrote about the surge in crime and death and unemployment.

In the 18th century, Britain put trade restrictions and taxes on tea being shipped to the colonies. This eventually led to the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event in the American war for independence.

In the 1800s, the Brits were importing a lot of tea from China, and they didn't like the trade deficit, so they started to export opium to China, which caused an opium epidemic in China. China put a tariff on opium and then banned it altogether. This led to the very bloody Sino-British Opium Wars. The Qing lost the war. This defeat is popularly believed to be the first step in the direction of establishing modern day China.

Restrictions on the trade of cotton textile, indigo, salt etc. by the British empire on India inspired many key events in India's war of independence.

Soon after its unification in 1871, Italy turned to protectionism to foster its “infant” industries. It terminated its trade agreement with France in 1886; raised tariffs as high as 60 percent to protect its industries from French competition. The French government responded by passing the highly protectionist Méline Tariff of 1892, which famously signaled the death knell of the country’s flirtation with free trade. This eventually pushed Italy closer to Germany and Austria-Hungary in the years leading up to the First World War.

A famous example of protectionism gone awry is 1930’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act—which along with similar protectionist measures enacted around the globe—helped torpedo world trade, killing two third of the global trade, and exacerbate the Great Depression leading to WWII.

In the post WWII era, US trade restrictions on Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Russia, North Korea, Syria etc. have had a significant impact on global strategic balance.

Wider economic sanctions on India in the wake of 1998 nuclear tests, helped India develop indigenous technologies and evolve as a major power in space technology.

There is a strong view that America’s “trade war”, with Japan in the 1980s, was one of the best things that ever happened to American industry and consumers, because American businesspeople rose to the challenge of the time. The "quality movement" spread across the country. Businesspeople, previously outraged by the Japanese “stealing” trade secrets, decided to join the club and took to “benchmarking” on an industrial scale, often with Japanese companies as their targets. The benefits of all that attention to quality were large and durable for US businesses and consumers. In the end, the “war” did not prove to be destructive.

The short points are:

·         Trade wars perhaps as old as the cross-border trade itself.

·         Trade wars have often culminated in larger geopolitical conflicts and resulted in changes in the global maps.

·         Trade wars have been mostly caused by (i) distress in the domestic economy of the aggressor, promising protection and assurance to the local businesses; and/or (ii) eroding credibility of the extant political leadership, resulting in such leadership raising the rhetoric of aggressive-nationalism and external threats to the national integrity to protect its position.

·         There is evidence of trade wars causing structural shifts and paradigm changes in the global economy. However, there is little to suggest that but for trade wars, the world would have been a better place.

In my view, the latest specter of a wider trade war has been unleashed by the US administration to find a quick-fix solution to economic malaise, the US economy is suffering from nearly two decades of fiscal and monetary profligacies.

The US public debt has increased from US$3.41 trillion in the year 2000 (~35% of GDP) to US$29 trillion (~105% of GDP) currently. In this period, the fiscal deficit has risen from a US$236 billion surplus in the 2000 to a deficit of ~US$1.8 trillion currently. This is obviously not sustainable and needs to be corrected.

The moot point is “Whether trade war is a good solution for correcting historical mistakes?”


Thursday, January 7, 2021

Pyramid of assumptions

 I find some of the recent analysis of US politics and its implications for financial and commodity markets, rather amusing. Most experts are presenting their prognosis of the future direction of asset prices (stocks, currencies, bonds, gold, oil, and other commodities) based on an upside down pyramid, with politicians and central banks as the primary basis of their assumptions.

The overly simplistic analysis indicates that the new US government will have to find a balance between the cost of servicing monstrous public debt (interest rates) and growth. The growth will look healthy in 2021 as the poor base effect kicks in; and so will the inflation. This shall prompt the Fed to normalize the policy rate to bring benchmark 10yr yields from present 0.95% to pre Covid level of 2.5%. This rise in yields will make the servicing of burgeoning debt extremely difficult, if not impossible. The Fed will therefore be forced to check the benchmark yields below the pre Covid levels, say at 2%. This will cause USD to tank another 10-20%, sending the prices of gold and other global commodities denominated in USD to stratosphere. Emerging markets, especially those exporting the commodities will gain significantly, at the expense of developed economies, particularly USA.

The analysis also assumes that a Democratic government in USA would work for normalizing trade relations with China, thus giving significant impetus to growth, leading to higher demand for industrial commodities.

From static empirical studies this analysis looks good. However, if we apply little accelerated rate of change to the historical economic trends, these assumptions may be lacking in many respects. For example, consider the following possibilities mostly ignored by these assumptions:

·         US Government and Fed decide to correct the fiscal and monetary indulgences of past couple of decades, by devaluation of USD and letting USD retire as global reserve currency.

·         Global commodities are no longer priced predominantly in USD. The share of neutral currencies (crypto etc.) and regional currencies (EUR, CNY, et al) increases substantially in global trade, making trade more bilateral than multilateral. (De-globalization)

·         Digital transformation leads to material rise in productivity, further adding to deflationary pressures created by aging demography of the developed world.

·         Consumption pattern change materially. The consumption of fossil fuels, steel, chemicals etc. declines structurally. (ESG)

·         The logistic constraints ease substantially and supply of commodities is restored to the pre Covid level soon.

·         Sino-US conflict is not about Trump or Republican standpoint. It is a conflict to retain (or gain) supremacy over global order. It continues to worsen with every new achievement of China. German Chancellor Merkel has led the European Union to conclude trade deal with China. This is despite Chinese aggression against neighboring countries; atrocities in Hong Kong; and suspicion over treatment of Alibaba promoter Jack Ma. Clearly, a strong anti US axis is emerging in the global order. The assumptions of high growth do not appear to be factoring the probability a sharply divided bi polar world, with few non-aligned countries.

A global financial meltdown led by some financial institutions based in Europe or Britain.