Home » Tariffs
Tag:

Tariffs

Economy

Navigating Economic Fragmentation: ASEAN and East Asia’s Strategic Responses (Part 1)

by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy
written by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy

ASEAN Navigates a Fracturing World: Turning Global Tensions into Regional Possibility

Table of Contents

Washington D.C. – December 1, 2025 – The global economic landscape is undergoing its most significant realignment in decades, shifting from an era of open exchange to one increasingly defined by strategic competition and geopolitical maneuvering.Trade is no longer simply about goods and services; it’s a tool wielded in a complex game of power,marked by rising tariffs,export controls,investment screening,and substantial subsidy programs. This trend risks fracturing the world economy into isolated blocs, a growth with profound implications for all nations, but especially for the dynamic economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The central driver of this upheaval is the intensifying rivalry between the United States and China. What began as a technological competition has broadened to encompass industry and trade, creating a volatile environment. The recent implementation of “reciprocal” tariffs by the Trump administration, coupled with bilateral trade deals offering differing terms to individual nations, has already resulted in a patchwork of tariff outcomes across ASEAN member states. China, too, is adjusting its policies to safeguard and promote its own industries, further exacerbating the risk of global economic fragmentation.

This shift presents a significant challenge to ASEAN, whose development model has historically relied on open markets, integration into global value chains, and predictable trade rules

Here are three PAA (Potentially Answerable) related questions, each on a new line, designed to be automatically published with the provided text. They focus on extracting data *from* the text, rather then requiring outside knowledge:

Navigating Economic Fragmentation: ASEAN and East Asia’s Strategic Responses (Part 1)

The Rising Tide of Economic fragmentation

The global economic landscape is shifting. We’re witnessing a clear move away from hyper-globalization towards a more fragmented system, driven by geopolitical tensions, trade wars, and a reassessment of supply chain resilience. This fragmentation isn’t simply about decoupling; it’s about reconfiguration – a reshaping of economic relationships. East Asia, and notably ASEAN, finds itself at a critical juncture, needing to proactively navigate these changes. key terms driving this shift include deglobalization, regionalization, supply chain diversification, and economic security.

ASEAN’s Fragmented Response to Global shocks

Recent events have highlighted ASEAN’s vulnerability to external economic pressures. The World Economic Forum recently pointed out ASEAN’s fragmented reaction to US tariffs as a key indicator of the need for greater regional solidarity (WEForum, 2025). this lack of a unified front underscores a critical challenge: achieving strategic autonomy in a world increasingly defined by bloc politics.

Here’s a breakdown of the issues:

* Differing National Interests: ASEAN’s ten member states have diverse economic structures and political priorities,making consensus challenging.

* Dependence on Major Powers: Many ASEAN economies are heavily reliant on trade with the US, China, and Japan, limiting their ability to act independently.

* Limited Regional Economic Integration: While initiatives like the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) exist, progress towards full integration has been slow.

* Vulnerability to Trade Disruptions: The US-China trade war, such as, exposed ASEAN’s susceptibility to collateral damage from major power disputes.

East Asia’s Strategic Approaches: A Comparative Overview

Beyond ASEAN, other East Asian economies are adopting distinct strategies to address economic fragmentation. Understanding these approaches provides valuable context for ASEAN’s own path.

China’s Dual Circulation Strategy

China’s “Dual Circulation” strategy is arguably the most significant response to date. This policy aims to:

  1. Boost Domestic demand: Reduce reliance on external markets by strengthening internal consumption and innovation.
  2. Maintain Global Engagement: Continue to participate in the global economy, but on terms more favorable to China.

This strategy involves significant investment in technological self-sufficiency,infrastructure development,and regional trade agreements like the Regional Extensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The focus on domestic consumption, technological sovereignty, and RCEP benefits are key elements.

Japan’s Supply Chain Resilience Focus

Japan, historically a champion of global trade, is now prioritizing supply chain resilience. This involves:

* Diversifying Supply Sources: Reducing dependence on single suppliers, particularly in critical sectors like semiconductors.

* Reshoring and Nearshoring: Encouraging companies to bring production back to Japan or relocate to nearby countries.

* Investing in Automation: Enhancing manufacturing competitiveness through advanced technologies.

Japan’s approach emphasizes supply chain security, industrial policy, and investment in innovation.

South Korea’s Balancing Act

South Korea faces a unique challenge, being heavily reliant on exports and strategically positioned between the US and china. Its strategy involves:

* Strengthening Alliances: Maintaining strong security and economic ties with the US.

* Expanding Trade Networks: Diversifying export markets beyond China.

* Investing in future Industries: Focusing on high-tech sectors like semiconductors, batteries, and biotechnology.

South Korea’s strategy is characterized by alliance management, trade diversification, and high-tech investment.

The Role of Regional Trade agreements

Regional trade agreements (RTAs) are becoming increasingly significant in a fragmented world. RCEP, in particular, offers significant opportunities for East Asian economies.

* RCEP Benefits: The agreement eliminates tariffs on a wide range of goods, streamlines customs procedures, and promotes investment.

* CPTPP as an Alternative: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-pacific Partnership (CPTPP) offers another avenue for regional economic integration, though its membership differs.

* Bilateral Trade Deals: Many countries are also pursuing bilateral trade agreements to secure specific economic advantages.

These agreements are crucial for fostering intra-regional trade, reducing trade barriers, and promoting economic cooperation.

Building ASEAN’s Strategic Autonomy: Key Steps

For ASEAN to effectively navigate economic fragmentation and achieve strategic autonomy, several key steps are necessary:

  1. Deepen Regional Economic Integration: Accelerate the implementation of the AEC and address remaining non-tariff barriers.
  2. Strengthen Regional Supply Chains: Promote intra-ASEAN trade and investment,and reduce dependence on external suppliers.
  3. Enhance Digital Connectivity: Invest in digital infrastructure and promote the adoption of digital technologies.
  4. Develop a Common ASEAN Position: Foster greater consensus on key economic and geopolitical issues.
  5. Invest in Human Capital: Equip the workforce with the skills needed to compete in a rapidly changing global economy.

Case Study: The Semiconductor Industry

The global semiconductor shortage of 2021-2023 vividly illustrated the risks of concentrated supply chains. This event prompted many countries, including those in East Asia, to reassess their reliance on a few key suppliers. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan dominate semiconductor manufacturing, but ASEAN

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
world

Trump’s Autocracy Falters: Why His Grip Is Slipping

by James Carter Senior News Editor
written by James Carter Senior News Editor

The Emperor Has No Institutions: Why Trump’s Cracks Signal a Dangerous Trend

For an American, touring the grandiose monuments of ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy—as I did recently—is an oddly relatable experience these days. From the triumphal arches to the soaring basilicas and opulent palaces, a pattern emerges: a historical parade of leaders prioritizing self-glorification. This isn’t a foreign concept, but one that feels increasingly familiar in the current political landscape. The question isn’t if power corrupts, but what happens when institutions designed to check that corruption are systematically eroded.

The Allure – and Danger – of Unilateral Power

Historically, the American political tradition, rooted in the Cincinnatus ideal of civic duty and limited power, stood in stark contrast to the imperial ambitions of past rulers. But the rise of Donald Trump, with his unabashed embrace of personal branding and a willingness to flout established norms, has blurred that line. His actions – from questioning alliances and coveting territory to perceived attempts to weaponize the Justice Department – echo the behaviors of autocrats throughout history. But it’s not simply the behavior itself that’s alarming; it’s the realization that the safeguards meant to prevent such overreach are proving surprisingly fragile.

Cracks in the Foundation: Pushback and Its Limits

Recent months have witnessed a notable shift. For the first time, Trump has faced significant resistance, even from within his own party. The botched Ukraine “peace proposal,” widely criticized as a surrender to Russia, sparked outrage among Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. This isn’t merely policy disagreement; it’s a challenge to the very notion of unilateral decision-making. Similarly, pushback on proposed tariffs and attempts to eliminate Affordable Care Act subsidies demonstrate a growing unwillingness to simply rubber-stamp presidential directives. However, this resistance is often reactive and case-by-case, lacking a cohesive strategy to rebuild institutional strength.

The Roman Precedent: Institutions as the Bulwark Against Tyranny

Historian Edward J. Watts, in his book The Romans: A 2,000-Year History, argues that the longevity of great states hinges on a delicate balance: enlightened leadership and robust institutions. Rome’s success, even under flawed emperors, stemmed from its adherence to established traditions. The United States, founded on the principles of checks and balances, initially mirrored this model. George Washington’s deliberate emulation of Cincinnatus wasn’t just symbolic; it was a conscious effort to establish a precedent of limited power and respect for institutional norms.

The Erosion of Restraint

The danger, Watts warns, lies with “charismatic disruptors” who disregard established procedures and attempt to impose their will on the system. The U.S., he argues, has been steadily dismantling those institutional restraints over the past decade. The recent judicial rebuke of Trump’s attempts to use the Justice Department to target political enemies – Judge Cameron Currie’s ruling that ultimate responsibility lies with Congress and the courts – is a critical, albeit precarious, victory for those restraints. But it’s a victory that highlights just how far those restraints have been stretched.

Beyond Trump: A Systemic Vulnerability

The current situation isn’t solely about one individual. It’s about a systemic vulnerability. The willingness to challenge norms, to disregard precedent, and to prioritize personal loyalty over institutional integrity has become increasingly normalized. The defection of Marjorie Taylor Greene, while dramatic, is symptomatic of a broader fracturing within the conservative movement, fueled by disillusionment and a growing awareness of the potential consequences of unchecked power. The surprisingly strong Democratic performance in recent state elections further underscores this shift.

The Future of American Power: Rebuilding Trust and Tradition

The question now is whether the U.S. can rebuild the institutional guardrails that have been weakened. Simply removing a disruptive leader isn’t enough. A fundamental reassessment of the relationship between power and accountability is required. This means strengthening independent oversight bodies, reinforcing the rule of law, and fostering a culture of respect for established norms. It also means recognizing that institutions aren’t merely bureaucratic obstacles; they are the foundations of a stable and enduring republic. The alternative – a continued erosion of those foundations – risks a future where the “Emperor” truly has no institutions to hold him accountable, and history, as it often does, repeats itself.

What steps do you believe are most critical to restoring institutional trust and safeguarding against future abuses of power? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
world

US-Malaysia Trade: Both Sides Miss Key Points

by James Carter Senior News Editor
written by James Carter Senior News Editor

Geopolitical Trade Winds: Why Middle Powers Must Redefine ‘Business as Usual’

The assumption that trade policy could be neatly compartmentalized – a matter for trade ministers and economic growth alone – is rapidly becoming a relic of the past. Today, 80% of global trade flows are impacted by geopolitical tensions, according to a recent report by the World Economic Forum. This isn’t simply about diversifying supply chains; it’s about recognizing that every trade decision, every investment, and every industrial policy now carries significant geopolitical weight. For middle powers, particularly those in Southeast Asia, navigating this new reality demands a fundamental shift in approach.

The Expanding Scope of Trade Concerns

Historically, trade ministries focused on tariff reductions, market access, and fostering economic partnerships. Now, the portfolio demands a far broader skillset. Export controls, legal regulations surrounding technology transfer, deep understanding of critical supply chains, and even security alliances are all integral to effective trade policy. The ability to analyze geoeconomic risks – identifying chokepoints, assessing vulnerabilities, and understanding the interplay between economic and security interests – is no longer optional. Furthermore, successful trade leadership requires a nuanced grasp of international political dynamics, including the complex relationship between the US and China.

The recent transition in Malaysia, with the impending departure of Trade Minister Zafrul Abdul Aziz, underscores this point. His replacement will face challenges extending far beyond domestic political considerations. Finding an individual equipped to navigate this multifaceted landscape will be a critical test for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Beyond Diversification: The Geopolitical Imperative

Diversifying trade partners is a sensible strategy, but insufficient on its own. Simply shifting sourcing from one country to another doesn’t address the underlying geopolitical risks. Consider the race for control of rare earth minerals, essential for electric vehicle production and advanced technologies. Countries seeking to build domestic rare earth industries, or secure access to these resources, are inevitably drawn into complex geopolitical calculations involving China’s dominance in the sector. Attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) also requires a geopolitical lens. Investors are increasingly factoring in political stability, security risks, and the potential for trade disruptions when making decisions.

Geoeconomic security is rapidly becoming a core national interest, demanding a ‘whole-of-government’ approach. This means closer collaboration between trade ministries, defense departments, intelligence agencies, and foreign affairs offices. Siloed thinking is no longer viable.

The Southeast Asian Challenge

Southeast Asian nations, strategically located and heavily reliant on trade, are particularly vulnerable to these shifts. Many countries in the region have historically pursued pragmatic economic relationships with both the US and China. However, increasing geopolitical competition is forcing them to make difficult choices. Maintaining neutrality is becoming increasingly challenging, and the risk of being caught in the crossfire is growing.

“Expert Insight:”

“Southeast Asian nations are facing a new era of strategic competition. They can no longer afford to simply focus on economic benefits; they must actively manage geopolitical risks and build resilience into their economies.” – James Chai, Political Analyst and Author of *Sang Kancil*

Future Trends and Actionable Insights

Several key trends are likely to shape the future of trade for middle powers:

  • Reshoring and Friend-shoring: The trend towards bringing production closer to home (reshoring) or to trusted allies (friend-shoring) will continue, driven by supply chain vulnerabilities and national security concerns.
  • Increased Use of Export Controls: Expect a further proliferation of export controls, particularly in strategic sectors like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and advanced materials.
  • The Rise of Economic Coercion: Countries may increasingly use trade as a tool to achieve political objectives, employing tactics like tariffs, sanctions, and investment restrictions.
  • Digital Trade and Data Security: The growth of digital trade will create new opportunities but also raise concerns about data security, privacy, and cybersecurity.
  • Regionalization of Trade: We’ll likely see a strengthening of regional trade blocs as countries seek to reduce their reliance on global supply chains.

Pro Tip: Invest in developing expertise in areas like supply chain mapping, risk assessment, and export control compliance. These skills will be invaluable in navigating the evolving trade landscape.

For middle powers, proactive adaptation is crucial. This includes:

  • Strengthening Domestic Industries: Investing in strategic industries to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.
  • Building Strategic Partnerships: Forging closer ties with like-minded countries to enhance economic and security cooperation.
  • Developing Robust Risk Management Frameworks: Identifying and mitigating potential trade disruptions.
  • Investing in Technological Innovation: Staying ahead of the curve in key technologies to maintain competitiveness.

“Key Takeaway:” The era of treating trade as a purely economic matter is over. Middle powers must integrate geopolitical considerations into every aspect of their trade policy to safeguard their interests and ensure long-term prosperity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is ‘friend-shoring’ and why is it gaining traction?

A: Friend-shoring refers to the practice of relocating supply chains to countries considered politically aligned and trustworthy. It’s gaining traction as businesses and governments seek to reduce risks associated with geopolitical instability and potential disruptions.

Q: How can smaller nations prepare for increased economic coercion?

A: Diversifying trade partners, building strategic reserves of critical goods, and strengthening regional alliances are key steps. Developing robust legal frameworks to counter coercive tactics is also important.

Q: What role will technology play in the future of trade?

A: Technology will be transformative, enabling greater supply chain transparency, facilitating digital trade, and enhancing risk management capabilities. However, it also presents new challenges related to data security and cybersecurity.

Q: Is it possible for middle powers to remain neutral in the US-China rivalry?

A: Maintaining strict neutrality is becoming increasingly difficult. Middle powers will likely need to navigate a delicate balance, engaging with both the US and China while safeguarding their own interests.

What are your predictions for the future of geopolitical trade? Share your thoughts in the comments below!


0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Economy

Trump’s Former Trade Architect Warns Against Backtracking on Tariffs: President Too Committed for Retreat

by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy
written by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy


Trump’s Tariff Fight Heads to Supreme Court as Former Aide Predicts No Retreat

Washington D.C. – The legality of president Donald trump’s expansive tariff policies is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, with arguments scheduled for Wednesday. A pivotal figure involved in the initial implementation of these tariffs, Wilbur Ross, believes the president remains deeply committed to the strategy and unlikely to reverse course, even in the event of an unfavorable ruling.

The Legal Challenge to Trump’s Tariffs

Table of Contents

At the heart of the case lies the question of presidential authority regarding trade regulations. The Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes,duties,Imposts and Excises.” Though, the Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, arguing that “national emergencies” justify the imposition of tariffs without explicit Congressional approval. This move has drawn legal scrutiny, with importers and manufacturers contending that the president has overstepped constitutional boundaries.

A History of Trade Maneuvers

This isn’t the first time the trump administration has navigated complex legal territories to implement its trade agenda. In 2018, Ross played a key role in utilizing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to initiate tariffs on goods from China and other nations. That effort involved extensive public hearings and administrative processes, wich ultimately withstood legal challenges. This time, however, Ross indicates the administration accelerated the process, potentially weakening its legal standing.

“They were in a hurry to get things going,” Ross stated, acknowledging a heightened risk in the current legal battle. The current case involves tariffs imposed on goods from across the globe, generating approximately $195 billion in government revenue, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The Stakes are High: Market impact and Global Turmoil

A Supreme Court ruling against the administration could have far-reaching consequences. Ross predicts that invalidating all the tariffs would trigger substantial global economic disruption and raise complex questions about reimbursements to importers,consumers,and businesses throughout the supply chain.He anticipates the Court may opt for a more nuanced approach, striking down only those tariffs deemed notably politically motivated.

One example cited by Ross is the 40% duty imposed on imports from Brazil, reportedly in response to the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair bolsonaro. He expressed skepticism that such a situation constitutes a genuine “emergency” justifying the tariff.

Tariffs: A Snapshot

Year Action Country/Region Rationale
2018 Section 232 Tariffs china,EU,Canada,Mexico national Security (Steel & Aluminum)
2025 IEEPA Tariffs Global Various “National Emergencies”
2025 Brazil Tariffs Brazil Political Pressure

Did You Know? The use of tariffs as a trade tool has historical precedents,but the scale and scope of Trump’s tariffs are unprecedented in recent decades.

Ross Predicts Continued Commitment to tariffs

Despite the legal challenges, Ross firmly believes President Trump will remain steadfast in his support for tariffs. He suggests the president may seek choice legal justifications or push for Congressional action to codify the policies. The former commerce Secretary highlights the shifting political landscape,where union support for protectionist measures has blurred conventional party lines.

Ross likened the current situation to a calculated risk-reward scenario. He emphasized that market uncertainty is often more damaging than an unfavorable ruling.”Markets can adjust to good news or bad news,” he stated.”What markets have trouble with is uncertainty.”

Understanding Tariffs and Their Impact

Tariffs are essentially taxes imposed on imported goods. While proponents argue they protect domestic industries and create jobs,critics contend they raise prices for consumers and disrupt global trade. The long-term economic effects of tariffs are often debated,with studies yielding varying conclusions depending on the specific context and modeling assumptions.

The use of tariffs has seen fluctuations throughout history. In the early 20th century,the United States employed high tariffs to protect nascent industries. However, after World war II, there was a global movement towards reducing trade barriers, leading to the formation of organizations like the World Trade Institution (WTO). Current trade tensions have led to a renewed focus on protectionist policies.

Pro Tip: To stay informed about trade policy changes, follow reputable economic news sources and consider subscribing to industry-specific newsletters.

Frequently Asked Questions About Trump’s Tariffs

  • What are tariffs? Tariffs are taxes imposed on goods when they cross international borders.
  • Why does the Trump administration use tariffs? The administration argues tariffs protect American industries and jobs.
  • Is it legal for the President to impose tariffs? The legality is being challenged in the Supreme Court, centering on the President’s authority versus Congressional power.
  • What could happen if the Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs? It could lead to global economic disruption and questions about reimbursement of collected duties.
  • What is IEEPA? The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, invoked by the Trump administration to justify the tariffs.

What impact do you anticipate the supreme Court’s decision will have on global trade? Do you believe tariffs are an effective tool for economic policy?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and join the conversation.

how might Trump’s personal investment in his tariff strategy influence his future trade policy decisions,even if economic conditions change?

Trump’s Former Trade Architect Warns Against Backtracking on Tariffs: President Too Committed for retreat

The Stalwart Stance on Trade Protectionism

Recent commentary from Michael Pillsbury,a key architect of Donald Trump’s trade policy during his first term,suggests a complete reversal of the former president’s tariff strategy is highly improbable,even if he returns to office. Pillsbury, known for his hawkish stance on China trade, argues that Trump is now too ideologically invested in the perceived successes of his trade wars to significantly alter course. This assessment carries weight, given Pillsbury’s intimate understanding of Trump’s thinking adn negotiating style. The implications for US trade policy, global supply chains, and international relations are considerable.

Why a Tariff Reversal is Unlikely

Pillsbury’s analysis centers on several key factors:

* Trump’s Personal Investment: The former president views the tariffs, especially those imposed on China, as a signature achievement. Dismantling them would be perceived as admitting failure, something Trump historically avoids.

* Political Base Support: A significant portion of trump’s voter base,particularly in the Rust Belt states,actively supported the tariffs,believing they would bring back manufacturing jobs. Abandoning this policy could alienate core supporters.

* Evolving Rhetoric: Trump’s rhetoric surrounding China has become increasingly confrontational over time. He now frames the trade dispute not merely as an economic issue,but as a matter of national security and strategic competition.

* Internal Advisors: Pillsbury points to the continued influence of advisors who advocate for a hard line on China, reinforcing Trump’s existing beliefs.

This isn’t simply about economics; it’s deeply rooted in Trump’s political identity and perceived legacy. The concept of protectionist policies has become intrinsically linked to his brand.

The Impact of Existing Tariffs: A Retrospective

The initial implementation of tariffs under the Trump administration, beginning in 2018, targeted a wide range of Chinese goods, including steel, aluminum, and consumer products. The stated goals were to reduce the US trade deficit, protect american jobs, and compel China to address unfair trade practices like intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer.

Here’s a breakdown of the key impacts:

  1. Increased Costs for Businesses & Consumers: Tariffs acted as a tax on imports, leading to higher prices for businesses and ultimately, consumers.
  2. Supply Chain Disruptions: Companies reliant on Chinese imports were forced to find choice suppliers, frequently enough at a higher cost or with longer lead times. This contributed to supply chain vulnerabilities exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  3. Limited Job Growth: While some manufacturing jobs did return to the US, the overall impact on employment was modest and offset by job losses in other sectors.
  4. Retaliatory Tariffs: China responded with its own tariffs on US exports, harming American farmers and businesses. The US-China trade relationship became significantly strained.

Potential Scenarios & Future Trade Policy

While a complete reversal is deemed unlikely, some adjustments to the existing tariff structure are possible.Here are a few potential scenarios:

* Targeted Reductions: Trump might selectively reduce tariffs on specific goods where the economic impact is particularly severe or where negotiations with China yield concessions.

* New Tariffs on Other Countries: Rather of removing tariffs on China, Trump could impose new tariffs on other countries deemed to be engaging in unfair trade practices. this aligns with his broader “America First” trade philosophy.

* Continued Use of Tariffs as Leverage: Trump could continue to use the threat of tariffs as a negotiating tactic to pressure other countries to make concessions on trade deals.

* Section 301 investigations: Further investigations under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 could lead to the imposition of new tariffs based on alleged unfair trade practices.

The future of international trade hinges on these decisions. Experts predict continued volatility and uncertainty in the global economy if the US maintains its current protectionist stance.

The Role of LSI Keywords & Related terms

To ensure comprehensive coverage and SEO optimization, the following LSI keywords have been integrated throughout the article:

* Trade negotiations

* Economic sanctions

* Supply chain resilience

* US manufacturing

* China trade balance

* Trade deficit reduction

* Protectionism vs. Free Trade

* WTO disputes

* Geopolitical risk

* Inflationary pressures (linked to tariff costs)

Case Study: The Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

The imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018 provides a clear case study of the complexities of Trump’s trade policy. While intended to boost domestic steel and aluminum production, the tariffs also increased costs for downstream industries like automotive and construction.American companies reliant on these materials faced higher input costs, impacting their competitiveness

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
@2025 - All Right Reserved.

Hosted by ByoHosting - Most Recommendeed Webhhosting. For complains, abuse, advertising contact:
[email protected]

Adblock Detected

Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website.