The Times Australia
Fisher and Paykel Appliances
The Times World News

.

Early modelling shows most economies lose – the US more than many

  • Written by Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

The global rollercoaster ride of United States trade tariffs has now entered its latest phase.

President Donald Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10% baseline tariff on most goods.

On July 31, however, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy[1]. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7.

To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs, we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics.

For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50%) and Switzerland (39%), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10%).

For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April.

In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement[2] are subject to tariffs of 35% and 25% respectively.

Economic impacts

The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption.

A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs[3] and the outcome of a US-China trade war[4].

GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump’s second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis.

An economic own goal

The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36%. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars).

The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors.

The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices.

Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy.

The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion.

Global impacts

For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland’s GDP decreases by 0.47%, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44%) and Taiwan (0.38%).

In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion).

Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries.

Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand’s GDP decreases by 0.15% ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff.

Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on April 2, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system.

Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on April 9, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10% to 15% now appear to be the new norm.

As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead.

References

  1. ^ reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy (abcnews.go.com)
  2. ^ US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (ustr.gov)
  3. ^ original reciprocal tariffs (theconversation.com)
  4. ^ US-China trade war (theconversation.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/new-trump-tariffs-early-modelling-shows-most-economies-lose-the-us-more-than-many-262491

Active Wear

Times Magazine

World Kindness Day: Commentary from Kath Koschel, founder of Kindness Factory.

What does World Kindness Day mean to you as an individual, and to the Kindness Factory as an organ...

In 2024, the climate crisis worsened in all ways. But we can still limit warming with bold action

Climate change has been on the world’s radar for decades[1]. Predictions made by scientists at...

End-of-Life Planning: Why Talking About Death With Family Makes Funeral Planning Easier

I spend a lot of time talking about death. Not in a morbid, gloomy way—but in the same way we d...

YepAI Joins Victoria's AI Trade Mission to Singapore for Big Data & AI World Asia 2025

YepAI, a Melbourne-based leader in enterprise artificial intelligence solutions, announced today...

Building a Strong Online Presence with Katoomba Web Design

Katoomba web design is more than just creating a website that looks good—it’s about building an onli...

September Sunset Polo

International Polo Tour To Bridge Historic Sport, Life-Changing Philanthropy, and Breath-Taking Beau...

The Times Features

How early is too early’ for Hot Cross Buns to hit supermarket and bakery shelves

Every year, Australians find themselves in the middle of the nation’s most delicious dilemmas - ...

Ovarian cancer community rallied Parliament

The fight against ovarian cancer took centre stage at Parliament House in Canberra last week as th...

After 2 years of devastating war, will Arab countries now turn their backs on Israel?

The Middle East has long been riddled by instability. This makes getting a sense of the broader...

RBA keeps interest rates on hold, leaving borrowers looking further ahead for relief

As expected, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has kept the cash rate steady at 3.6%[1]. Its b...

Crystalbrook Collection Introduces ‘No Rings Attached’: Australia’s First Un-Honeymoon for Couples

Why should newlyweds have all the fun? As Australia’s crude marriage rate falls to a 20-year low, ...

Echoes of the Past: Sue Carter Brings Ancient Worlds to Life at Birli Gallery

Launching November 15 at 6pm at Birli Gallery, Midland, Echoes of the Past marks the highly anti...

Why careless adoption of AI backfires so easily

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming commonplace, despite statistics showing[1] th...

How airline fares are set and should we expect lower fares any time soon?

Airline ticket prices may seem mysterious (why is the same flight one price one day, quite anoth...

What is the American public’s verdict on the first year of Donald Trump’s second term as President?

In short: the verdict is decidedly mixed, leaning negative. Trump’s overall job-approval ra...