Recommended Weekend Reads
Special Focus on the Trump Trade Wars and Their Possible Impacts on Global and US Markets, And A Look At India’s Role in Europe and the World
April 11 - 13, 2025
This week, we take a special look this week at trade policy and the potential implications of President Trump’s recently announced (and subsequently suspended for 90 days) tariff regime. We also found some fascinating reports on India and how it could prove to be a help to a rapidly aging Europe while it faces new opportunities and risks in its reponse to the global turbulance eminating from the global trade battles.
We hope you find these useful and that you have a relaxing weekend. And let us know if you or someone you know wants to be added to our distribution list.
Trump’s Trade Wars: A Menu of Views and Possible Impacts
The Evolution of Global Trade in 2024 Brad Setser/Council on Foreign Relations
The U.S. trade data for 2024 makes clear that the U.S. trade deficit was expanding even before the threat of tariffs led to significant front-running. Strong import growth in the U.S. is the continuation of a trend that started in 2024, and with the dollar’s current strength, U.S. exports are not keeping pace.
There’s a Method to Trump’s Tariff Madness Jennifer Burns of the Hoover Institute/New York Times Guest Essay
President Trump’s imposition of high tariffs on friend and foe alike has stunned the world and stumped economists. There is no economic rationale, experts say, for believing these tariffs will usher in a new era of American prosperity. But there is order amid the chaos, or at least a strategy behind it. Mr. Trump’s tariffs aren’t really about tariffs. They are the gambit in a more ambitious plan to smash the world’s economic and geopolitical order and replace it with something intended to better serve American interests.
Nontariff Trade Barriers in the U.S. and EU Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
International trade is shaped not only by tariffs but also by a range of regulatory measures that affect market access. These nontariff measures (NTMs)—such as technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, and licensing rules—are often introduced to achieve public policy objectives like protecting health, safety and the environment. But NTMs can also serve as trade policy tools, with some designed specifically to limit imports and support domestic industries. Since NTMs operate within complex legal and administrative frameworks, it is often difficult to distinguish between those primarily intended to regulate markets and those introduced deliberately to limit trade. While much of the focus of trade tensions usually revolves around tariffs, nontariff trade barriers can significantly limit the extent of international trade across countries.
The Impact of Tariffs on the US Economy Torsten Slok/Apollo Capital Management
In one excellent chart, Apollo’s Chief Economist Torsten Slok shows his estimates of the impact on US GDP and inflation of tariffs and the decline in consumer sentiment and corporate sentiment. Slok points out Whether we will have a recession or not depends on the duration of this shock. If these levels of tariffs stay in place for several months and other countries retaliate, it will cause a recession in the US and the rest of the world.
The Economic Effects of President Trump’s Tariffs Penn Wharton Budget Model
According to the newly released Penn Wharton Budget Model report looking at President Trump’s proposed tariffs, many trade models fail to capture the full harm of tariffs. They project Trump’s tariffs (April 8, 2025) would reduce GDP by about 8% and wages by 7%. A middle-income household faces a $58K lifetime loss. These losses are twice as large as a revenue-equivalent corporate tax increase from 21% to 36%, an otherwise highly distorting tax.
The Fiscal, Economic, and Distributional Effects of All U.S. Tariffs Enacted in 2025 Through April 2 Yale Budget Lab
The Budget Lab modeled the effect of both the April 2nd tariff announcement in isolation and all US tariffs implemented in 2025. The price level from all 2025 tariffs rises by 2.3% in the short-run, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $3,800 in 2024$. Annual losses for households at the bottom of the income distribution are $1,700.US real GDP growth is -0.5pp lower in 2025 from the April 2nd announcement and -0.9pp lower from all 2025 tariffs. The price level from all 2025 tariffs rises by 2.3% in the short-run. All 2025 tariffs together disproportionately affect clothing and textiles, with apparel prices rising 17% under all tariffs.
President Trump’s Tariff Formula Makes No Economic Sense. It’s Also Based on an Error Kevin Corinth & Stan Veuger/AEIdeas
President Trump on Wednesday announced tariffs on practically every foreign country (and some non-countries), ranging from a 10 percent minimum all the way up to 50 percent. President Trump described the tariffs as reciprocal, equal to half of the rate of tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers imposed by other countries. However, they are nothing of the sort. The tariff the United States is placing on other countries is equal to the US trade deficit divided by US imports from a given country, divided by two, or 10 percent, whichever rate is higher. So even if the United States has no trade deficit (or a trade surplus) with a country, they still receive a minimum tariff of 10 percent. The formula for the tariffs, originally credited to the Council of Economic Advisers and published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, does not make economic sense. The trade deficit with a given country is not determined only by tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, but also by international capital flows, supply chains, comparative advantage, geography, etc.
The U.S. Trade Deficit: Myths and Realities Brookings papers on Economic Activity
Different policy directions could, in principle, deliver palpable effects on the trade balance and on manufacturing. One is to tax capital inflows, as suggested by Pettis. A capital inflow tax would weaken the dollar, taxing imports and subsidizing exports, and it would raise the domestic interest rate above foreign rates, encouraging saving while reducing investment. Along with concomitant effects on the liquidity of U.S. financial markets, the macro effects on saving and investment could be harmful to long-term growth, as well as contractionary in the short run. [Another] route would be a Fed cut in interest rates. Unless the U.S. economy moves into recession, a substantial interest rate cut now would be inflationary, not only undesirable in itself. It would also erode the extent to which the dollar’s nominal depreciation was a real depreciation. And without real depreciation, there would be no durable boost in the trade balance or manufacturing employment. A final option that would weaken the dollar, spur employment in tradable industries, and reduce the trade deficit is fiscal restraint. This would have the collateral benefit of mitigating the biggest risk on the U.S. external balance sheet.
A Balance of Payments Primer, Part I: And why you shouldn’t panic over trade deficits and A Balance of Payments Primer, Part II: The Dollar and All That Paul Krugman’s Substack
Is the trade deficit a problem? In the first of two posts, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman points out that some economists argue that it is, that U.S. trade is distorted by the dollar’s role as the world’s principal reserve currency, which creates an artificial demand for US assets. As he wrote the other day, there’s no reason to believe that these arguments are actually affecting U.S. policy. To the extent that those promoting these views play a role in the Trump administration, it’s as beards — people who provide sophisticated-sounding intellectual cover for what Trump was going to do anyway. He believe that these arguments are mostly wrong. In his second post, Krugman argues the international monetary system inspires a lot of mysticism, because it sounds both mysterious and important. As a result, he says, it’s easy to get hung up about the dollar’s role in the world economy. Elon Musk has issued dire warnings that the dollar may lose its reserve status, causing runaway inflation. And now there’s talk of a “Mar-a-Lago Accord”, based on the belief that US trade deficits reflect the special international role of the dollar, and that we can magically revive US manufacturing through financial engineering.
Are individual investors becoming more sensative to market Stress? Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Are individual investors becoming more likely to cash out during periods of stress? A new note from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston finds that “retail,” or individual, everyday investors, in prime money market funds reacted with greater “sensitivity” following the COVID-19 financial crisis, compared to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. That means they were more likely to “run” on a fund – or quickly liquidate their investment for cash – in 2020 than in 2008. “Retail investors in prime money market funds may be getting increasingly more reactive, and that’s something we need to consider when we think about potential financial stability vulnerabilities,” said coauthor Kenechukwu Anadu, a vice president in the Boston Fed’s Supervision, Regulation & Credit department.
Trump’s Soveriegn Wealth Fund Brings High Stakes and Serious Risks Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
SWFs have been around for more than a century, but they have grown dramatically in recent decades, from about $500 billion in assets in the 1990s to about $13.7 trillion overall today. SWFs have traditionally been set up by states rich in natural resources to manage their budgetary surplus, diversify their economies, and protect their wealth for future generations. The poster child is Norway’s $1.8 trillion SWF, established in 1990. It is the world’s largest SWF and now owns about 1.5 percent of all listed stocks worldwide. (Not all SWFs are funded with profits from natural resource exports; Singapore’s Temasek, South Korea’s Korea Investment Corporation, and the Türkiye Sovereign Fund were initiated from central bank reserves or given assets from state owned enterprises.). Trump’s move to create a SWF isn’t wholly out of precedent for the United States—at least twenty-three states run their own funds, totaling $332 billion in assets (according to the White House). Former president Joe Biden’s team, in fact, discussed establishing a national-level fund during his last year in office. Yet considering Trump’s aggressive dismantling of government oversight bodies, alongside well-established accusations that he has engaged in financial misdealing’s and corruption, his plan to build an American SWF carries substantial risks.
India’s Role in the Increasingly Turbulent World of Trade
India Sees Opportunity in Trump’s Global Turbulence That Could Backfire Emissary
Trump’s return has altered the traditional direction of U.S. grand strategy in dramatic ways. His administration’s striking contempt for the liberal order is now clear, but it is also accompanied by atavistic attempts at territorial expansionism, the imposition of “reciprocal” tariffs on U.S. trading partners, and confrontations with many U.S. allies worldwide. In this environment, India has, first and foremost, sought to protect its past bilateral gains by seeking to mollify Trump through conciliatory public diplomacy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his senior aides rushed to Washington to meet the president in a highly choreographed display of bonhomie, attempting to reassure him that unlike many of his other national targets, India is neither a free-loading ally nor a foe and would be a valuable partner in his “Make America Great Again” efforts.
India could help save an aging Europe Politico EU
As the continent tilts to the right and its politicians find it hard to explain an influx of refugees from war-torn countries, India is actively trying to present itself as a reasonable partner. That is why India is working out decades-long differences to finalize a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU – something they have been working at since 2007.
