Tag: trump tariffs
Why Trump Is Driving Our Allies Closer And Closer To China

Why Trump Is Driving Our Allies Closer And Closer To China

In World War II, the United States allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. No one had any illusions about Stalin being a great supporter of democracy. The reason for the alliance is that the Soviet Union had one of the most powerful militaries on the planet and the United States desperately needed its help to defeat Hitler and the other Axis powers.

The European Union, Canada, and every other country interested in preserving democracy in the age of Trump needs to think in the same way about allying with China. No one would mistake China for a being beacon of democracy, but it does have the largest economy in the world, and its manufacturing capacity, especially in the areas of clean energy and electric vehicles, can be a huge benefit to the rest of the world as it tries to break free of its reliance on the United States.

At this point, it should be apparent to anyone other than the rear-end kissers in Trump’s cabinet that being in any way dependent on Donald Trump is a route to disaster. Trump could not care less about even the mid-term future (he’s 79-years-old and in bad health), much less the longer-term future for the United States and the world. He wants to shake everyone down as much as he can for as long as he can.

That was the story of his “Liberation Day” tariffs. There was no coherence to the various tariff rates imposed on U.S. imports from different countries. He came up with a formula that made zero sense and used this as a starting point. Countries that were nice to him saw some reductions. Countries that Trump felt were being mean, like Brazil, India, and China, saw higher rates.

But the big problem with Trump was not the initial tariffs, it’s that he always wants more. He doesn’t like the tax on digital commerce that the EU has, so he is threatening more tariffs. He doesn’t like their value-added taxes, again more tariffs. And he wants them to join his crusade to wreck the planet by burning more fossil fuels and is threatening more tariffs for countries that won’t go along.

As long as the EU, Canada, and anyone else is prepared to give in to Trump’s demands, he will keep asking for more. In this context, the only strategy that makes any sense is for the rest of the world to integrate as quickly as possible, with the goal of reducing its dependence on the United States as much as possible.

Closer ties with China should feature front and center in this picture. China has cutting edge technology in many areas. The EU and other countries should look to take advantage of this technology, both in getting high quality and low-cost imports, and also by arranging for technology transfers.

The latter is something that would have to be negotiated, but China already has many arrangements with trading partners where it agrees to establish factories there in exchange for access to their markets. Surely the EU, Canada, and other major countries could negotiate the same sorts of deals that Thailand has formally with EVs, and countries like Mexico and Indonesia have informally.

This could lead to a situation where EU consumers could get access to a limited number of high quality Chinese EVs for around $10,000 a piece, while they develop their own production facilities to quickly supply their own markets with EVs. It should be possible to ramp up quickly so that EVs rapidly replace conventional internal combustion cars. EVs already account for more than half of new car sales in China. There is no reason the EU, Canada, and rest of the world, outside of the U.S., can’t do the same in a relatively short period of time.

There is a similar story with wind and solar energy. China’s installations of wind and solar are roughly equal to the rest of the world combined, and growing rapidly. And the cost of electricity generated through these sources is half the cost of energy from coal or gas. The EU, Canada, and the rest can look to quickly build up both their power generation from these sources, as well as their domestic production of wind turbines and solar panels through technology transfers.

Cheap EVs and low-cost electricity should go far towards sustaining living standards through a transition away from dependence on U.S. trade. There will undoubtedly be many issues to iron out in working through trade deals, but at this point it should be clear that closer economic ties to China are preferable to being dependent on the whims of the five-year-old in the White House.

Dean Baker is an economist, author, and co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. His writing has appeared in many major publications, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

'Trump Slump': Tariffs And Imperial Attitude Are Killing Tourism Industry

'Trump Slump': Tariffs And Imperial Attitude Are Killing Tourism Industry

President Donald Trump is so disastrously incompetent he once managed to bankrupt a casino in Atlantic City. Now, from the Oval Office, he’s trying to do it again—in Las Vegas.

In June 2025, Las Vegas welcomed 400,000 fewer visitors than in June 2024—a more than 11 percent nosedive. International arrivals plunged, as did hotel occupancy.

This didn’t happen by accident. Trump has spent months antagonizing America’s northern neighbor—and a key Vegas tourism source. He suggested Canada should become the 51st U.S. state and called its prime minister at the time “Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada.” He later claimed he wasn’t “trolling,” doubling down that statehood would make Trump’s tariffs “totally disappear.”

Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney fired back, saying his country “is not for sale” and dismissing Trump’s fantasy as laughable and offensive. Even Trump’s own ambassador to Canada warned the rhetoric was unprecedentedly toxic for relations. And in tourism, words have consequences. Canada is America’s No. 1 source of foreign visitors. Insult them enough, and they stop coming.

Trump’s near-blanket tariffs on Canadian goods turned the insults into policy, triggering a full-blown trade war. The result: Car crossings were down 37 percent year-over-year in July, and air arrivals dropped 26 percent. Duty-free sales along the border have been cut nearly in half, wiping out millions in spending. Indeed, each one percent drop in international travel costs the U.S. $1.8 billion in export revenue per year—money that fuels jobs and generates tax revenues. July 2025 marked the seventh straight month of plunging traffic, with surveys showing Canadians now feel distinctly unwelcome.

And when the biggest slice of your foreign tourism market dries up, the ripple is felt everywhere. In July, arrivals from Germany were down 14.7 percent compared with last July. Arrivals from China dropped by 13.8 percent and from Switzerland by 12.7 percent. Tour operators abroad now steer customers toward anywhere but Trump’s America. Tourism revenue is projected to fall from $181 billion in 2024 to $169 billion in 2025, a $12.5 billion-hit to the economy.

And that might just be the tip of the iceberg. A Reuters analysis of the underlying data suggests the tourism slump could cost up to $71 billion in the United States’ gross domestic product.

In Las Vegas, the damage is personal. Empty casinos mean shorter shifts, slashed hours, and layoffs. Ted Pappageorge, secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Union, calls the city’s waning tourism the “Trump slump.”

“If you tell the whole world that they’re not welcome, they’re not going to come,” he told Time magazine. “The lifeblood for Las Vegas is Southern California. What folks are telling our members is that the raids and crazy tariffs and this uncertainty, [are causing] people to pull back.”

In a late July post on Truth Social, Trump called the U.S. “the ‘hottest’ and most respected Country anywhere in the World.”

The numbers tell a different story. From struggling casinos to struggling cities, his legacy is the same: reckless mismanagement, xenophobia, and empty chairs where excitement used to sit. The lights on the Vegas Strip still flicker, but thanks to Trump, the seats are getting empty.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Trump Tariffs

Trump's Tariffs Are Actually A Tax That Democrats Can Cut

As usual, the New York Times gets things exactly wrong in a piece headlined “Trump’s Tariffs are Making Money. That May Make Them Hard to Quit.” The gist of the article is that the tariffs are on a path to raise close to $400 billion a year, and possibly considerably more, depending on where Trump ends up with his trade “deals.”

While this is in fact a very substantial sum, it makes for an obvious campaign issue for Democrats in 2026 and 2028. They can promise a huge tax cut to ordinary workers.

At $400 billion, the tariffs come to an average of more than $3,000 per household annually. The Democrats can promise a large tax cut to working and middle-class families by rolling back the tariffs. They can offset much of the revenue loss by reversing Trump’s tax cuts to the rich. Tax cuts for ordinary people, paid for by higher taxes on the rich, is likely to be a very appealing campaign platform.

The Democrats will also have an advantage in going this route as a result of the fact that Trump will already have the tariffs in effect. Many Democrats, especially union members, have supported tariffs with the idea that they will bring back good-paying manufacturing jobs.

It is almost inconceivable that Trump’s tariffs will bring back any substantial number of manufacturing jobs, and the ones that do come back are not likely to be especially good paying. Historically, manufacturing jobs were high paying because the sector was heavily unionized. This is no longer the case, the manufacturing sector is only slightly more heavily unionized than the rest of the private sector; 8.0 percent in manufacturing compared to 6.0 percent in the rest of the private sector. As a result manufacturing jobs are not likely to pay more than jobs in other sectors.

With the tariffs in effect, workers will be able to see that this is not an effective route for creating good-paying jobs. Therefore, there should be less resistance to rolling them back.

It is also worth reminding folks, especially people who write major articles on economic issues at the New York Times, how tariffs work. They get revenue for the government by raising the prices of things we buy. That means reducing tariffs will lower prices.

The political experts who wrote about the last election all told us that the main reason the Democrats lost was that people hated inflation. This meant that even though most people actually had increases in wages that outpaced prices, they were still angry at Biden and the Democrats because things they bought cost most.

If inflation is very bad news politically, then presumably Donald Trump and the Republicans will be paying a big price for the inflation that is coming about as a result of their tariffs. That would seem to provide a great political opening for the Democrats. Just as Trump scored political points with his promise to bring prices down on day one, the Democrats should be able to score political points by promising to lower prices, but this time with a real plan: cutting tariffs.

It’s true that reducing or eliminating the Trump tariffs may raise the deficit if the tariff reduction is not fully offset by the increased taxes on the rich, but no one seems to vote based on deficits. At least that has been the track record for the last half century. Republicans were not punished for big increases in the deficit under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and Democrats were not rewarded for substantial amounts of deficit reduction under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The pundit class may get upset, but why should anyone care?

In short, the political warnings in this article are 180 degrees at odds with reality. The Trump tariffs should create a huge political opening for Democrats in future elections.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Fake Deal: How The European Union Made A (Fossil) Fool Of Trump

Fake Deal: How The European Union Made A (Fossil) Fool Of Trump

Like many U.S. institutions, the European Union has abysmally failed the Trump test. The EU is an economic superpower and could have retaliated effectively against Trump’s illegal tariffs — illegal under both U.S. and international law. Instead, Europe did nothing and even made some apparent concessions.

But notice my wording: apparent concessions. The optics of the Trump-EU deal were humiliating, and optics matter. If you examine the substance, however, it starts to look as if Europe played Trump for a fool. Specifically, a fossil fool.

The EU made two sort-of pledges to Trump. First, that it would invest $600 billion in the United States. Second, that it would buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy, mainly oil and gas, over the next three years. The first promise was empty, while the second was nonsense.

About those investments: European governments aren’t like China, which can tell companies where to put their money. And the European Commission, which made the trade deal, isn’t even a government — it can negotiate tariffs but otherwise has little power. On Sunday Politico spoke with Commission officials, who effectively confirmed that the investment pledge was meaningless:

[S]peaking Monday, two senior European Commission officials clarified that money would come exclusively from private European companies, with public investment contributing nothing.
“It is not something that the EU as a public authority can guarantee. It is something which is based on the intentions of the private companies,” said one of the senior Commission officials. The Commission has not said it will introduce any incentives to ensure the private sector meets that $600 billion target, nor given a precise timeframe for the investment.

So what the EU actually promised on investment was nothing, Nichts, rien.

The pledge to increase U.S. energy exports was a lot more specific and gave a timeframe. But it’s not going to happen. In fact, it’s going to not happen on three levels.

First, the European Commission, which can’t tell the private sector where to invest, is equally unable to tell the private sector where to buy oil and gas. How would that even work?

Second, the promised level of EU imports is probably physically impossible. Shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG), in particular, requires specialized infrastructure at both ends. On the US side, LNG terminals are already operating at capacity, while Europe’s LNG facilities are “stretched to their limits.” The EU just promised to vastly increase energy imports from America over the next three years, but it’s doubtful whether Europe could build any of the infrastructure needed before the end of that period, even with a crash investment program.

And why would anyone undertake such an investment program in a continent that is rapidly shifting toward renewable energy? As one energy analyst told the Financial Times:

European gas demand is soft and energy prices are falling. In any case, it is private companies not states that contract for energy imports. Like it or not, in Europe the windmills are winning.

Emphasis added because as everyone knows, Trump has a blind, irrational hatred for wind power.

Finally, even if Europe somehow managed to overcome the legal and physical obstacles to buying a lot more fossil fuels from America, both oil and LNG are fungible commodities traded on global markets. This means that any increase in purchases from Europe would reroute U.S. exports rather than increasing them: We’d sell more to Europe but less to, say, Japan and China.

So a big increase in U.S. energy exports driven by demand from Europe is not going to happen. But how will Europe explain its failure to follow through?

It might not have to. Back during Trump’s first term, China promised to buy a lot of U.S. agricultural goods but never did. As far as I know, Trump never made an issue of it. He got to announce a big deal, then lost interest.

And if the issue does come up, if there’s one thing officials at the European Commission are really good at — maybe better than anyone else on earth — it’s bureaucratic delay and obfuscation. Maybe at some point big, strong European men with tears in their eyes will meet with Trump and say, “Sir, we have a temporary hangup over clause #14159 of the 1986 Single European Act. But we’ll get it cleared up any day now.”

Bottom line: Whatever Trump may think, Europe is not going to provide a big boost to U.S. fossil fuel production. He won’t like that, if anyone tells him. But the rest of us should be glad. As I’ve written before, renewables are clearly the energy technology of the future. Trump and his allies are Luddites, trying to stand in the way of progress and keep us burning fossil fuels. Their “burn, baby, burn” obsession is very bad for America and the world. But at least we can be reasonably sure that Europe won’t help, um, fuel that obsession.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World