Trump tariffs affect future US business
President Donald Trump made headlines with the announcement of extensive tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, causing yet another wave of backlash against his policies from both people at home and abroad.
Unlike several of the domestic issues that have recently turned the spotlight onto the president, the conflict surrounding Trump’s tax folly will have lasting ramifications on U.S. relationships with international trade partners, as well as on the country’s presence and perception by foreign nations on the broader stage of international relations as a whole.
During a time when this nation’s status in the eyes of its global neighbors is already at a low point, an action as foolish as this tax should have been the last thing on Trump’s to-do list.
The idea of even levying an import fee on steel and aluminum in the first place is absolutely ludicrous. The main importers of these metals to the United States are the country’s trading partners.
To put it humorously, imposing these harsh tariffs on countries that the United States has long-standing trade agreements with is comparable with asking one’s friend to pay for gas after offering to pick them up and give him a ride to where he needs to go. It is not only discourteous, but more so, it is bad for future relations.
Imposing these harsh tariffs, it puts the international trade community in a position of unease and agitation.
Nations try to predict what Trump will do or say regarding trade, and then attempt to mitigate the impacts of his decisions. The effects of Trump’s actions on national security will be insurmountable.
Countries directly affected by the tariffs would obviously and understandably be less than willing to assist U.S. intelligence initiatives as they pertain to objectives within those countries.
Though this is a stretch, the repercussions could go as far as putting the lives of U.S. intelligence officers in the field overseas at risk. After all, no nation would be willing to play fairly with the United States if the United States itself seems unwilling to play fair.
It is as if Trump does not understand or chooses to remain ignorant of the simple macroeconomic concept of comparative advantage.
The United States will not be seen as a viable and reliable trade partner if its commander in chief keeps making such brash, unpopular decisions.
Beyond the impact on international relations, Trump’s tariffs will also have a drastic and arguably more worrisome impact on a group of people whose actions and decisions directly impact the U.S. economy: American consumers.
Manufacturers of products in which steel and aluminum serve as intermediary goods, such as cars and factory equipment, have stated with confidence that the type of sweeping tariffs Trump plans to impose, will directly lead to an increase in prices across a broad spectrum of consumer goods.
Trump may be imposing these taxes to further his own trivial objectives in attempting to force payment of reparations he feels that the United States deserves from its global trade partners.
But the people who will be forced to bear the burden of his actions will be the American people who had no say in the enactment of these tariffs.
Consumers and workers alike will face the detrimental aftermath of these duties at a significant cost. These tariffs may not even achieve the end goal that Trump desired. The results of the tariffs may just be laterally vented into a spiked import of goods that use steel, thus rendering the suffering of U.S. workers and consumers into the ground.
Certain important theories of macroeconomics and the real world impact the global economy, but are being ignored by Trump, which in turn negatively affects the American people.
For a president who boasts of his Wharton pedigree far more than the spectrum of tastefulness allows, Trump sure does seem to be lacking in his understanding of these basic concepts.
It is frustrating to think that this man is to be trusted to lead this country and maintain its relationships with its most important international partners when the decisions he makes are fundamentally antithetical to doctrines that even an undergraduate student could proactively defend.