What US economic madness means for the rest of the world
are a major own goal for the
US
– and also bad for the rest of the world.
Tearing up previous agreements on trade casts doubt on whether any new agreement with the US administration will stick. The
EU
will still try to reach a settlement with
Donald Trump
by the end of the month, but there is no certainty that reason will prevail. If there is no agreement, we will face a very disruptive and damaging period of trade wars. Even if there is a deal, it will represent a significantly worse outcome for the EU and the US economies than the status quo.
Naturally, all our attention is focused on the trade issue, as it will have an immediate impact on both sides of the Atlantic. However, the US budget, passed by the US Congress earlier this month, referred to as the 'One Big Beautiful Act', has even more serious long-term implications for the US economy.
First, the US budget provides for a huge tax give-away for the better-off. Second, it plans to cut healthcare for many millions of Americans in 2027, just after the next congressional elections. Third, the combined effect of the changes in tax and expenditure mean the US government deficit will remain at about 6 per cent of GDP for the next decade, even under optimistic growth assumptions.
READ MORE
The independent Congressional Budget Office forecast that the US debt, currently at 120 per cent of GDP, will as a result rise to rise to about 140 per cent over the coming decade. In the OECD area, only Italy, Greece and Japan are currently experiencing this level of indebtedness.
David McWilliams on how 'big incentives' to build could save Dublin city
Listen |
36:51
The White House, akin to the short-lived regime of
Liz Truss
in the UK, proclaims a different reality, asserting that economic growth will solve the budgetary problems, keeping the debt in check. All serious economists in the US indicate that this is a fairy tale.
We have learned the hard way that if debt reaches current US levels, stopping a slide into insolvency is very painful. There is no prospect of the US getting out of the debt mess by defaulting – they can just print dollars. Trying to square the circle of continuing to borrow big, while paying rising interest bills, can only be achieved in one of two ways – through inflation, or by what is termed financial repression. While the latter is less likely, it would involve the US government forcing the rest of the US economy to lend to it. However, if the US government hoovered up all national savings, this would severely impact on investment and growth, as has happened in Japan.
[
Will Donald Trump fire Jerome Powell? 'I don't rule out anything. But it's unlikely. Unless …'
Opens in new window
]
The US budgetary problems matter for the rest of the world because most countries, including China, hold much of their financial reserves in the form of US government debt.
In the early 1970s under
Richard Nixon
, when US borrowing was out of control, inflation was allowed to dramatically increase, peaking at 11 per cent in 1974. This very rapidly eroded the value of the US debt, which also represented much of the financial reserves held by the rest of the world. In response to reproaches from US creditors, the then US treasury secretary John Connally
responded with Trump-like arrogance: 'Our money, your problem'. This pattern was repeated under
Ronald Reagan
, and it is highly likely that under Trump a burst of inflation will again be needed to erode the US government debt, much of which represents foreigners' reserves.
Already, worry about this has led to a fall of 10 per cent in the value of the dollar compared to the euro since Trump took office. For our exports to the US, the 10 per cent increase in their cost in dollars comes as a double whammy on top of the 10 per cent tariff rate already imposed.
[
'It's Maga, baby': Trump's 50% tariff threat on Brazil marks unprecedented interference in foreign courts
Opens in new window
]
Other countries won't be as ready to lend to the US when the value of their bond holdings are being eroded. To date, the interest rate paid by the US government for long-term borrowing has not risen significantly, but it is likely to do so over coming years, given the growing risk that the inflation solution will be adopted.
With rapidly rising debt, there's increasing temptation for the US to allow inflation by persuading the US central bank,
the 'Fed'
, to reduce short-term interest rates, rather than choking off inflation through higher interest rates. To date, Trump's threats to force the Fed to reduce interest rates have fallen on deaf ears.
Trump may continue to try to strong-arm current Fed chairman
Jerome Powell
, but will doubtless replace him at the end of his term next year with a less independent, more pliant, nominee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
3 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Natural resource endowments more a curse than blessing for developing nations
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare earth metals (for semiconductors), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. However, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the US risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them. As it stands, China is leading the pack — having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80% of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities. For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China. Since then, US president Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. He has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The EU, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) — touted as the 'Saudi Arabia of critical minerals.' From the Scramble for Africa in the 19th century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the 20th century, such resource grabs are hardly new They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: Less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies and, nowadays, China. In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: Industrialised economies get the resources they desire and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. However, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts. A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might — all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources such as copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the 19th century. Fair compensation This — together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies — meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted. However, even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts. Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbors such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo, and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US in exchange for security guarantees. The resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment, and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15% stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting — not just mining — occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities. Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign states to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries they deal with. Ultimately, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with strengthening institutions. Rabah Arezki, a former vice president at the African Development Bank, is director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research and a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School. Rick van der Ploeg is a professor of economics at the University of Oxford and professor of environmental economics at the University of Amsterdam. Project Syndicate, 2025 Read More Government must stand firm on Israel's illegal occupation and genocide in Gaza Strip
Irish Examiner
3 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
A global treaty to limit plastic pollution is within reach — will countries seize the moment?
Representatives from 175 countries will gather in Geneva, Switzerland, in August for the final round of negotiations on a legally binding UN treaty to end plastic pollution. Non-governmental organisations, academics and industry lobbyists will also be in the room. They will all be hoping to influence what could be the world's first truly global agreement on plastics. The summit, known as 'INC-5.2', follows a failed attempt to reach agreement in Busan, South Korea, late last year. That meeting ended without resolving important issues, despite hopes that it would conclude the treaty process. Now, it's crunch time in Geneva. Either countries bridge their political divides, or risk the whole process falling apart. I've been researching the effects of plastic for more than a decade and have been involved in the UN treaty process since 2022. I've attended several of the negotiations and will be in Geneva next month. The science is clear: we need ambitious action which tackles every stage of the plastics lifecycle, from production through to disposal. But the question is, will countries deliver? CLIMATE & SUSTAINABILITY HUB In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly agreed to develop a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Since then, progress has been slow. Negotiations have repeatedly stalled over issues such as whether the treaty should limit plastic production or regulate chemicals, how to define terms, and how to fund implementation. While scientists are only beginning to understand the long-term implications for human health, biodiversity and climate, studies show harmful effects of plastics and their chemicals on animals and ecosystems. Industry lobbying has also played a powerful role throughout. At the last round of talks, lobbyists for the petrochemical and plastics industries made up the single largest delegation. They outnumbered representatives from the EU, all of Latin America, the Pacific islands, independent scientists and Indigenous communities. This imbalance threatens to weaken the science-based action that is urgently needed. Although countries failed to reach agreement in Busan, a foundation was laid. They agreed to continue negotiations using the 'chair's text', which is a draft treaty with multiple options still on the table. That document forms the starting point in Geneva. But it remains uncertain whether enough common ground can be found to finalise the text. What's at stake? This treaty is a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle one of the world's most urgent environmental crises. More than 450 million tonnes of plastic are produced every year. That figure is expected to double by 2045 if current trends continue Only around 9% of plastic is ever recycled. The rest is landfilled, incinerated or ends up polluting the environment. An estimated 139m tonnes of plastics pollute marine and fresh water. But that could be significantly higher when considering leakages of plastics to land, and from microplastics, which are plastics smaller than 5mm in diameter. Plastic is found in the deepest oceans, the remotest mountains and inside the human body. While scientists are only beginning to understand the long-term implications for human health, biodiversity and climate, studies show harmful effects of plastics and their chemicals on animals and ecosystems. Plastic pollution doesn't respect national borders. It moves through rivers, oceans and air, and gets carried across continents. Global supply chains and waste exports have made this a problem no country can solve alone. That's why a global treaty is essential. Despite this growing urgency, a disparity in positions has hindered progress and continues to divide delegations. Some, such as members of the High Ambition Coalition, a group of countries committed to progressive climate action, want strong rules to cap plastic production, phase out toxic chemicals and hold polluters accountable. Others, often with prominent petrochemical industries, argue for a weaker, voluntary approach focused mainly on recycling and waste management. If these divisions aren't resolved, there's a real risk the treaty will end up being too watered down to make a difference A patchy, fragmented agreement would fail to curb rising plastic production and could undermine the integrity of global action. Between December's meeting in Busan and next month's talks, countries have been holding smaller meetings to try to find compromise. That momentum must now be carried into the final negotiations. Important articles in the draft treaty, including those on chemicals and products, plastic production and finance, remain contested. Whether those provisions are strengthened or diluted will shape the treaty's effects for decades to come. Flexibility will be needed. But leadership is also crucial. Countries that support an ambitious outcome must stand firm and bring others with them. As we approach what may be the final negotiating round, we're at a critical crossroads. The world has the chance to take meaningful action on plastic pollution. Let's not waste it. Winnie Courtene-Jones is a Lecturer in Marine Pollution at Bangor University. This article is reprinted courtesy of The Conversation Read More Government must stand firm on Israel's illegal occupation and genocide in Gaza Strip
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Taoiseach to travel to Luxembourg for two-day visit
Taoiseach Micheál Martin is due to travel to Luxembourg to meet the country's Prime Minister Luc Frieden, as part of a two-day visit to the grand duchy. Both leaders will discuss economic issues, including European competitiveness and EU-US trade negotiations. They will also discuss the current situation in both Ukraine and Gaza. Speaking ahead of the visit, the Taoiseach said Ireland and Luxembourg have "a shared interest" in the competitiveness agenda and deepening capital markets in Europe. "Bilateral relations between Ireland and Luxembourg are excellent and we are like-minded partners on many issues," he added. Mr Martin and Mr Frieden will also discuss proposals for the EU's next seven-year budget for 2028 to 2034 following last week's draft proposal by the European Commission for a €2 trillion budget. Two-way trade between Ireland and Luxembourg is worth about €3.5 billion each year, a majority of which is attributed to financial services. Like Ireland, Luxembourg's open economy and relatively low corporate tax rates have attracted international financial institutions and global investment funds to domicile in the jurisdiction for decades. Both countries' economies would be highly susceptible to a US-EU trade war in the event that it spirals to include retaliatory tariffs on digital services. US President Donald Trump has threatened 30% tariffs on imported goods from the EU, if a trade deal is not struck by 1 August. But Reuters reported yesterday that US and EU officials are discussing a broad 15% tariff on EU imports. During his visit, the Taoiseach will also meet with representatives of Irish businesses in Luxembourg and hear from Irish community representatives. More than 2,500 Irish citizens live and work in Luxembourg, a community that has doubled in size during the past 10 years, according to Ireland's embassy to Luxembourg. Tomorrow, the Taoiseach will hold a meeting with Nadia Calviño, President of the European Investment Bank (EIB). They will discuss Ireland's ongoing partnership with the bank and its role in supporting European competitiveness by investing in infrastructure projects. Mr Martin described the EIB as a "valued partner" that finances approximately €1bn for water, housing and energy projects in Ireland each year.
