logo
Tariff ‘jungle' growing back: expert

Tariff ‘jungle' growing back: expert

A trade expert warns the tariff "jungle" is growing back as nations grapple with United States President Donald Trump's fast approaching tariff deadline.
Many US trade partners face hefty tariff increases in the fallout, including close allies such as Japan and Korea.
Mr Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs have New Zealand exporters watching how it will play out for them, their trading partners and the wider marketplace on the August 1 deadline.
Another concern is his trade policy might encourage more nations to step up protectionism.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's trade and economic deputy secretary Vangelis Vitalis told meat professionals at the Red Meat Sector Conference in Christchurch the uncertainty was a real challenge for exporters looking to trade with the US.
He said nobody really knew what was happening in day-to-day international policy.
Research showed trade uncertainty was worth the equivalent of at least a 10% to 12% tariff, he said,
"The jungle is definitely growing back. We do face a really challenging and turbulent external environment and it's not just the US, although that's a major factor at the moment for uncertainty.
"The challenges are real. All of the big players are thinking whether these [free trade agreement] rules work for them any more and we place a premium on these rules."
A baseline tariff applies to almost every nation, including New Zealand, of 10%, with auto parts at a 25% tariff and aluminium 50%.
The 10% tariff is on top of existing tariffs such as about 16% or 18% New Zealand exporters already face sending frozen vegetables to the US.
"Over the last two to three weeks the president has been announcing additional tariffs. He's extended the pause to August 1 and so we know a whole series of tariffs may be imposed at that time, although we also know the president does tend to extend those delays as well so, again, lots of uncertainty."
He said the known certainties were the US was striking some deals, including with Vietnam eliminating all of its tariffs in exchange for a 20% tariff.
Some countries not concluding deals had the threat of additional tariffs being placed on them, including 25% on Japan and Korea, while and Brazil was being hit with a 50% tariff on the deadline.
Mr Vitalis said the concern for all nations facing a 10% tariff was this might increase to 15%-20%.
That would really concern New Zealand wine, red meat and other exporters, he said.
A lot of official engagement was being carried out in Washington to talk to counterparts and listen closely to build a picture of Mr Trump's trade direction.
"Again we don't actually know what he's going to do, but he's certainly suggesting there are going to be further increases out there."
Mr Vitalis said ministerial leaders and officials were taking a structured, calm and thorough approach to the coming challenges.
New Zealand wanted to protect its interest in the US as it was our second-most important export destination and the tension between it and China was being followed closely, he said.
The option he favoured for the global trade turbulence was to negotiate new free trade agreements and expand existing agreements as explaining the logic of global economic damage from tariffs was not working.
Another focus of New Zealand's strategy was pushing back against non-tariff barriers, worth an estimated $22.6b in the Asia-Pacific region alone, and protectionism, he said.
Dairy giant Fonterra was modelling trade implications from tariff hikes and the dynamics between the US and China.
Fonterra trade strategy manager Justine Aroll said the uncertain trading marketplace was the new normal for the co-op exporting to 100 markets globally.
One of the silver linings was agricultural exporters were familiar with a protectionist and challenging trade environment and had built up resilience in their businesses, she said.
"Like other New Zealand exporters, our product is facing the additional 10% tariff into the US and for us we are finding our way through that."
A concern was the disruption to the global dairy market, the reaction of other countries and the implication of US deals with other countries, she said.
Special agricultural trade envoy Hamish Marr said uncertainty was the new certainty.
"We have been living in a world of globalisation for many years and now it seemed we are not in globalisation — we are in regionalisation."
Countries were more focused on food security and New Zealand's strong reputation would mean it was well positioned to navigate through the uncertain times, he said.
New Zealand International Business Forum executive director Felicity Roxburgh said governments around the world were shifting from economics to security for supply chains and critical materials, including red meat.
tim.cronshaw@alliedpress.co.nz
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Countries are making promises to Trump, while leaving the difficult to achieve detail for later
Countries are making promises to Trump, while leaving the difficult to achieve detail for later

NZ Herald

time4 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Countries are making promises to Trump, while leaving the difficult to achieve detail for later

'This is new, and generally that's because in trade agreements you want things that are clear and enforceable,' said David Goldwyn, a former US diplomat and Energy Department official. 'These energy commitments are neither clear nor necessarily enforceable. They're more aspirational, political encouragements.' The European Union, for example, committed to purchase US$750 billion in US energy products — including crude oil, natural gas and other petroleum derivatives — over three years. On an annual basis, that would amount to more than three times the amount the bloc bought last year from the US. The EU has been buying more American gas since Russia, previously a big supplier, attacked Ukraine in 2022, and there is appetite to buy more. But purchasing US$250b a year would require the bloc to use the US as essentially its only supplier. 'They would have to not buy from anybody else, and that would just be an enormous amount of dependency on one country, whether it's us or anybody else,' said Jason Feer, an analyst at the energy and ship brokerage Poten and Partners. 'And the whole premise of modern energy systems, energy supply, is you always want some diversity.' Conversely, US$250b is around 80% of the total amount that the US exported to the entire world in 2025, according to a ClearView Energy Partners analysis of federal data. Plants are coming online that will double the country's natural gas export capacity by 2030, and stocks in export companies like Cheniere and Venture Global climbed after the deal was announced. In the near term, sending significantly more to the EU may mean sending less to customers elsewhere in the world. Even if these quantities made economic sense, the EU cannot compel private companies in its member countries to buy so much. And the US Government doesn't have the power to tell its oil and gas companies where to sell. The challenge of holding a government to a purchase commitment made in a trade deal became apparent in Trump's first term. He persuaded China, an economy tightly steered by the Government, to agree to buy certain amounts of energy and agricultural goods. Most of those targets were not met, and there were no consequences. Typical trade pacts have protocols that allow either side to enforce pledges like commitments to buy energy; they usually even lay out remedies for violations. None of those exist in Trump's agreements. When asked how the US would react if the EU didn't meet its energy purchase target after three years, a White House official said that the response would be higher tariffs. It is not yet clear what the trade agreement with the US will mean for the EU's ability to meet its climate targets. A 2021 law requires member nations to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. In the short term, more gas could help with that by supplanting coal. Purchasing too much gas could end up squeezing out clean power sources such as wind and solar. Before the trade deal, the continent's overall gas demand was expected to decline in the coming years. 'It is possible that it would displace some deployment of renewables,' said Joseph Majkut, director of the energy security and climate change programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. 'But the reality is that the EU has very firm climate commitments enshrined in law.' The parties could, potentially, hit US$750b with tricky accounting. The EU members could purchase tankers full of oil or gas but not use it all and instead resell it to other buyers around the world. They could also make long-term purchase commitments that look like very large numbers when they're announced, but in practice are realised over, say, 20 years. 'To do that involves using something we respectfully call political maths,' said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners. 'Some of the best tools of diplomacy involve ambiguity.' So far, the EU's energy purchase commitment is as specific as Trump's trade deals have got. The framework for Japan, for example, is much more vague. That leaves even more room for interpretation. A White House fact sheet on the Japan deal trumpets a 'major expansion' of US energy exports, and says the US$550b in US investment that Japan pledged would be partly focused on 'energy infrastructure and production'. That is probably a reference to the proposed US$44b infrastructure project that would bring gas from the North Slope of Alaska to an export terminal. From there, it could be shipped to Asia. Right now, however, there are cheaper sources available on America's gulf coast that are connected to gas fields with many years of supply left. It's also not clear how much value there is in signing multidecade purchase agreements when Japan has also committed to reducing its consumption of fossil fuels. The same logic applies for South Korea. It began to buy natural gas from the US in 2017, when the country was trying to phase out nuclear energy. Signing long-term agreements didn't work out as well as hoped: An explosion at a gas terminal in Texas in 2022 interrupted supply, leaving less gas available to buy and raising prices sharply. That's why Michelle Kim, an energy specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, argues that buying gas as needed, rather than committing to a multiyear deal with US exporters, would give South Korea more flexibility as it managed declining demand for gas. 'It's not a good and wise decision to make another long-term contract,' Kim said. If the US presses ahead to drastically increase its exports, there could also be ramifications for America's own energy market. As long as enough infrastructure exists to move it around, fuel generally flows to the highest bidder. With more gas going overseas and powering data centres for artificial intelligence, domestic prices are likely to rise, said Aneesh Prabhu, a managing director at S&P Global Ratings. That impact could worsen in the coming years, since Trump and congressional Republicans cut subsidies for wind and solar deployment passed during the Biden Administration. 'Because of the loss of tax credits, or at least a significant erosion of it, you could have a slowdown in renewables, which means there would be more draw on gas,' Prabhu said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Lydia DePillis and Rebecca F. Elliott Photograph by: Tierney L. Cross ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES

Swing-state focus group research offers clues on what Democrats have to do to win back young men
Swing-state focus group research offers clues on what Democrats have to do to win back young men

NZ Herald

time11 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Swing-state focus group research offers clues on what Democrats have to do to win back young men

They felt no sympathy from the left, who they say brushed away their legitimate economic woes by citing their male privilege. They acknowledge historical patriarchy but assert that doesn't make them invincible in a job market where graduate unemployment is concentrated among men. Those are the latest findings in focus groups conducted by the centrist pro-Democratic group Third Way and HIT Strategies with men aged 18 to 29 from swing states including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The men were lower-propensity voters - more likely to turn out in a presidential year than a midterm - and voted for Joe Biden in 2020 but switched to Trump last year. 'The belief has been that men have it easier in the labour market, and that's been true to a large extent. But that notion is at odds with the reality right now' for many young men as manufacturing gives way to the information age, said Joshua Doss, senior research manager at HIT Strategies. 'They talked about how they're really watching the economy erode the types of jobs that they were told worked for them.' Men feeling left behind elicits eye rolls in many corners of the Democratic Party. The gender pay gap persists, with women making 85% of what men earned in 2024, despite greater female participation in the workforce than in past decades. The numerous calls from party leaders to appeal to the 'manosphere' and appear less 'woke' also elicit concerns that that means throwing marginalised groups under the bus on issues like trans or women's rights. But that line of criticism only proves their point, said Lucas Holtz, a political analyst with Third Way. 'There is complete misconception from Democrats and especially from progressives about young men moving away from the party and takes from 'It was all because of inflation' to 'The guys that supported Trump are incels and sexist,'' Holtz said. 'It's just a really terrible stereotype that has backlash effect on Democrats.' Appealing to young men has been discussed as a nearly existential question for Democrats, who haemorrhaged support in some of their traditionally most reliable demographics. Former President Barack Obama sounded the alarm on former first lady Michelle Obama's podcast this month, saying support for young men is often mistaken for neglect of women's rights. But it's not a zero-sum game. 'We don't think about boys and just assume they're going to be okay because they've been running the world and they've got all the advantages relative to the girls. And all of which has historically been true in all kinds of ways,' the former President said. 'We've made that mistake sometimes in terms of our rhetoric. Where it's like we're constantly talking about what's wrong with the boys, instead of what's right with them.' Incidentally, Obama was the only Democrat focus group participants could name as a masculine role model from the party. 'I think being a masculine leader is, like, outlawed in the Democratic Party right now,' one participant said. Trump broke through with economic promises that appealed to many young men's desires to be financially self-sufficient and support their families. The focus group participants were not heavy news consumers, largely informed through social media and podcasts, but they were still able to list Trump's economic policy promises, such as no taxes on tips, which Republicans passed into law in their recent tax cuts legislation. Focus group participants said Democratic messaging, especially to young black and Latino men, felt like pandering to their race, if it was ever directed to them at all. 'They brought out, like, rappers and stuff. And it's, you know, nothing against rappers, but it's like, what does that do for me?' one black participant said. For all the pull Republicans achieved among young men, many still remained unsold in either direction. Men aged 18 to 29 are the least likely to support Democrats of any age and gender group at only 34%, but they are also the most uncommitted either way, at 13% , according to the Pew Research Centre. While they supported Trump's policies that they thought would speak to their economic concerns, they disapproved of policies that they thought harmed others. Deportation without due process and punishing tariffs applied to foreign countries came up as examples. Doss and Holtz said that gives Democrats ample opportunity to win young men back. Concise aspirational economic messages, something that can be condensed into a three-word slogan, performed well, they found. Several focus group participants also responded well to Democratic leaders who spoke directly to them, whether it was former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg speaking with podcaster Andrew Schulz about connecting with differing viewpoints or Maryland Governor Wes Moore talking about the need to invest in young men. 'A straight talker, you know, someone that's not, like, beating around the bush,' one participant said of who would be an ideal candidate. 'Somebody that just is not afraid to say what they feel. That's a very masculine trait.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store