America's president is economically illiterate
TRUMP
DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW ECONOMIES WORK.
When my kids were in college, I insisted that they each take at least one economics course. Being economically illiterate ranks, in my mind, just below not being able to read or write.
Productivity Tool
Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide
By Metla Sudha Sekhar
View Program
Finance
Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory
By Dinesh Nagpal
View Program
Finance
Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code
By CA Rahul Gupta
View Program
Digital Marketing
Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel
By Neil Patel
View Program
Finance
Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading
By Kunal Patel
View Program
Productivity Tool
Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide
By Study at home
View Program
Artificial Intelligence
AI For Business Professionals Batch 2
By Ansh Mehra
View Program
Now we have a president who is fundamentally ignorant of the most basic and incontrovertible economic principles, as evidenced in his latest round of foolhardy tariffs (and in so many other ways).
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Remember Him? Sit Down Before You See What He Looks Like Now
33 Bridges
Undo
President Trump has been told over and over again by economists of all political persuasions that tariffs are much like a sales tax and will ultimately be paid by American consumers; he likely would have been taught that concept during his time at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
And while the overall inflation rate has only been edging up since Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs, the cost of many imported items has been escalating. In June, prices for furnishings and durable household equipment -- a category with high import exposure -- rose by 1.3 percent, the biggest increase in more than three years. Prices for recreational goods and vehicles, which are also frequently manufactured abroad, increased by 0.9 percent, the largest jump since February 2024.
Live Events
And tariffs likely played a role in the sudden slowdown in payroll growth announced on Friday, with the economy having created just 106,000 jobs in the last three months, far less than its monthly average in recent years.
Mr. Trump's response? Shoot the messenger: He directed his team to fire the head of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics
, which compiles the figures.
Mr. Trump's ignorance goes far beyond the tariffs-are-a-tax concept. He believes trade deficits are tantamount to "losing" money to other countries. Losing money is what happens when $100 falls out of your wallet. When you spend $100 to buy new earbuds made in China, you haven't lost it; you've spent it on earbuds.
(Unsurprisingly, Mr. Trump also regularly misstates the size of the trade deficit. It's not the $2 trillion he claims; last year it was under $1 trillion.)
Moreover, the tariffs that Mr. Trump is imposing reflect no rhyme or reason. What is the point of imposing a 40 percent tariff on poor Laos? The country is hardly in a position to buy much from us.
Mr. Trump's fervent belief in tariffs seems to have originated in the 1980s, as Japanese cars flooded into the
United States
and wreaked havoc on domestic car manufacturers. Yet those same carmakers -- such as Ford and General Motors -- have been among the most vociferous opponents of his tariff regime today. Their latest financial results suggest that they stand to lose somewhere between $1 billion and $4 billion in earnings this year from Mr. Trump's tariffs.
Mr. Trump has demonstrated his economic ignorance in many other ways -- with potentially even greater adverse consequences. His most recent, and potentially most dangerous, transgression has been his harsh and wrongheaded criticism of the policies of the Federal Reserve and its chairman,
Jerome Powell
.
Mr. Trump insists that our interest rates are too high and should be as low as Europe's (2 percent versus our 4.5 percent). Yet when he pronounces our economy "the strongest in the world," as he regularly does, he is unconsciously citing one of the reasons for our higher interest rates: Robust economies need higher interest rates to restrain inflation.
Indeed, Mr. Trump seems not to understand inflation. He repeatedly -- sometimes on multiple occasions in a single week -- pronounces that we have "no inflation." In fact, in the most recent 12 months, prices rose by 2.6 percent over the prior year, still modestly above the Fed's 2 percent target and perhaps accelerating.
Another reason for our elevated interest rates is the massive budget deficits that we have been running, deficits that Mr. Trump made worse with the tax cuts he pursued in his first term and continues to push in his second. His signature domestic policy law will increase the deficit -- and therefore our borrowing needs -- by an estimated $3.4 trillion over the next decade.
Mr. Powell's term is coming to an end next year, and the prospect of Mr. Trump picking his successor is downright scary. In his first term, Mr. Trump tried to appoint several individuals to the
Federal Reserve Board
who were so manifestly unqualified -- with views that were so wildly outside of any accepted principles of monetary policy -- that many Republicans refused to support them and they were forced to withdraw.
Mr. Trump now clearly regrets his decision to appoint Mr. Powell in 2017. A more unbridled Trump 2.0 might try for a far less responsible candidate whose selection to the most important and powerful economic position in our government could easily upend financial markets and perhaps the entire economy.
The president barely seems to comprehend supply and demand, which are among the most basic concepts in economics. He evangelizes for lower oil prices but simultaneously calls on the energy industry to "drill, baby, drill." Lower prices
discourage
drilling; the number of rigs in operation has been falling as oil prices have softened.
In a similar vein, while he acknowledged that tariffs would raise the prices of imported cars, he argued that Americans could avoid tariffs by buying cars made in America. But it is well documented that when the price of an imported item goes up, domestic producers are then free to increase their own prices -- and often will.
To be fair, the president occasionally shows glimmers of economic comprehension. With regard to the dollar, for example, he understands that the mantra of many Treasury secretaries that "a strong dollar is in the national interest" is more complicated than that simple sentence suggests. While a strong dollar has many advantages, a weak dollar makes our exports more competitive and restrains imports by making them more expensive (admittedly potentially creating inflationary pressures).
"I know better than anybody what's good for the Market, and what's good for the U.S.A.," Mr. Trump proclaimed in a recent social media post. "People don't explain to me, I explain to them!" Perhaps he should consider flipping those two clauses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 minutes ago
- First Post
From crisis to advantage: How India can outplay the Trump tariff gambit
The Trump tariff tantrum is a short-term problem for India, but it can be turned around, if only the country plays its cards right and focuses on building long-term comparative advantages read more A simple summary of the recent brouhaha about President Trump's imposition of 25 per cent tariffs on India as well as his comment on India's 'dead economy' is the following from Shakespeare's Macbeth: 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Trump further imposed punitive tariffs totalling 50 per cent on August 6 allegedly for India funding Russia's war machine via buying oil. As any negotiator knows, a good opening gambit is intended to set the stage for further parleys, so that you could arrive at a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to both parties. The opening gambit could well be a maximalist statement, or one's 'dream outcome', the opposite of which is 'the walkway point' beyond which you are simply not willing to make concessions. The usual outcome is somewhere in between these two positions or postures. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump is both a tough negotiator, and prone to making broad statements from which he has no problem retreating later. It's down-and-dirty boardroom tactics that he's bringing to international trade. Therefore, I think Indians don't need to get rattled. It's not the end of the world, and there will be climbdowns and adjustments. Think hard about the long term. I was on a panel discussion on this topic on TV just hours after Trump made his initial 25 per cent announcement, and I mentioned an interplay between geo-politics and geo-economics. Trump is annoyed that his Ukraine-Russia play is not making much headway, and also that BRICS is making progress towards de-dollarisation. India is caught in this crossfire ('collateral damage') but the geo-economic facts on the ground are not favourable to Trump. I am in general agreement with Trump on his objectives of bringing manufacturing and investment back to the US, but I am not sure that he will succeed, and anyway his strong-arm tactics may backfire. I consider below what India should be prepared to do to turn adversity into opportunity. Trump and the Deep State What is remarkable, though, is that Trump 2.0 seems to be indistinguishable from the Deep State: I wondered last month if the Deep State had 'turned' Trump. The main reason many people supported Trump in the first place was the damage the Deep State was wreaking on the US under the Obama-Biden regime. But it appears that the resourceful Deep State has now co-opted Trump for its agenda, and I can only speculate how. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The net result is that there is the anti-Thucydides Trap: here is the incumbent power, the US, actively supporting the insurgent power, China, instead of suppressing it, as Graham Allison suggested as the historical pattern. It, in all fairness, did not start with Trump, but with Nixon in China in 1971. In 1985, the US trade deficit with China was $6 million. In 1986, $1.78 billion. In 1995, $35 billion. But it ballooned after China entered the WTO in 2001. $202 billion in 2005; $386 billion in 2022. In 2025, after threatening China with 150 per cent tariffs, Trump retreated by postponing them; besides he has caved in to Chinese demands for Nvidia chips and for exemptions from Iran oil sanctions if I am not mistaken. All this can be explained by one word: leverage. China lured the US with the siren-song of the cost-leader 'China price', tempting CEOs and Wall Street, who sleepwalked into surrender to the heft of the Chinese supply chain. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Now China has cornered Trump via its monopoly over various things, the most obvious of which is rare earths. Trump really has no option but to give in to Chinese blackmail. That must make him furious: in addition to his inability to get Putin to listen to him, Xi is also ignoring him. Therefore, he will take out his frustrations on others, such as India, the EU, Japan, etc. Never mind that he's burning bridges with them. There's a Malayalam proverb that's relevant here: 'angadiyil thottathinu ammayodu'. Meaning, you were humiliated in the marketplace, so you come home and take it out on your mother. This is quite likely what Trump is doing, because he believes India et al will not retaliate. In fact, Japan and the EU did not retaliate, but gave in, also promising to invest large sums in the US. India could consider a different path: not active conflict, but not giving in either, because its equations with the US are different from those of the EU or Japan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Even the normally docile Japanese are beginning to notice. Beyond that, I suggested a couple of years ago that Deep State has a plan to enter into a condominium agreement with China, so that China gets Asia, and the US gets the Americas and the Pacific/Atlantic. This is exactly like the Vatican-brokered medieval division of the world between Spain and Portugal, and it probably will be equally bad for everyone else. And incidentally it makes the Quad infructuous, and deepens distrust of American motives. The Chinese are sure that they have achieved the condominium, or rather forced the Americans into it. Here is a headline from the Financial Express about their reaction to the tariffs: they are delighted that the principal obstacle in their quest for hegemony, a US-India military and economic alliance, is being blown up by Trump, and they lose no opportunity to deride India as not quite up to the mark, whereas they and the US have achieved a G2 detente. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Two birds with one stone: gloat about the breakdown in the US-India relationship, and exhibit their racist disdain for India yet again. They laugh, but I bet India can do an end-run around them. As noted above, the G2 is a lot like the division of the world into Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence in 1494. Well, that didn't end too well for either of them. They had their empires, which they looted for gold and slaves, but it made them fat, dumb and happy. The Dutch, English, and French capitalised on more dynamic economies, flexible colonial systems, and aggressive competition, overtaking the Iberian powers in global influence by the 17th century. This is a salutary historical parallel. I have long suspected that the US Deep State is being led by the nose by the malign Whitehall (the British Deep State): I call it the 'master-blaster' syndrome. On August 6, there was indirect confirmation of this in ex-British PM Boris Johnson's tweet about India. Let us remember he single-handedly ruined the chances of a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine War in 2022. Whitehall's mischief and meddling all over, if you read between the lines. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did I mention the British Special Force's views? Ah, Whitehall is getting a bit sloppy in its propaganda. Wait, so is India important (according to Whitehall) or unimportant (according to Trump)? Since I am very pro-American, I have a word of warning to Trump: you trust perfidious Albion at your peril. Their country is ruined, and they will not rest until they ruin yours too. I also wonder if there are British paw-prints in a recent and sudden spate of racist attacks on Indians in Ireland. A six-year old girl was assaulted and kicked in the private parts. A nurse was gang-raped by a bunch of teenagers. Ireland has never been so racist against Indians (yes, I do remember the sad case of Savita Halappanavar, but that was religious bigotry more than racism). And I remember sudden spikes in anti-Indian attacks in Australia and Canada, both British vassals. There is no point in Indians whining about how the EU and America itself are buying more oil, palladium, rare earths, uranium etc. from Russia than India is. I am sorry to say this, but Western nations are known for hypocrisy. For example, exactly 80 years ago they dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, but not on Germany or Italy. Why? The answer is uncomfortable. Lovely post-facto rationalisation, isn't it? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Remember the late lamented British East India Company that raped and pillaged India? Applying Three Winning Strategies to Geo-Economics As a professor of business strategy and innovation, I emphasise to my students that there are three broad ways of gaining an advantage over others: One, be the cost leader; two, be the most customer-intimate player; three, innovate. The US as a nation is patently not playing the cost leader; it does have some customer intimacy, but it is shrinking; its strength is in innovation. If you look at comparative advantage, the US at one time had strengths in all three of the above. Because it had the scale of a large market (and its most obvious competitors in Europe were decimated by world wars) America did enjoy an ability to be cost-competitive, especially as the dollar is the global default reserve currency. It demonstrated this by pushing through the Plaza Accords, forcing the Japanese yen to appreciate, destroying their cost advantage. In terms of customer intimacy, the US is losing its edge. Take cars for example: Americans practically invented them, and dominated the business, but they are in headlong retreat now because they simply don't make cars that people want outside the US: Japanese, Koreans, Germans and now Chinese do. Why were Ford and GM forced to leave the India market? Their 'world cars' are no good in value-conscious India and other emerging markets. Innovation, yes, has been an American strength. Iconic Americans like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs led the way in product and process innovation. US universities have produced idea after idea, and startups have ignited Silicon Valley. In fact, Big Tech and aerospace/armaments are the biggest areas where the US leads these days. The Armaments and Aerospace Trade That is pertinent because of two reasons: one is Trump's peevishness at India's purchase of weapons from Russia (even though that has come down from 70+ per cent of imports to 36 per cent according to SIPRI); two is the fact that there are significant services and intangible imports by India from the US, of for instance Big Tech services, even some routed through third countries like Ireland. Armaments and aerospace purchases from the US by India have gone up a lot: for example, the Apache helicopters that arrived recently, the GE 404 engines ordered for India's indigenous fighter aircraft, Predator drones and P8-i Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft. I suspect Trump is intent on pushing India to buy F-35s, the $110-million dollar 5th generation fighters. Unfortunately, the F-35 has a spotty track record. There were two crashes recently, one in Albuquerque in May, and the other on July 31 in Fresno, and that's $220 million dollars gone. Besides, the spectacle of a hapless British-owned F-35B sitting, forlorn, in the rain, in Trivandrum airport for weeks, lent itself to trolls, who made it the butt of jokes. I suspect India has firmly rebuffed Trump on this front, which has led to his focus on Russian arms. There might be other pushbacks too. Personally, I think India does need more P-8i submarine hunter-killer aircraft to patrol the Bay of Bengal, but India is exerting its buyer power. There are rumors of pauses in orders for Javelin and Stryker missiles as well. On the civilian aerospace front, I am astonished that all the media stories about Air India 171 and the suspicion that Boeing and/or General Electric are at fault have disappeared without a trace. Why? There had been the big narrative push to blame the poor pilots, and now that there is more than reasonable doubt that these US MNCs are to blame, there is a media blackout? Allegations about poor manufacturing practices by Boeing in North Charleston, South Carolina by whistleblowers have been damaging for the company's brand: this is where the 787 Dreamliners are put together. It would not be surprising if there is a slew of cancellations of orders for Boeing aircraft, with customers moving to Airbus. Let us note Air India and Indigo have placed some very large, multi-billion dollar orders with Boeing that may be in jeopardy. India as a Consuming Economy Many observers have pointed out the obvious fact that India is not an export-oriented economy, unlike, say, Japan or China. It is more of a consuming economy with a large, growing and increasingly less frugal population, and therefore it is a target for exporters rather than a competitor for exporting countries. As such, the impact of these US tariffs on India will be somewhat muted, and there are alternative destinations for India's exports, if need be. While Trump has focused on merchandise trade and India's modest surplus there, it is likely that there is a massive services trade, which is in the US' favour. All those Big Tech firms, such as Microsoft, Meta, Google and so on run a surplus in the US' favour, which may not be immediately evident because they route their sales through third countries, e.g. Ireland. These are the figures from the US Trade Representative, and quite frankly I don't believe them: there are a lot of invisible services being sold to India, and the value of Indian data is ignored. In addition to the financial implications, there are national security concerns. Take the case of Microsoft's cloud offering, Azure, which arbitrarily turned off services to Indian oil retailer Nayara on the flimsy grounds that the latter had substantial investment from Russia's Rosneft. This is an example of jurisdictional over-reach by US companies, which has dire consequences. India has been lax about controlling Big Tech, and this has to change. India is Meta's largest customer base. Whatsapp is used for practically everything. Which means that Meta has access to enormous amounts of Indian customer data, for which India is not even enforcing local storage. This is true of all other Big Tech (see OpenAI's Sam Altman below): they are playing fast and loose with Indian data, which is not in India's interest at all. Data is the new oil, says The Economist magazine. So how much should Meta, OpenAI et al be paying for Indian data? Meta is worth trillions of dollars, OpenAI half a trillion. How much of that can be attributed to Indian data? There is at least one example of how India too can play the digital game: UPI. Despite ham-handed efforts to now handicap UPI with a fee (thank you, brilliant government bureaucrats, yes, go ahead and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs), it has become a contender in a field that has long been dominated by the American duopoly of Visa and Mastercard. In other words, India can scale up and compete. It is unfortunate that India has not built up its own Big Tech behind a firewall as has been done behind the Great Firewall of China. But it is not too late. Is it possible for India-based cloud service providers to replace US Big Tech like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure? Yes, there is at least one player in that market: Zoho. Second, what are the tariffs on Big Tech exports to India these days? What if India were to decide to impose a 50 per cent tax on revenue generated in India through advertisement or through sales of services, mirroring the US's punitive taxes on Indian goods exports? Let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting this, it is merely a hypothetical argument. There could also be non-tariff barriers as China has implemented, but not India: data locality laws, forced use of local partners, data privacy laws like the EU's GDPR, anti-monopoly laws like the EU's Digital Markets Act, strict application of IPR laws like 3(k) that absolutely prohibits the patenting of software, and so on. India too can play legalistic games. This is a reason US agri-products do not pass muster: genetically modified seeds, and milk from cows fed with cattle feed from blood, offal and ground-up body parts. Similarly, in the 'information' industry, India is likely to become the largest English-reading country in the world. I keep getting come-hither emails from the New York Times offering me $1 a month deals on their product: they want Indian customers. There are all these American media companies present in India, untrammelled by content controls or taxes. What if India were to give a choice to Bloomberg, Reuters, NYTimes, WaPo, NPR et al: 50 per cent tax, or exit? This attack on peddlers of fake information and manufacturing consent I do suggest, and I have been suggesting for years. It would make no difference whatsoever to India if these media outlets were ejected, and they surely could cover India (well, basically what they do is to demean India) just as well from abroad. Out with them: good riddance to bad rubbish. What India Needs to Do I believe India needs to play the long game. It has to use its shatrubodha to realise that the US is not its enemy: in Chanakyan terms, the US is the Far Emperor. The enemy is China, or more precisely the Chinese Empire. Han China is just a rump on their south-eastern coast, but it is their conquered (and restive) colonies such as Tibet, Xinjiang, Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, that give them their current heft. But the historical trends are against China. It has in the past had stable governments for long periods, based on strong (and brutal) imperial power. Then comes the inevitable collapse, when the center falls apart, and there is absolute chaos. It is quite possible, given various trends, including demographic changes, that this may happen to China by 2050. On the other hand, (mostly thanks, I acknowledge, to China's manufacturing growth), the centre of gravity of the world economy has been steadily shifting towards Asia. The momentum might swing towards India if China stumbles, but in any case, the era of Atlantic dominance is probably gone for good. That was, of course, only a historical anomaly. Asia has always dominated: see Angus Maddison's magisterial history of the world economy, referred to below as well. I am reminded of the old story of the king berating his court poet for calling him 'the new moon' and the emperor 'the full moon'. The poet escaped being punished by pointing out that the new moon is waxing and the full moon is waning. This is the long game India has to keep in mind. Things are coming together for India to a great extent: in particular the demographic dividend, improved infrastructure, fiscal prudence, and the increasing centrality of the Indian Ocean as the locus of trade and commerce. India can attempt to gain competitive advantage in all three ways outlined above: Cost-leadership. With a large market (assuming companies are willing to invest at scale), a low-cost labor force, and with a proven track-record of frugal innovation, India could well aim to be a cost-leader in selected areas of manufacturing. But this requires government intervention in loosening monetary policy and in reducing barriers to ease of doing business Customer-intimacy. What works in highly value-conscious India could well work in other developing countries. For instance, the economic environment in ASEAN is largely similar to India's, and so Indian products should appeal to their residents; similarly, with East Africa. Thus, the Indian Ocean Rim with its huge (and in Africa's case, rapidly growing) population should be a natural fit for Indian products Innovation. This is the hardest part, and it requires a new mindset in education and industry, to take risks and work at the bleeding edge of technology. In general, Indians have been content to replicate others' innovations at lower cost or do jugaad (which cannot scale up). To do real, disruptive innovation, first of all the services mindset should transition to a product mindset (sorry, Raghuram Rajan). Second, the quality of human capital must be improved. Third, there should be patient risk capital. Fourth, there should be entrepreneurs willing to try risky things. All of these are difficult, but doable. And what is the end point of this game? Leverage. The ability to compel others to buy from you. China has demonstrated this through its skill at being a cost-leader in industry after industry, often hollowing out entire nations through means both fair and foul. These means include far-sighted industrial policy including the acquisition of skills, technology, and raw materials, as well as hidden subsidies that support massive scaling, which ends up driving competing firms elsewhere out of business. India can learn a few lessons from them. The year 2025 is, in that sense, a point of inflection for India just as the crisis in 1991 was. India had been content to plod along at the Nehruvian Rate of Growth of 2-3 per cent, believing this was all it could achieve, as a 'wounded civilization'. From that to a 6-7 per cent growth rate is a leap, but it is not enough, nor is it testing the boundaries of what India can accomplish. The year 1991 was the crisis that turned into an opportunity by accident. The year 2025 is a crisis that can be carefully and thoughtfully turned into an opportunity. The Idi Amin Syndrome There is a key area where an American error may well be a windfall for India. This is based on the currently fashionable H1-B bashing which is really a race-bashing of Indians, and which has been taken up with gusto by certain MAGA folks. Once again, I suspect the baleful influence of Whitehall behind it, but whatever the reason, it looks like Indians are going to have a hard time settling down in the US. There are over a million Indians on H1-Bs, a large number of them software engineers, let us assume for convenience there are 250,000 of them. Given country caps of exactly 9,800 a year, they have no realistic chance of getting a Green Card in the near future, and given the increasingly fraught nature of life there for brown people, they may leave the US, and possibly return to India. I call this the Idi Amin syndrome. In 1972, the dictator of Uganda went on a rampage against Indian-origin people in his country, and forcibly expelled 80,000 of them, because they were dominating the economy. There were unintended consequences: those who were ejected mostly went to the US and UK, and they have in many cases done well. But Uganda's economy virtually collapsed. That's a salutary experience. I am by no means saying that the US economy would collapse, but am pointing to the resilience of the Indians who were expelled. If, similarly, Trump forces a large number of Indians to return to India, that might well be a case of short-term pain and long-term gain: urvashi-shapam upakaram, as in the Malayalam phrase. Their return would be akin to what happened in China and Taiwan with their successful effort to attract their diaspora back. The Chinese program was called 1000 Talents, and they scoured the globe for academics and researchers of Chinese origin, and brought them back with attractive incentives and large budgets. They had a major role in energizing the Chinese economy. Similarly, Taiwan with Hsinchu University attracted high-quality talent, among which was the founder of TSMC, the globally dominant chip giant. And here is Trump offering to India on a platter at least 100,000 software engineers, especially at a time when generativeAI is decimating low-end jobs everywhere. They can work on some very compelling projects that could revolutionise Indian education, up-skilling and so on, and I am not at liberty to discuss them. Suffice to say that these could turbo-charge the Indian software industry and get it away from mundane, routine body-shopping type jobs. Conclusion The Trump tariff tantrum is definitely a short-term problem for India, but it can be turned around, and turned into an opportunity, if only the country plays its cards right and focuses on building long-term comparative advantages and accepting the gift of a mis-step by Trump in geo-economics. In geo-politics, India and the US need each other to contain China, and so that part, being so obvious, will be taken care of more or less by default. Thus, overall, the old SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. On balance, I am of the opinion that the threats contain in them the germs of opportunities. It is up to Indians to figure out how to take advantage of them. This is your game to win or lose, India! The writer has been a conservative columnist for over 25 years. His academic interest is innovation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
India.com
3 minutes ago
- India.com
Impact Of Tariffs On US: Womans Viral Footage Highlights Soaring Prices
The United States administration, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, has been imposing trade tariffs on various nations. A user on Instagram shared a video from inside a shopping center and claimed that the prices of the items there have been hiked after the tariff imposition. The post captioned "Donald Trump's tariffs are in full swing!" has sparked a wave of mixed reactions in the comments section, ranging from strong support to sharp criticism. 'But… wasn't China supposed to pay those tariffs? (Sarcasm),' a comment read. 'Was it worth it? Are we great yet?,' another one wrote. 'Have patience till 2028,' a user commented. US-India Tariff Row Earlier, US President Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on imports from India, citing the country's continued purchase of Russian oil. In the order, Trump said the decision is aimed at boosting measures taken under earlier sanctions against Russia following its actions in Ukraine. It also stated that India is directly or indirectly importing oil from Russia, which Washington considers a threat to its national security and foreign policy. After the announcement of additional tariffs, India reiterated that the latest tariff actions by the US are "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable". "We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable. India will take all actions necessary to protect its national interests," an MEA spokesperson said in a statement. "We have already made clear our position on these issues, including the fact that our imports are based on market factors and done with the overall objective of ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion people of India," the MEA spokesperson said. "It is therefore extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest," said the official statement. As per IANS, the new tariffs will be applied to all eligible Indian goods entering the US from 21 days after the order's signing, except for shipments already in transit before the deadline and cleared before September 17.
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Only places he didn't charge...': Late-night comics fire shots at Trump tariffs against India
Late-night show hosts Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon have criticised US President Donald Trump for imposing tariffs on trading partners, including a 50% levy on Indian goods. Late-night show hosts Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon have criticised US President Donald Trump for imposing tariffs.(Instagram and Reuters) Jimmy Fallon, during his "The Tonight Show" on Thursday night, said that Trump has imposed tariffs on more than 90 countries and joked that the only places left were North Korea and Epstein Island – a reference to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's private island Little St. James. 'Today, more of President Trump's tariffs hit over 90 countries, including Canada, Brazil, and India,' Fallon kicked off his standup. He added, 'The only places Trump didn't charge are North Korea and Epstein's island.' Also Read | India plans tariff response to US over steel, aluminium levy Fallon also warned that Trump's tariffs on Brazil could escalate the prices of bananas, mangoes, and pineapples in the country. 'Fifty per cent tariffs on Brazil will skyrocket prices for bananas, mangoes, and pineapples,' he said and joked, 'Edible Arrangements are safe, as long as you don't hike the price of cantaloupe and long toothpicks.' Late-night show host Stephen Colbert followed suit on Saturday night and said that Trump's tariffs on India will raise the price of items like gauze, bandages, and wading. Also Read | Tariffs on India led to 'worst outcome' for US, says former Trump aide 'Trump doubled tariffs on India to 50%, which will raise the price of items like gauze, bandages, and wading. Yeah, yeah. Perfect time to introduce my new product, Steve's wad. What's in them? What do you care? You're bleeding. It's a wad.' Trump's tariff on India US President Donald Trump last week announced an additional 25 per cent tariff on US imports from India -- raising the overall duty to 50 per cent -- as a penalty for the country's continued imports of Russian oil. Trump has railed against India and Russia over the past few days for the trade and energy relations between the two countries and pressured New Delhi to cut its Russian oil purchases. Russia accounts for nearly 60% of India's armed forces' inventory and has become one of the largest suppliers of energy to India, providing 35% of its needs in the first half of 2025. India has defended its energy purchases from Russia and criticised the US and the European Union for singling out New Delhi at a time when other countries buying Russian energy haven't faced penalties from the Trump administration. India also flagged that the United States continues to import uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers, as well as chemicals, from Russia.
