Economists project US trade deal to dent Japan's GDP
President Donald Trump announced the deal, which includes what he calls a 15-percent reciprocal tariff on imports.
Daiwa's Kugo Shotaro says the tariffs may reduce Japan's GDP by 1.1 percent in real terms this year.
He estimates that could widen to 3.2 percent in 2029.
Japanese vehicles imported into the US now face the 15-percent levy.
Kugo says the tariff rate is not as bad as projected, but it is still high.
Other economists are wading in with projections.
Kiuchi Takahide at Nomura Research Institute says the deal could trim Japan's GDP by 0.55 percent over the coming year.
He says Washington's "America First" policy adds to business risk for Japanese companies and they may reconsider investments in the US.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
7 hours ago
- NHK
Trump in Scotland, set to talk with EU, British leaders on tariffs
US President Donald Trump is staying at a golf resort in Scotland owned by his family's business. He is expected to hold talks with EU and British leaders on tariffs. Trump has been in Scotland since Friday. On Saturday, he was seen playing golf and driving his own golf cart, as local police maintained tight security in the area. Trump said he plans to meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday to discuss what he calls "reciprocal tariffs." He has suggested that he would levy a 30-percent tariff on products coming from the European Union, starting on August 1. Trump is also due to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his stay. British media say the two will discuss reducing additional tariffs on UK-made steel products, a topic they have continued to negotiate, among other things. People in Scotland held rallies in several places to protest against Trump's political moves and other matters.
Japan Times
7 hours ago
- Japan Times
The Fed needs to tread carefully with this strange dollar
The U.S. economy hasn't seen tariffs like these in around 80 years. Given the lack of recent precedent, the Federal Reserve is right to wait on more evidence that consumer prices aren't spiking before proceeding with interest rate cuts. There's another reason to tread carefully in these uncertain times: The extremely unusual behavior of the U.S. dollar. Many economists — including Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran — expected the buck to strengthen when U.S. President Donald Trump implemented tariffs. In an essay published last November, Miran wrote that the exchange rate was "more likely than not' to appreciate alongside an improving trade balance, as it did during Trump's first trade war in 2018 and 2019. The so-called currency offset was critical to his view that the new duties wouldn't necessarily be passed through to consumers, at least not entirely. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made the same point during his confirmation hearings. Bafflingly, the dollar actually weakened for reasons that are still hotly debated (more on that shortly.) The U.S. dollar Index has declined by 6.8% since just before the "Liberation Day' tariffs unveiled on April 2 and it's down about 10% in 2025, the worst year-to-date performance in at least a quarter century. The median forecaster surveyed by Bloomberg expects the greenback to depreciate further over the next year or so. All else equal, you might expect the upward pressure on U.S. consumer prices to be even worse than tariffs alone would suggest. In the past, for a given move in developed nation currencies, economists have identified long-run pass-through into import prices on the order of 60%. (Estimates were around 40% for the U.S. specifically.) But pass-through is highly context-dependent and all else is never equal. So far, measures of consumer inflation remain relatively tame, either because the transmission will take time to materialize; retailers are "eating' the higher costs in the form of narrower margins; or because the doomsayers were just plain wrong. Realistically, it could even be some combination of the three. Given that range of possibilities, it's prudent to wait for the data to tell the story, exactly as Fed Chair Jerome Powell is currently planning. This is much to the chagrin of Trump, who regrettably insists that he can have tariffs and expeditiously lower policy rates too. In an ill-advised effort to get his way, he's exerting extraordinary public pressure on the independent central bank and its outgoing chair. So why is the dollar weakening in the first place? In the heat of the April selloff, many of us interpreted it as a sign of cracks in America's "exorbitant privilege.' The idea was that the U.S. — with the world's deepest and most liquid markets — had long occupied a special place at the center of the global financial system. That special status meant that we probably had a slightly stronger currency and relatively lower borrowing costs than would otherwise have been the case. When the the dollar weakened alongside rising borrowing costs after April 2, an argument advanced in market commentary and academia was that haphazard policymaking was eroding the American brand in the eyes of the world. Another somewhat related argument was tied to capital flows. At the time of the tariff announcement, investors around the world were extremely exposed to U.S. equities, thanks in part to the remarkable outperformance of the U.S.'s mega-cap growth stocks, known as the Magnificent 7. From the start of 2020 until March 2025, the S&P 500 Index had outperformed the rest of the developed world's equity markets by more than two-to-one. Global investors had piled into the stocks to get a piece of the action, often through unhedged positions. The hasty unwind of some holdings briefly created a macroeconomically significant wave of outflows. Plausible as these theories may be in explaining that wild week or so in early April, it's far from clear that the narratives around cracks in U.S. exorbitant privilege and equity outflows are still reasons to bet against the dollar going forward. As far as the former is concerned, America's brand may suffer additional damage from Trump's overt threats to Fed independence. But we're talking about a very nuanced change: a move from an extraordinarily special status in global markets to just very special. In practice, there's still no viable alternative to U.S. debt and its currency. European debt markets lack our market depth and China lacks our transparency, while Bitcoin is as volatile as a tech stock. Meanwhile, a solid streak of Treasury auctions has more or less ended the debate about caution among overseas investors. In the U.S. equity market, the panic is in the rearview mirror. Since bottoming on April 8, the S&P 500 has returned to all-time highs and is again outperforming the rest of the developed world's markets. The story isn't over, though. While the dollar hasn't weakened much more from its April lows, the durability of the move makes it more likely that currency weakness will have a meaningful impact on the economy, including consumer prices. In recent weeks, the greenback seems to have resumed its typical correlation with Treasury yields, opening the door to further declines if markets begin to price in significant rate cut expectations. That's why the Fed needs to proceed with extreme caution. Policymakers shouldn't lower borrowing costs and implicitly weaken the exchange rate until they can be sure that higher consumer prices aren't already in train. Without question, they should hold rates at their July meeting and the inflation data would need to stay quite tame to justify a cut at the subsequent meeting in September, at least in the absence of a labor market deterioration. The tariff experiment, coupled with the shock exchange-rate reaction, is an event study unlike any other in recent memory and the stewards of stable prices can't take anything for granted. Even if prices do jump, it's still possible that the uptick won't lead to a lasting increase in the rate of inflation and the Fed can eventually get on with easier monetary policy. But at this point, the responsible option is to wait and see how it plays out in the data. Jonathan Levin is a columnist focused on U.S. markets and economics. He is a CFA charterholder.
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
Use of deceased's person's savings for cremation allowed without heirs' consent
The government has notified municipalities and financial institutions that they are now allowed to use the savings of deceased people to cover burial or cremation fees without their heirs' consent, sources said. This is aimed at reducing the financial burden on municipalities, which have shouldered burial or cremation costs when a deceased person's savings deposits could not be used. The measure comes as the number of people dying alone increases. Reflecting lifestyle changes and other circumstances, the proportion of single-person households in Japan rose from 25.6% in 1995 to 38.0% in 2020. Among elderly people age 65 and over, the share of such households jumped from 5.0% to 12.1%. Over 105,000 people died with no one to take care of their remains between April 2018 and October 2021, according to the internal affairs ministry. Under the current law, burial or cremation costs for people who die alone will be paid using their savings deposits, and any shortfalls will be covered by municipalities. However, whether the deceased person's deposits could be used has depended on coordination between municipalities and financial institutions. Municipalities have been denied access to savings accounts in some cases because there were no heirs, and they were required to submit various documents in other cases. In light of this situation, the welfare ministry has revised the guidelines for handling money left by people who died alone, including a new document format for municipalities to submit to financial institutions. The revised guidelines also state that the heirs' consent is not necessary to withdraw the deceased's deposits to pay burial or cremation fees. The central government has been considering this issue since 34 local governments asked for a clarification of related rules in 2024 as part of decentralization reform.
