Latest news with #American-imposed
The Advertiser
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Treasurer seeks trade balance in latest US tariff talks
Jim Chalmers has made the case to his US counterpart to remove American-imposed tariffs, while rebuffing calls to increase defence spending in line with NATO allies. The treasurer spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday, the third time the pair have talked. Dr Chalmers said he pushed for a deal to remove tariffs on Australian exports into the US imposed by President Donald Trump. "This was a very positive discussion, a very productive discussion," he told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday. "I made our case once again when it comes to trade and tariffs and these escalating trade tensions around the world. "The global economic environment is very uncertain, very unpredictable and very volatile." Australian goods are slugged with a 10 per cent tariff to enter the US, while steel and aluminium products have a 50 per cent tariff. As Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles represents Australia at the NATO summit in The Hague, it remains unclear whether he will secure a face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump at the gathering of world leaders. Mr Marles is attending in place of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who pulled the pin on a potential trip to The Hague after other Indo-Pacific leaders opted out. Mr Albanese's planned first face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump, on the sidelines of the G7 summit earlier in June, was cancelled after an escalation in the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Iran. Asked if he would meet the US president, Mr Marles said it wasn't yet confirmed. "It's not specifically on the agenda and I wouldn't want to overstate any of that," he told reporters at the security summit on Wednesday. "We are in large rooms with lots of people, and these meetings, gatherings like this, end up being pretty fluid in terms of the bilaterals that you end up organising." NATO countries have agreed to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP, as the US also puts pressure on allies to boost money spent in the area. While the US has called on Australia to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent, the federal government aims to increase it from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34. Dr Chalmers stood by the government's spend despite the boost from allies. "It's not unusual for our partners and friends around the world to express or have a preference for us to spend more on defence. We are actually already very substantially increasing our investment in defence," he said. "Obviously we've seen the announcements out of Europe. We're obviously tracking those developments very closely ... but we are already dramatically increasing our investment in defence. "That's warranted and that's why we're doing it." Jim Chalmers has made the case to his US counterpart to remove American-imposed tariffs, while rebuffing calls to increase defence spending in line with NATO allies. The treasurer spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday, the third time the pair have talked. Dr Chalmers said he pushed for a deal to remove tariffs on Australian exports into the US imposed by President Donald Trump. "This was a very positive discussion, a very productive discussion," he told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday. "I made our case once again when it comes to trade and tariffs and these escalating trade tensions around the world. "The global economic environment is very uncertain, very unpredictable and very volatile." Australian goods are slugged with a 10 per cent tariff to enter the US, while steel and aluminium products have a 50 per cent tariff. As Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles represents Australia at the NATO summit in The Hague, it remains unclear whether he will secure a face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump at the gathering of world leaders. Mr Marles is attending in place of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who pulled the pin on a potential trip to The Hague after other Indo-Pacific leaders opted out. Mr Albanese's planned first face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump, on the sidelines of the G7 summit earlier in June, was cancelled after an escalation in the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Iran. Asked if he would meet the US president, Mr Marles said it wasn't yet confirmed. "It's not specifically on the agenda and I wouldn't want to overstate any of that," he told reporters at the security summit on Wednesday. "We are in large rooms with lots of people, and these meetings, gatherings like this, end up being pretty fluid in terms of the bilaterals that you end up organising." NATO countries have agreed to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP, as the US also puts pressure on allies to boost money spent in the area. While the US has called on Australia to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent, the federal government aims to increase it from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34. Dr Chalmers stood by the government's spend despite the boost from allies. "It's not unusual for our partners and friends around the world to express or have a preference for us to spend more on defence. We are actually already very substantially increasing our investment in defence," he said. "Obviously we've seen the announcements out of Europe. We're obviously tracking those developments very closely ... but we are already dramatically increasing our investment in defence. "That's warranted and that's why we're doing it." Jim Chalmers has made the case to his US counterpart to remove American-imposed tariffs, while rebuffing calls to increase defence spending in line with NATO allies. The treasurer spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday, the third time the pair have talked. Dr Chalmers said he pushed for a deal to remove tariffs on Australian exports into the US imposed by President Donald Trump. "This was a very positive discussion, a very productive discussion," he told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday. "I made our case once again when it comes to trade and tariffs and these escalating trade tensions around the world. "The global economic environment is very uncertain, very unpredictable and very volatile." Australian goods are slugged with a 10 per cent tariff to enter the US, while steel and aluminium products have a 50 per cent tariff. As Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles represents Australia at the NATO summit in The Hague, it remains unclear whether he will secure a face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump at the gathering of world leaders. Mr Marles is attending in place of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who pulled the pin on a potential trip to The Hague after other Indo-Pacific leaders opted out. Mr Albanese's planned first face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump, on the sidelines of the G7 summit earlier in June, was cancelled after an escalation in the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Iran. Asked if he would meet the US president, Mr Marles said it wasn't yet confirmed. "It's not specifically on the agenda and I wouldn't want to overstate any of that," he told reporters at the security summit on Wednesday. "We are in large rooms with lots of people, and these meetings, gatherings like this, end up being pretty fluid in terms of the bilaterals that you end up organising." NATO countries have agreed to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP, as the US also puts pressure on allies to boost money spent in the area. While the US has called on Australia to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent, the federal government aims to increase it from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34. Dr Chalmers stood by the government's spend despite the boost from allies. "It's not unusual for our partners and friends around the world to express or have a preference for us to spend more on defence. We are actually already very substantially increasing our investment in defence," he said. "Obviously we've seen the announcements out of Europe. We're obviously tracking those developments very closely ... but we are already dramatically increasing our investment in defence. "That's warranted and that's why we're doing it." Jim Chalmers has made the case to his US counterpart to remove American-imposed tariffs, while rebuffing calls to increase defence spending in line with NATO allies. The treasurer spoke with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday, the third time the pair have talked. Dr Chalmers said he pushed for a deal to remove tariffs on Australian exports into the US imposed by President Donald Trump. "This was a very positive discussion, a very productive discussion," he told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday. "I made our case once again when it comes to trade and tariffs and these escalating trade tensions around the world. "The global economic environment is very uncertain, very unpredictable and very volatile." Australian goods are slugged with a 10 per cent tariff to enter the US, while steel and aluminium products have a 50 per cent tariff. As Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles represents Australia at the NATO summit in The Hague, it remains unclear whether he will secure a face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump at the gathering of world leaders. Mr Marles is attending in place of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who pulled the pin on a potential trip to The Hague after other Indo-Pacific leaders opted out. Mr Albanese's planned first face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump, on the sidelines of the G7 summit earlier in June, was cancelled after an escalation in the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Iran. Asked if he would meet the US president, Mr Marles said it wasn't yet confirmed. "It's not specifically on the agenda and I wouldn't want to overstate any of that," he told reporters at the security summit on Wednesday. "We are in large rooms with lots of people, and these meetings, gatherings like this, end up being pretty fluid in terms of the bilaterals that you end up organising." NATO countries have agreed to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP, as the US also puts pressure on allies to boost money spent in the area. While the US has called on Australia to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent, the federal government aims to increase it from two to 2.3 per cent by 2033/34. Dr Chalmers stood by the government's spend despite the boost from allies. "It's not unusual for our partners and friends around the world to express or have a preference for us to spend more on defence. We are actually already very substantially increasing our investment in defence," he said. "Obviously we've seen the announcements out of Europe. We're obviously tracking those developments very closely ... but we are already dramatically increasing our investment in defence. "That's warranted and that's why we're doing it."
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - How to prevent an economic cold war between the US and China
The U.S. and China, the world's largest economies, have been balancing between two divergent paths for 25 years. The first is collaborative partnership —leading from cooperative interdependence toward productive wealth generation and technological progress. The second is a costly and destructive economic cold war. Pulling China into the World Trade Organization was an attempt to take the first path. President Trump is taking us on the other. A 145 percent tariff is more than a wall to stop trade between the U.S. and China. It too easily could be, like Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939, the start of a world-wide economic war. Am I being too dramatic? Not really. The U.S. economy is $30 trillion and China is $19 trillion. The next biggest economy, Germany, is $4.9 trillion, then Japan at $4.4 trillion and India $4.3 trillion. One hopes the EU ($20.9 trillion) could pull itself together sufficiently to offer a constructive counterbalance, but that is unlikely. The U.S. and China are by far the biggest trading partners for virtually every nation in the world. Not one country will escape this war. Some could be crushed by it. (A longer academic article that I co-authored explored how this came to be.) Add in the American-imposed wall between China's Huawei-provided telecommunication systems and the American-approved systems (Ericsson and Nokia), and the hard choice gets more difficult and more divisive. The cost will be immense: massive costly decoupling, supply chain disruption, a deep decline in productivity and innovation and global recession thrusting hundreds of millions into poverty. Not to mention the many additional forms of retaliation yet to be applied. Trump's 'knock them in the teeth and then work out a deal' approach has gotten the expected response from China. The real problem is that there is no actual 'deal,' just confusion and anger. What exactly does Trump want from China? Is the plan to sustain the tariff wall in order to rebuild domestic manufacturing? (Do we really want to bring back low-wage apparel production or electronics assembly to an economy already at full employment?) Or is it the opposite: to force tariff and non-tariff concessions in order to expand trade? Both? Neither? Was the punch in the teeth the whole point? If so, now what? Successful negotiations require clarity of purpose and specificity in demands. 'Smaller trade deficit' does not cut it as a specific demand. The U.S. must identify exactly what it wants, and when. Hopefully, one of the demands will be continued support for the rules-based system. To this end, the U.S. must work with China to develop a set of rules acceptable to both (and other key players). This will not be a mere trade agreement but a peace accord about how to move forward together on negotiating the rules of the road in the rapidly evolving international marketplace. This is a tall order in the best of times. But nothing will better serve America's or China's essential interests. Only American strength and resolve will persuade China to negotiate a new workable, rules-based framework. American strength is not found in punches to the teeth. It is in the power that comes from recognition and acceptance of differences that must be reconciled. The Trump administration must convince the Chinese government that it can both accept China's powerful place in the world and retain the best of the current rules-based order that has served the world economy so well. But, how to do it? First, the U.S. needs economic statecraft that is more like China's — strategic, tactically coherent and comprehensive, aimed directly at building up American competitiveness. It must be built upon long-overdue measures to improve U.S. competitiveness at home. This would include more modern infrastructure; strategic immigration reform to secure a larger supply of trainable, high-quality labor; regulatory reform to promote investment and ease the cost of doing business; incentives to drive more efficient and transferable health care across industry; expanded technical education to create a workforce geared to smart manufacturing; and federal support to reduce the investment cost of manufacturing in the U.S. For example, American manufacturers, when competing with Chinese producers in export markets, could receive targeted financial, technological and regulatory support equivalent to the difference in U.S.-China cost inputs or exchange rate distortion. Second, the U.S. should convince China to re-establish a new and more effective Strategic and Economic Dialogue, including the rich network of technical dialogues that underlay this diplomatic program. These include the Cyber Working Group, the Climate Change Working Group, the Joint Committee on Science and Technology, the Water Quality Action Plan, the Law Enforcement Cooperation Dialogue, the U.S.-China Innovation Dialogue, the U.S.-China Investment Forum, the Eco-Partnership Dialogue, the Energy Policy Dialogue and the Agriculture Joint Working Group, among others. Restoring a solid and peaceful U.S.-China economic partnership is more important than ever. Despite Elon Musk's dreams, we're conjoined on this planet for the next century or longer. The U.S. and China need the same thing — national and economic security and a stable global trading system. The alternative is economic war, or worse. The U.S. needs clear strategic economic statecraft comprising trade, finance and industrial policies that can more effectively deal with China. It needs to be planned with an eye to 2035 and beyond. The alternative benefits no one. Robert A. Rogowsky is professor of trade and diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a former chief economist and director of operations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
How to prevent an economic cold war between the US and China
The U.S. and China, the world's largest economies, have been balancing between two divergent paths for 25 years. The first is collaborative partnership —leading from cooperative interdependence toward productive wealth generation and technological progress. The second is a costly and destructive economic cold war. Pulling China into the World Trade Organization was an attempt to take the first path. President Trump is taking us on the other. A 145 percent tariff is more than a wall to stop trade between the U.S. and China. It too easily could be, like Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939, the start of a world-wide economic war. Am I being too dramatic? Not really. The U.S. economy is $30 trillion and China is $19 trillion. The next biggest economy, Germany, is $4.9 trillion, then Japan at $4.4 trillion and India $4.3 trillion. One hopes the EU ($20.9 trillion) could pull itself together sufficiently to offer a constructive counterbalance, but that is unlikely. The U.S. and China are by far the biggest trading partners for virtually every nation in the world. Not one country will escape this war. Some could be crushed by it. (A longer academic article that I co-authored explored how this came to be.) Add in the American-imposed wall between China's Huawei-provided telecommunication systems and the American-approved systems (Ericsson and Nokia), and the hard choice gets more difficult and more divisive. The cost will be immense: massive costly decoupling, supply chain disruption, a deep decline in productivity and innovation and global recession thrusting hundreds of millions into poverty. Not to mention the many additional forms of retaliation yet to be applied. Trump's 'knock them in the teeth and then work out a deal' approach has gotten the expected response from China. The real problem is that there is no actual 'deal,' just confusion and anger. What exactly does Trump want from China? Is the plan to sustain the tariff wall in order to rebuild domestic manufacturing? (Do we really want to bring back low-wage apparel production or electronics assembly to an economy already at full employment?) Or is it the opposite: to force tariff and non-tariff concessions in order to expand trade? Both? Neither? Was the punch in the teeth the whole point? If so, now what? Successful negotiations require clarity of purpose and specificity in demands. 'Smaller trade deficit' does not cut it as a specific demand. The U.S. must identify exactly what it wants, and when. Hopefully, one of the demands will be continued support for the rules-based system. To this end, the U.S. must work with China to develop a set of rules acceptable to both (and other key players). This will not be a mere trade agreement but a peace accord about how to move forward together on negotiating the rules of the road in the rapidly evolving international marketplace. This is a tall order in the best of times. But nothing will better serve America's or China's essential interests. Only American strength and resolve will persuade China to negotiate a new workable, rules-based framework. American strength is not found in punches to the teeth. It is in the power that comes from recognition and acceptance of differences that must be reconciled. The Trump administration must convince the Chinese government that it can both accept China's powerful place in the world and retain the best of the current rules-based order that has served the world economy so well. But, how to do it? First, the U.S. needs economic statecraft that is more like China's — strategic, tactically coherent and comprehensive, aimed directly at building up American competitiveness. It must be built upon long-overdue measures to improve U.S. competitiveness at home. This would include more modern infrastructure; strategic immigration reform to secure a larger supply of trainable, high-quality labor; regulatory reform to promote investment and ease the cost of doing business; incentives to drive more efficient and transferable health care across industry; expanded technical education to create a workforce geared to smart manufacturing; and federal support to reduce the investment cost of manufacturing in the U.S. For example, American manufacturers, when competing with Chinese producers in export markets, could receive targeted financial, technological and regulatory support equivalent to the difference in U.S.-China cost inputs or exchange rate distortion. Second, the U.S. should convince China to re-establish a new and more effective Strategic and Economic Dialogue, including the rich network of technical dialogues that underlay this diplomatic program. These include the Cyber Working Group, the Climate Change Working Group, the Joint Committee on Science and Technology, the Water Quality Action Plan, the Law Enforcement Cooperation Dialogue, the U.S.-China Innovation Dialogue, the U.S.-China Investment Forum, the Eco-Partnership Dialogue, the Energy Policy Dialogue and the Agriculture Joint Working Group, among others. Restoring a solid and peaceful U.S.-China economic partnership is more important than ever. Despite Elon Musk's dreams, we're conjoined on this planet for the next century or longer. The U.S. and China need the same thing — national and economic security and a stable global trading system. The alternative is economic war, or worse. The U.S. needs clear strategic economic statecraft comprising trade, finance and industrial policies that can more effectively deal with China. It needs to be planned with an eye to 2035 and beyond. The alternative benefits no one. Robert A. Rogowsky is professor of trade and diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a former chief economist and director of operations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
The Guardian
04-02-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
What is motivating Trump's reckless trade war?
Trump has struck last-minute deals with the leaders of Mexico and Canada to postpone for 30 days hefty tariffs on goods they export to the United States, temporarily averting a damaging trade war. Over the next month, Mexico and Canada will negotiate with Trump But it would be wrong to conclude that Trump's threat to raise tariffs 25% on America's two neighbors is just about gaining bargaining leverage. Hours before the Canadian tariffs went into effect, Trump was asked if there was anything Canada could do to stop them. 'We're not looking for a concession,' Trump said, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon. 'We'll just see what happens, we'll see what happens.' The real reason for Trump's threats is to show the world that he's willing to harm smaller economies even at the cost of harming America's very large one. The point is the show to the world – not just Canada and Mexico – knows it's dealing with someone who's willing to mete out big punishments. Trump increases his power by demonstrating he has the power and is willing to use it. The same with deporting, say, Colombians in military planes, handcuffed and shackled. Trump says, without any basis in fact, that they're criminals. If Colombia complains about their treatment, so much the better. Trump threatens tariffs. Colombia backs down, and Trump has once again demonstrated his power. Why did Trump stop foreign aid? Not because it's wasteful. In fact, it helps stabilize the world and reduces the spread of communicable diseases. The real reason Trump stopped foreign aid is he wants to show he can. Why is he disregarding or threatening to tear up treaties and agreements (the Paris Agreement, Nato, whatever)? Not because such treaties and agreements are bad for America. To the contrary, they're in America's best interest. The reason Trump is tearing them up is they tie Trump's hands and thereby limit his discretion to mete out punishments and rewards. Don't think of these as individual 'policies.' Think of them together as demonstrations of Trump's strength. If he doesn't reach a deal with Canada or Mexico over the next 30 days and one or both retaliate against American-imposed tariffs with their own tariffs on American exports, he'll retaliate against them with even bigger tariffs. If some senior Republican members of Congress object that he's stepping on congressional prerogatives, so what? It's an opportunity to show them who's boss. If a federal court temporarily stops him, so what? He'll go right on doing it and demonstrate that the courts are powerless to stop him. Look behind what's happening, and you'll see Trump employing two techniques to gain more power than any US president has ever wielded. The first is to demonstrate that he can mete out huge punishments and rewards. It doesn't matter if the punishment or reward is justified. A 25% tariff on Canada? Hello? It's a demonstration of strength. If prices skyrocket in America for oil and lumber from Canada or for fruits and vegetables from Mexico, no problem for Trump. Most Americans don't understand how tariffs work, anyway. Trump will blame Canada and Mexico. And then threaten them with, say, 50% tariffs. Kaboom! Which brings us to the second technique Trump is using to expand his power: unpredictability. What makes an abusive parent or spouse, or an abusive dictator, or Trump, especially terrifying? They're unpredictable. They lash out in ways that are hard to anticipate. So, anyone potentially affected by their actions gives them extra-wide berth — vast amounts of obedience in advance. Trump keeps everyone guessing. He demands Denmark sell Greenland to the United States. He chews out the CEO of the Bank of America at Davos for allegedly discriminating against conservatives. He attacks birthright citizenship. What's next? Who knows? That's the whole point. How else to explain the bizarre deference — cowardice — we're seeing among CEOs, the media, almost all Republican and even some Democratic lawmakers? Presumably, they're all saying to themselves: 'He could do anything, so let's be especially careful.' In 1517, Niccolo Machiavelli argued that sometimes it is 'a very wise thing to simulate madness.' The 'rule of law' is all about predictability. We need predictability to be free. But much of what Trump is doing is probably either illegal yet would require months or years before the US supreme court decides so, or is in the gray area of 'probably illegal but untested by the courts.' Which suits his strategy just fine. The media calls it 'chaos,' which is how various people and institutions experience it. The practical consequence is that an increasing number of so-called 'leaders' — in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, and around the world — are telling their boards, overseers, trustees, or legislatures: 'We have to give Trump whatever he wants and even try to anticipate his wants, because who knows how he'll react if we don't?' Together, these two techniques — big demonstrations of discretionary power to reward or punish, and wild uncertainty about when or how he'll do so — expand Trump's power beyond the point any president has ever pushed it. Which brings us to the obvious question: Why is Trump so obsessed with enlarging his power? Hint: It's not about improving the well-being of average Americans and certainly not about making America great again (whatever that means). True, he's a malignant narcissist and sadist with an insatiable lust for power who gets pleasure out of making others squirm. But there's something else. The bigger his demonstrable power and the more unpredictably he wields it, the greater his ability to trade some of that power with people with huge amounts of wealth, both in the United States and elsewhere. I'm referring to America's billionaires, such as Elon Musk and the 13 other billionaires Trump has installed in his regime, as well as the 744 other billionaires in America, and the 9,850 Americans with at least $100m in net worth. Together, these individuals have a huge storehouse of wealth. Many are willing to trade some of it to gain even more, and to tie down what they have more securely. They give Trump (and his family) business deals, information, campaign money, and positive PR (propaganda). In return, he gives them tax cuts, regulatory rollbacks, and suspensions of antitrust. I'm also referring to oligarchs in Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia. He gives them special trade deals, energy deals, intelligence deals, access to global deposits of riches; or he threatens to hold them back. In return, they give him (and his family) business deals, information, support in political campaigns, and more covert propaganda. This is Trump's game: huge demonstrations of power, wielded unpredictably. They're eliciting extraordinary deals for Trump and his family, domestically and worldwide. Trump says he's doing this for American workers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He's doing this for himself and for the world's oligarchy, which, in turn, is busily siphoning off the wealth of the world. How to stop this? The first step is to understand it. Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His newest book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at
