It’s unclear exactly
what Trump is hoping to achieve by imposing tariffs on all good imported to the
US. Sometimes he implies that it’s a temporary move to restore what he calls 'fairness', whilst
at other times, he implies that it’s intended to be a long term replacement for
income tax – a way, in effect, of transferring taxation from the income of the
richest to the expenditure of the poorest. He either doesn’t understand, or is
pretending not to understand, what tariffs are or how they work. My money’s on
the former; partly because it’s the simplest explanation and Occam’s Razor
applies, and partly because anyone who thinks that tariffs can be applied to smuggled fentanyl is
clearly demonstrating his lack of understanding. Whilst the idea that smugglers
would stop at the border to fill in forms and pay the tariff is attractive, its
relationship to reality is somewhat distant.
The underlying
statistics on which the tariffs are based are also questionable: the idea than
an island
group only inhabited by penguins and seals is exporting quantities of “machinery
and electrical” goods to the US is fanciful at best. Whoever produced the
figures for his show yesterday clearly didn’t apply any sort of ‘sense check’
to the numbers before letting His Orangeness loose to announce them. The
calculation of the total value of tariff and non-tariff barriers is opaque, to
say the least, but then basing decisions on arbitrary figures pulled out of
thin air is his normal modus operandi.
However flimsy the factual
basis, however arbitrary the decisions taken as a result, the fact is that the
tariffs are going to be in force (until he changes his mind, which could be
tomorrow - or even later today - based on experience to date), and the question is
about how to respond. The main losers, in the immediate short term at least,
will be US consumers. Even if the companies importing goods from elsewhere
succeed in ‘persuading’ their suppliers to drop prices, or themselves decide to
somehow ‘absorb’ part of the increase, the bottom line is that, for US
consumers, prices of imported goods will rise. That isn’t a bug, it’s a feature;
intended to encourage more domestic production. It might even work, but not on
a large scale in the timescale of the current Trump presidency. Investment
decisions required to build domestic capacity to replace imports aren’t going
to happen overnight. To the extent that US demand for their products reduces or
they feel obliged to reduce their pre-tariff prices, companies in all of the
countries hit by tariffs, as well as their employees, will also be losers although, again, the timescale of
that happening depends on how inelastic the demand for their products is.
For all the same
reasons, it follows that the main losers when countries impose retaliatory tariffs
will, in the short term, be the consumers in those countries; the process is a
reciprocal one. For that reason, and despite all the natural desire to hit back
at the person and country responsible, the immediate reaction of Sir Starmer
(which is that he should not react immediately) is probably sensible as far as
it goes. If and when it becomes clear that Trump’s approach is giving some US
companies either individually or by sector an advantage over UK companies, that is the
time to respond forcefully. Protectionism can also be reciprocal, another of
those unfortunate facts which Trump seems incapable of understanding.
The bigger concern with
Sir Starmer’s response is about whether trying to ingratiate himself and the UK
with His Orangeness is the best way to deal with a bully. Being best mates with
a bully might buy some relief in the short term, but it facilitates the
bullying of others and, in the long term, the bully will always come back for
more. Sir Starmer’s apparent unwillingness to collaborate with others rather
than seek advantage over them is unhelpful, and fails to acknowledge that,
however important the UK might have thought itself to be in the past, the
future of these islands is inevitably linked to that of the rest of Europe. His
reluctance to accept that a choice has to be made is itself making the default
choice of sucking up to the bully. Talk of a reset of the relationship between
the UK and the EU is just hot air when the government is seeking to negotiate
an advantage for itself over the EU partners. Pretending to be everyone’s best
friend is the best way to end up friendless.