Trump’s Tariffs: Good or bad?

A shift toward pragmatic nationalism and sustainable development

The era of aggressive trade policies is hopefully coming to an end. Trump’s use of tariffs may mark a turning point in global economic dynamics.

While tariffs were often seen as a blunt instrument to protect national interests, its consequences have resonated far beyond mere price adjustments.

They have sparked a broader rethink of globalization, technological advancement, and sustainable economic models.

A new approach to global trade

Trump’s tariffs are not simply protectionist measures; they are part of a broader strategy to reassess the rules of global trade. They are not the end game; they are an indirect invitation to all countries for bilateral trade negotiations, setting new terms.

By selectively targeting countries and industries and renegotiating trade deals, these policies introduce the concept of using selective tariffs and bilateral trade agreements in place of current free trade agreements (FTAs).

While Trump negotiates for the US, each country should negotiate for itself.

This approach allows countries to protect their strategic sectors on broad, win-win terms without embracing blanket protectionism.

Selective tariffs have the potential to moderate the export-driven model that China has long followed unfairly.

China’s aggressive “export at all costs” policy could face significant constraints if major trade partners adopt measures that reduce demand for Chinese products except on fair terms.

If some countries choose to import indiscriminately with low tariffs despite this, merely on price, they should find ways to balance their forex reserves. Other countries won’t be affected.

Trump’s large new voter base, viz., the White American less-educated labour, won’t benefit from Trump’s tax breaks as they were always Income-Tax-exempt, given their low wages. So, the only way Trump can satisfy them is by giving them jobs in labour-intensive industries.

Tariffs may thus act as brakes on an unchecked technological and industrial expansion (esp by China), potentially curbing the rapid proliferation of automation and mass production in favour of a more balanced economic growth, with high labour participation.

Integrating technological progress with national interests

The global manufacturing landscape is undergoing a revolution, with innovations such as AI, IoT, and robotics leading to the rise of fully automated “dark factories,” especially in China.

These high-tech production hubs promise unprecedented efficiency but also raise concerns about employment, especially in developing countries, and the erosion of human-centricity.

Trump’s tariffs, by forcing a recalibration of international trade relations, inadvertently highlight the need for nations to strike a balance between embracing technology and safeguarding the domestic interests of even other countries.

As nations reassess their economic policies, there’s an increasing emphasis on protecting local industries and ensuring that technological progress serves the broader interests of society. This was not possible easily under the WTO rules, but since the US itself is breaking them, all the other countries now can too.

Insights from ‘Small Is Beautiful’ and ‘Small Is Possible’

The philosophies presented in EF Schumacher’s ‘Small Is Beautiful’ and George McRobie’s ‘Small Is Possible’ resonate strongly in this context.

Both works argue that people and sustainability matter more than economics and that economic policies should prioritize human welfare, environmental sustainability, and localized, decentralized models over unbridled growth and mass production.

These ideas support the notion that a scaled-down, sustainable approach to development can better serve communities, particularly in an era of rapid technological change.

By integrating these principles, nations can develop more resilient economies that balance automation with human needs.

Rather than striving for sheer scale, a focus on sustainability and community-oriented growth offers a viable path for future development, a path that Trump’s tariffs have indirectly encouraged by disrupting the current global trade order.

Reassessing globalization: The case for rethinking rules

The current globalization model, supported by Western-led institutions like the WTO, has emphasized a rules-based order that often prioritizes free trade and scale over sustainability and wider people’s well-being.

China’s approach, marked by centralized control and rapid automation and supported by its non-democratic political model, has exposed some of the flaws in this system.

Trump’s shifts in US trade policies have inadvertently highlighted alternative methods, such as selective tariffs and bilateral trade agreements, as tools to protect national interests, suggesting that a rigid free trade agreement (FTA) model may not always serve every country’s needs.

If any other country had spoken about it, no one would have cared. But now that the US itself has said it, everyone is sitting up and taking notice.

National interests, protectionism, and the global economy

For developing nations like India, the lessons from Schumacher and McRobie are particularly pertinent.

National interests should not be sacrificed at the altar of global free trade if doing so compromises the welfare of its people and the environment.

Instead, a balanced approach is needed, one that leverages technology to improve productivity while also safeguarding the social fabric and natural resources. Very tough to balance, but very necessary, too.

Selective tariffs and targeted bilateral trade agreements, rather than broad FTAs, can offer nations the flexibility to protect strategic industries without resorting to blanket protectionism.

Such tools allow for tailored economic measures that address specific challenges posed by global competitors. For instance, countries that have long followed an “export at all costs” policy, mainly China, could find that a global shift toward protectionist measures limits the unchecked demand for its products.

This, in turn, might slow its technological race, acting as a natural brake on an unsustainable expansion of industrial capacity.

Trump’s policies that emphasize tariffs and renegotiated trade deals underscore the potential of these approaches.

While these measures may be controversial, they inadvertently pave the way for a more balanced trade environment where nations could reassess the costs and benefits of free trade policies.

One of the most significant yet overlooked consequences of Trump’s tariffs is the spotlight it has shone on the challenges faced by poorer regions in African countries.

These nations often struggle under the weight of global free trade policies that favour larger, industrialized economies.

Selective tariffs and tailored bilateral agreements could offer a way forward, allowing developing nations to protect emerging industries and local interests without being completely isolated from global markets.

However, it is crucial for all countries to proceed with moderation.

While protectionist measures can shield vulnerable economies from the harsh realities of global competition, excessive reliance on protectionist policies risks leaving nations out of sync with the times.

Pragmatic nationalism should thus be about adaptive and measured interventions that evolve with both technological progress and shifting economic landscapes.

Challenge and opportunity

The consequences of Trump’s tariffs extend well beyond immediate trade imbalances. They have catalyzed a broader debate on how nations can balance technological advancement with sustainable, people-centric economic policies.

By highlighting the benefits of selective tariffs, bilateral trade agreements, and moderated protectionism, these policies offer a blueprint for curbing unchecked export-driven growth and ensuring that technology serves human needs rather than undermining them. It could prevent jungle laws of ‘might is right, as at present.

Incorporating the lessons of ‘Small Is Beautiful’ and ‘Small Is Possible’, the global economic order is being nudged towards a model where local interests and sustainable development are at the forefront.

This shift represents not just a response to the challenges posed by automation and rapid industrial expansion but also an opportunity for nations to redefine their place in a more balanced and equitable global economy.

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.

The post Trump’s Tariffs: Good or bad? appeared first on PGurus.