
Critics like me predicted Trump's trade war would tank the economy: Now, in a stunning mea culpa, DAN MCLAUGHLIN reveals why he was so wrong
On April 2, Trump rolled out a vast slate of taxes on about sixty countries in the most expansive US tariffs policy in nearly a century, triggering a flood of apocalyptic predictions of everything from an uncontrollable trade war to US recession to global financial doom.
In March, in anticipation of the tariff rollout, Goldman Sachs slashed its forecast for US GDP growth in 2025 from 2.4 percent to 1.7 percent. Two days after Trump's Rose Garden address, JP Morgan predicted a 60 percent chance of recession in 2025.
And even I, your humble Daily Mail contributor, sounded the alarm in April: 'Donald Trump has made a complete hash of economic policy. His tariffs are a bad idea, badly implemented, and badly explained.'
To be honest, I still believe that. But Trump has demonstrated an ability to adjust on the fly that many failed to appreciate. And now – while I won't dismiss the spectre of worldwide cataclysm just yet – things are looking pretty good.
US GDP growth surged between April and June, increasing at an annual rate of three percent, beating estimates.
The US stock markets have notched historic climbs.
Consumer sentiment is rising, as is consumer spending, which grew at 1.4 percent between April and June – despite Trump's tariffs – up from 0.5 percent from January to March.
Unemployment remains in check and recession fears have subsided. JP Morgan now puts the chances of a downturn in 2025 at 40 percent.
A unified front of aggrieved US trading partners hasn't formed to force Trump to back down, nor have they hobbled American influence abroad.
And while the president's position in the polls isn't great, it has stabilized, and more Americans are telling pollsters that they approve of his handling of the economy.
Now, with the administration announcing new trade deals, notably with the European Union, nearly everything appears to be coming up Trump.
On Sunday, EU negotiators agreed to a 15 percent tariff. That's less than Trump's punitive threats, but up significantly from around 5 percent tariffs before Trump took office, and more painful than the 10 percent deal that the United Kingdom inked in May.
The European bloc had to make promises of nearly $2 trillion in new investments in the United States and new purchases of American energy and weapons. Selling American-built weapons is also a better way for the government to create jobs than trying to use tariffs to reinvigorate industries that will never return to the US soil.
But all this doesn't mean the EU deal is flawless.
Higher tariffs are still a cost on American consumers (the US inflation rate, which excludes the cost of tariffs, has been ticking up from 2.3 percent in June) and companies that have been hesitant to pass those added costs to their customers are likelier to do so now that the tariffs are permanent.
Additionally, many of the promises of new EU purchases may not be enforceable, because the EU doesn't have the full powers of a sovereign government to guarantee compliance.
Finally, if the point of Trump's tariffs was to break down import barriers to create greater access for American goods in the European market, Trump left a lot on the table, from digital and carbon levies to GMO restrictions on American agriculture.
But it is clear that Trump got the better of the EU, which swallowed much higher tariffs just to avoid a harsher deal, while doing little to improve its position.
There's an old poker saying: if you can't spot the sucker at the table, you're the sucker.
Well, we've spotted the sucker: it's the EU with its cumbersome multi-national structure, unable to act decisively or resist Trump's overwhelming pressure campaign.
So, are these developments proof that sky-high tariffs work?
No. But it is a tribute to Trump's flexibility.
He believes more strongly in tariffs than in any other idea in politics, but he's still willing to throw them overboard to get what he wants.
When markets and opinion polls were hitting the panic button, Trump didn't dig in; he shifted course and climbed down from his most extreme tariffs.
Trump doesn't plan. He negotiates by feel and gut instinct. And there are plenty of dangers ahead for Trump's trade strategy.
The toughest trade deals, from China to Canada and Mexico, are yet to be inked. And the Federal Reserve again declined to lower interest rates – signaling persistent fears of a return to high inflation.
However, the worst predictions of recessionary ruin were overstated.
Trump is a master of hype, and he's driven his critics to a lot of overhype.
At least, some of us have enough sense to take a step back – and reconsider.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
9 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Polarising Donald Trump's North Sea comments tapped into growing frustration
It's time to listen to the point made by US president Donald Trump and turn his soundbite on the North Sea into a smart, sober policy, writes Ryan Crighton. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Donald Trump's shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy was on full display in Aberdeen this week as he waded into the UK's energy debate, calling for lower taxes on North Sea oil and gas operators. The president's remarks – delivered both in person and online to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – will have raised eyebrows in Westminster. However, in the north-east of Scotland, where redundancies are mounting, his comments tapped into a growing sense of frustration. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad US President Donald Trump on the first tee during the official opening of the New Course, the second championship course at Trump International Golf Links, on the Menie Estate in Balmedie, Aberdeenshire | PA He may be a polarising messenger, but his advocacy for the repeal of the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) aligns with what the data, the workers and the businesses on the ground have been saying for over two years – that the windfall tax is killing off a vital British industry and a crucial national asset. According to data from Offshore Energies UK, 10,000 jobs have already been lost since the levy's introduction by the Conservative government in 2022. Harbour Energy, the UK's largest oil and gas producer, has since laid off 600 people in Aberdeen alone. These aren't abstract statistics — they are highly skilled individuals, families, and communities being sacrificed on the altar of fiscal short-termism. The failure of the north east green freeport bid is a major blow for a regional economy transitioning away from fossil fuels. Picture: Andy Buchanan/Getty Worse still, the economic wreckage isn't even delivering the returns that were promised. Independent analysis from Stifel shows EPL revenues have consistently come in at the low end of government forecasts. Why? Because the supposed "windfall" they are taxing does not exist. Oil prices are down 50 per cent since the peak of the Ukraine crisis. Gas prices have collapsed by 80 per cent. The result is a textbook case of policy failure. Tax hikes intended to boost revenues have instead triggered a collapse in investment, with over £20 billion of planned capital spending now cancelled or paused. Exploration activity has ground to a halt. Fields are being decommissioned prematurely. The UK is forfeiting not just jobs and tax income, but its energy security. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This shouldn't just be of concern to those living and working in Aberdeen - this should alarm everyone, because the UK still needs oil and gas. Even in the most ambitious net-zero scenario, the country will require between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil equivalent by 2050. Right now, we're on track to produce less than four. And that energy shortfall isn't going to be filled by wind turbines and hydrogen pipelines overnight. The reality is that we are swapping cleaner, domestically produced energy for dirtier, imported alternatives. According to the North Sea Transition Authority, gas extracted in the UK has less than a quarter of the carbon footprint of imported LNG. Yet we are allowing that domestic capacity to decline while increasing our reliance on higher-emission imports from the US and Qatar. It is environmental hypocrisy at its worst. All the while, the UK government continues to claim we are 'maximising value' from our domestic resources. But how? By driving capital offshore? By gutting the supply chain that is also needed to deliver renewables, carbon capture, and green hydrogen? By forcing energy companies to pay tax rates that, in some cases, exceed 100 per cent? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ryan Crighton, policy director at Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce and a senior partner at True North Advisors. | True North Advisors In 2024, Harbour Energy reported a pre-tax profit of £950 million. However, after accounting for an effective tax rate of 108 per cent, the company posted no net profit for the year. This level of taxation is without parallel in the UK economy. It's not just unfair - it's economically suicidal. The UK's approach also compares poorly to our North Sea neighbours in Norway. While their headline tax rate is similar, the Norwegian government supports exploration and shares risk through its fiscal regime. That's why Norway continues to attract investment and why its energy sector is thriving. We, by contrast, have taken the opposite path – penalising production, scaring off capital, and hoping for different results. What's even more galling is that the levy is being used to fund Great British Energy – the new public clean energy company set-up by the Labour Party. According to Stifel, EPL revenues are set to collapse from £5.5bn to under £1bn by 2029. You cannot fund the future of energy by strangling the very sector that underpins it. So yes, President Trump is right to shine a spotlight on this issue. But the solution isn't a populist soundbite or a quick political win. It is a long-overdue dose of energy pragmatism. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad That means abolishing the EPL – now – and restoring a stable, competitive tax regime that can unlock investment, extend production and retain the critical skills base we will need for the next generation of energy infrastructure. It also means rejecting the false binary between fossil fuels and renewables. The future is not oil or wind. It is oil and wind. And hydrogen. And carbon capture. We need all of it. Everything, everywhere, all at once. The UK cannot build a low-carbon future while dismantling the industrial engine required to deliver it. A managed transition must be just that – managed. And that means recognising the continuing role of oil and gas, treating our energy sector with the strategic seriousness it deserves, and stopping the ideological war against the basin that still powers Britain. So, let's take Trump's call and translate it into smart, sober policy. Not because he said it, but because the facts demand it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The North Sea doesn't need special treatment, but it does deserve fair treatment. The alternative isn't a greener future – it's a weaker Britain.


Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The AI revolution is here to make you stupid
Despite the downsides, AI offers a seductive promise to companies driven by bottom lines: cost-cutting. Yet what may flatter the balance sheet in the short-term could cost them in future. 'Managers tend to systematically underestimate the expertise needed to do the work of their employees, meaning that they may classify more work as replaceable or deskilled than is appropriate,' one metastudy led by Professor Kevin Crowston of Syracuse University cautioned. In seven cases studied by Crowston where AI had been used, six experienced some deskilling, even alongside upskilling and efficiency gains. An examination of call centre staff in the study Generative AI At Work led by Erik Brynjolfsson showed greater gains amongst the lower skilled, penalising the higher skilled. If managers are metric-obsessed, they'll be tempted to dispense with the skilled staff quicker. Once again, the firm deploying the AI becomes less capable and more stupid. In a widely circulated essay that went viral this spring, called The Co-Pilot Delusion, a highly skilled software developer described his experience with an AI assistant he knew was deeply flawed. 'I got lazy. Of course I did,' he confessed. 'When the system forces you to code with a hallucinating clown, eventually you stop resisting. You let him type. You let him be 'productive'. You check out. You surrender your brain to the noise and just float.' Warp speed warning So what to do? In Forster's story, when The Machine glitches people are so in awe of it that they treat the issues not as a crisis but as divine wisdom. They've turned it into a deity. Are we doing the same with generative AI? The novelist Ewan Morrison, whose new thriller For Emma revolves around a fatal AI experiment, thinks so. 'I think we in our naivety have bought into all the hype,' he says. 'But integrating AI into healthcare, the military and education means introducing something with an error rate of between 33pc and 90pc. The Government is introducing factual errors into everything it touches.' Such warnings are falling on deaf ears. Tech companies are in a hurry and have found a willing servant eager to do their bidding in the Labour Government. AI will cut waiting times, identify bottlenecks and even make services 'feel more human', the Government claims in its AI Action Plan. We have even been told that the technology can stop prison riots before they even start, such is its omniscient power. MIT's Kosmyna is sceptical. 'Generative AIs do not show objectively any gain in productivity, any gain in scientific discovery or any gain in employee performance – but we are told we have to implement them in such an aggressive manner,' she says. 'What are we afraid of missing out on, exactly?' While Britain is embracing AI at warp speed, there is a healthier scepticism in Asia than in the technocrat-driven West. 'Tony Blair has been convinced there's a ghost in the machine, but the Chinese, and in Singapore, they don't believe that for one minute,' says Georg Zoeller, a former Facebook engineer based in Singapore who advises governments and is also VP of technology at a healthcare start-up. He adds: 'Eighty per cent of decision makers and people crafting the laws in China are Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] graduates who understand the technology, and the industry is being regulated by the best people, and they are integrated into both policy and technology.' James Woudhuysen, visiting professor of forecasting at South Bank University, agrees with Zoeller that the quality of our policy elites makes them more reluctant to assess societal and human harm. 'There are many more engineers in the upper echelons of Chinese society who understand technology, and understand what AI really is, than there are in Britain,' he says. 'The tendency to personalise or anthropomorphise AI, to see it as a constant and wise friend – that's a Blair legacy. They don't understand technology at all.' A decade ago, the Finnish accountants realised there was something precious in the corporate ether – the company's value was in its intangible knowledge capital. It could not be replicated by software, even if the daily tasks could be. Perhaps if we refuse to believe AI is magic, we'll be wiser about its obvious and not so obvious flaws. Unfortunately, policymakers in the West have been overtaken by a desire to make machines seem magical. If we're getting dumber, then we can hardly blame the AI for that. We've done it to ourselves.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Zillow CEO reveals what he thinks is the cause of America's 'housing crisis'
Americans everywhere are struggling to purchase homes, with sales reaching a 30 year low in 2024. Despite the tribulations of the housing market itself, the number one real estate site in the country - Zillow - is thriving. CEO Jeremy Wacksman sat down with The New York Times to discuss what may be causing the dip in the housing market and what keeps Zillow afloat amidst it all. The Seattle resident was appointed as CEO a year ago, but has been with the company since 2009. Wacksman added that the major issue with homebuying in the United States is that there is an availability problem. 'We have an affordability crisis, which is driven by an availability crisis. It is a supply-side problem,' he said. While many complain about increasing mortgage rates, he said that it's only a small factor. 'The real problem for a home buyer is home prices are up 30, 50, 70, 100 percent, depending on the market, from pre-pandemic levels. Incomes are not up that much.' According to the US Social Security Office, the average yearly income in 2023 was $66,621, only increasing 4 percent from the year prior. Wacksman noted that if the housing industry had continued to build new properties to keep up with buyer demand, it may not have become the 'crisis' it is today. 'We have been chronically under-building since, really, the global financial crisis,' he said. 'Less supply and a lot of demand is going to keep home prices elevated.' According to Zillow, the average home value is almost $370,000 with just 1.3 million homes in the for-sale inventory. Despite the dip in purchasing and sky-high prices, Zillow is seeing hundreds of millions of unique visitors every month. The company has seen a jump in revenue and its stock is up more than 60 percent. The top site for real-estate listings in the country attracts what the internet has dubbed 'Zillow Surfers.' Those with little to no intention of purchasing a home browse on the website everyday. Wacksman welcomes such browsers. ''Zillow Surfing' is pretty pervasive, regardless of if it's a buyer's market or a seller's market,' he said. 'You spend all this time window shopping and escaping and dreaming. You are getting a little smarter about what you might want, and then something happens and you pull the trigger. 'As a marketer, I don't think you could have a stronger brand endorsement than all of the usage you get from people escaping on your platform.' The way Zillow makes money is by selling ads to real estate companies who want to reach those endlessly scrolling Zillow-surfers. The company requires agents to post listings within 24 hours of being on the market. If not, it's never allowed on the site at all. Real estate companies like Compass have grown wary of Zillow, and even filed a lawsuit claiming they maintain a monopoly, calling it a 'Zillow ban.' But Wacksman said that the lawsuit itself speaks to the larger issues of seller transparency within the United States housing market. 'The heart of the issue is the U.S. real estate market currently exists with a unique amount of transparency,' he said. 'So you and I, as a buyer and seller, can see all available listings, and that empowers us to shop on our own. There are a few companies that are looking to put the internet back in a box and hide inventory and force you to pay them. 'The lawsuit is about challenging that consumer benefit and that transparency.' Now, Zillow is trying to shift toward a 'super app' structure that allows buyers to be connected with any resources that they may need. That includes mortgage providers and rental properties as well as any other related services. The service even offers a three dimensional walk through option to help buyers completely view each property. Wacksman said that marketing a home 'in the broadest sense' is the best way for agents to get the most out of Zillow. Amidst a market low, that may be the best way to break through. 'That's why we spend so much time on the software to help agents do their job well.'