Trump declared an auction but no bidders turned up
Loading
In turns out that trade negotiations are more complicated, and his tariffs less intimidating, that he thought. Most trade deals take years, not months, to negotiate.
What's particularly significant about the first round of letters, apart from official communications between heads of state being posted on a privately-owned social media site, is that they target two of America's major trading partners and closest allies.
Japan and South Korea between them generate nearly 10 per cent of US goods imports and are major investors within the US.
Japan is the largest foreign investor in US Treasury bonds, with holdings of more than $US1 trillion, and its auto companies alone have invested about $US62 billion ($A95 billion) in the US auto industry.
South Korean companies have invested close to $US115 billion in the US over the past three years and its Hyundai auto group, by itself, has said it will invest $US21 billion in its US business over the next three years. South Korea has, or thought it had, a free trade agreement with the US.
Both countries are critical to America's ambitions of containing China's ambitions in the Asia Pacific region and both have co-operated – at some cost to their companies and economies – with US attempts to curtail China's access to the most advanced semiconductors, the building blocks for most advanced industrial and military technologies.
It's insulting to those countries for Trump to say, as he did, that it was 'a great honour' for him to send their leaders letters threatening them with punitive tariffs unless they bend to his will or to say that the letters demonstrate 'the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationships.'
He's invited those countries, among America's closest trade and security partners, to 'participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World, by far.' They could be forgiven for thinking that they already do.
Loading
Yes, they, like the other countries being targeted with the so-called reciprocal tariffs – Thailand (36 per cent rate), Indonesia (32 per cent), Malaysia (25 per ent) and South Africa (30 per cent) were among the others – have trade surpluses with the US, which in Trump's mind means they are ripping the US off via unfair trade practices.
The view of most non-MAGA trade economists, however, is that the $US1.2 trillion US trade deficit in goods has more to do with Americans spending more than they produce – living beyond their means – than it does with unfair trade practices.
In the letters, Trump described the deficits as 'unsustainable' and a major threat to the US economy and national security.
The reality is that America's last trade surplus was in 1975, so for half a century America has sustained, and generally prospered despite those trade deficits without them threatening its national security.
Trump's tariffs will raise the prices for imported goods for consumers, input costs for its manufacturers and disrupt its companies supply chains. Those effects will occur in the near term.
Trump keeps asserting that the countries subjected to the tariffs will pay them but it is America and Americans that will have to absorb the cost of raising the duties paid by its importers from less than the 2.5 per cent effective average rate before Trump embarked on his trade war to something, once the reciprocal and sectoral tariffs are factored in, that could be well above 20 per cent.
While the objective of the tariff policy is ostensibly to coerce foreign companies into investing in domestic manufacturing within the US, even if that were successful (and any success is likely to be relatively modest) it would take years for new plants to be constructed and skilled workforces to be assembled and, almost by definition, the costs of the end products would be higher than those of the imports they displace.
The more likely 'success' the policy might have in reducing the US trade deficit is if it ignites stagflation – reduced economic growth but increased inflation – and a recession that pulls US living standards and consumption and the demand for imported goods down.
Trade wars are mutually destructive, with everyone losing. In America's case, the damage will be self-inflicted.
Trump's obsession with Tariffs also betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of today's US economy.
He's fixated on the trade deficit in goods, but the US economy is services-based. More than 75 per cent of US GDP is generated by the services sector; less than 25 per cent by goods-producing sectors. America has a trade surplus in services.
In the letters, Trump warns that goods that are transhipped – goods that originate in a third country, which means China – will face an even higher tariff. That was a feature of last week's deal, or at least the framework of a deal, the US announced it has reached with Vietnam, where the 'reciprocal' rate of 20 per cent would be doubled for transhipped goods.
He also threatened that, should the countries raise their own tariffs in response to US tariffs, that rate would be added to the rate the US charges.
Japan and South Korea stand out within the list of countries that were sent the Trump letters, most of which are smaller and have smaller trade volumes with the US. The size and nature of their economies and their strategic relationships with the US and its other allies have, over decades, classified them as among America's friends.
With 'friends' like this, America's 'enemies' – China and, potentially, the BRICs grouping of developing economies that includes China and Russia – would be excited by the prospect of America's self-induced isolation.
Hashtags

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

Sydney Morning Herald
21 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.

The Age
21 minutes ago
- The Age
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.

ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Trump says he wants Musk to 'thrive' as Epstein scrutiny continues
US President Donald Trump says he does not want to destroy Elon Musk's businesses and has expressed hopes that they "thrive" alongside the US economy. Mr Trump made the comments on his Truth Social platform on Thursday morning local time, over a month after the pair had a public falling out which eventually led the world's richest man to found an alternative political party. "Everyone is stating that I will destroy Elon's companies by taking away some, if not all, of the large scale subsidies he receives from the U.S. Government. This is not so!," Mr Trump said. "I want Elon, and all businesses within our Country, to THRIVE." The US president and the tech billionaire had been close allies before and for the months after Mr Trump began his second term. But relations between the two soured after Mr Musk criticised the president's "big beautiful bill" legislation for adding trillions to US government's debt and undermining his so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Mr Trump has maintained the space and automotive billionaire was unhappy because the bill would remove incentives for consumers to buy electric vehicles, such as those made by Tesla. A week after the spat in June, Reuters reported the White House had directed the Defense Department and NASA to gather details on billions of dollars in SpaceX contracts to ready possible retaliation against the Mr Musk and his companies. Mr Trump also publicly pondered whether to deport Mr Musk, who is a naturalised US citizen. On Wednesday, the tech billionaire also warned investors that US government cuts to electric vehicle makers could lead to a "rough few quarters" for Tesla. Before the relationship soured, Mr Musk had spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars to help Mr Trump win November's presidential election and led the Department of Government Efficiency's chaotic effort to slash the budget and cut the federal workforce. Mr Trump's new-found warmth for Mr Musk comes as he faces considerable and sustained pressure from some of his own supporters over his handling of the Epstein case. During their public spat, Mr Musk posted and then deleted that Mr Trump's name was mentioned in files related to Jeffrey Epstein. On Thursday local time, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was scheduled to meet Ghislane Maxwell, who was convicted of trafficking minors on behalf of the deceased paedophile and financier. Multiple US media outlets reported Mr Blanche as expected to interview Maxwell at a federal courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida. Maxwell, the daughter of the late British press baron Robert Maxwell, is the only former Epstein associate who was convicted in connection with his activities, which right-wing conspiracy theorists allege included trafficking young models for VIPs. Reuters/AFP