Donald Trump's tariff deadline expires today, Trade Minister Todd McClay on looming decision
McClay will speak to NewstalkZB's Mike Hosking at 7.05am. You can listen live below.
Trump announced the tariffs during the Liberation Day speech back in April, saying he
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Rocky road predicted due to Trump's tariff expansions, not least for US
The global rollercoaster ride of US trade tariffs has entered a new phase with sobering ramifications for many countries including the US. Auckland-based Economics professor Niven Winchester explains. The global rollercoaster ride of United States trade tariffs has now entered its latest phase. President Donald Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10% baseline tariff on most goods. On July 31, however, the Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs, we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. ADVERTISEMENT For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2 and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50%) and Switzerland (39%), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10%). Table: The Conversation; Source: Niven Winchester (Source: Supplied) For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35% and 25% respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. ADVERTISEMENT GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. Table: The Conversation; Source: Niven Winchester (Source: Supplied) An economic own goal The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36%. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. ADVERTISEMENT The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the West Auckland builder sentenced over massive meth haul, fire on a commuter train, and how Bluey could teach kids about resilience. (Source: 1News) Global impacts For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47%, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44%) and Taiwan (0.38%). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15% ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. ADVERTISEMENT Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on April 2, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on April 9, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10% to 15% now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead. Niven Winchester is a Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons Licence.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Red tape slows New Zealand's adoption of biological farming products
Total alcohol consumption has been falling over recent years, though data on home consumption aren't yet available. Demand for dairy products has increased across the board, not just those targeting older consumers. Adoption of autonomous vehicles on-farm is not yet apparent (topography on a typical New Zealand farm might prove a deterrent). The last of the top five was about on-farm usage of 'biologicals'. These were described as natural products which 'can enhance plant growth and health by improving nutrient uptake, pest resistance and soil health'. This description resonates with the increased interest in achieving more (or at least the same) for less. Much has been written about the potential benefits of 'biologicals' and there's a growing view that more 'natural' options such as biologicals can replace 'chemistry'. The products tend to fall into one of three categories: bio-fertilisers (providing nutrition such as nitrogen), bio-stimulants (enhancing growth) and bio-pesticides (providing crop protection). The most advanced in terms of use and proof within a productive system are the bio-pesticides. Many countries are already using formulations not yet approved in New Zealand. Following Bayer's exit from research because of regulatory delays, there are now concerns that other companies will follow suit. The New Zealand market is small in comparison with markets in other countries, where new active ingredients are being embraced, and the cost-benefit analysis isn't stacking up here. Last month, Kent Davies, the commercial unit leader for this area for Corteva, told Agriculture Minister Todd McClay that New Zealand farmers used to have access to the latest and best innovations. This reflected a regulatory approval framework that ensured timely evaluation. In the last five years, however, New Zealand has slipped from being a world leader, resulting in other countries getting earlier access, Davies said. He stated that the regulatory process in Australia was roughly two years from submission to approval, whereas in New Zealand, regulatory delays resulted in a process that took upwards of three years. Corteva is a global leader in developing and commercialising new active ingredients, particularly in the biological sector. For any company to release a new product on the market, a functioning, reliable and timely regulatory system is critical for it to recoup the investment made. That investment is millions of dollars. It ensures that new products are safe and do what is claimed – and meets the requirements of regulators, conditions of registration, sector codes of conduct, and policies and programmes. The Animal and Plant Health Association New Zealand (Aphanz) is the peak industry association of companies that make, sell and distribute animal and crop health products, including biologicals. The Aphanz's global member companies spend an estimated annual US$3.8 billion ($6.43b) on crop protection research and development before the release of any new product. By 2030, another US$4.32b will be spent on biologicals (and another US$2.32b on precision and digital technologies). This money is more than New Zealand has in its total national research budget, let alone that for agriculture. More data indicate that companies' expenditure on research and development takes the bulk of the funding but registration costs now account for 13.9% – almost double the costs from 1995. This explains the concern about whether companies will stick with New Zealand. If they leave, so will their developments. All regulators have rigorous internationally accepted guidelines that are designed to ensure the safety of any product introduced. While all countries are focused on reducing exposure to hazards, some are not invoking the precautionary principle as much as in New Zealand. Road cones are an example. The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, with a vision of 'An environment protected, enhancing our way of life and the economy', explains the precautionary principle as: 'If we're unsure, we pause and say no for now.' However, a recent paper from the University of Massachusetts states that 'precautionary principle-based decisions reflect outdated science and risk-management principles' and 'failure to use updated science and decision science may result in more harm than good'. New Zealand regulatory bodies, the Aphanz and its member companies all want the same thing – a system that allows New Zealand farmers and growers to have access to a broad suite of new developments. Farmers and growers want access so that they can continue to support a vibrant economy. The Government is committed to change and is serious about supporting innovation in New Zealand. Time is ticking while other countries move ahead. This doesn't bode well for the export economy.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Victim in Epstein case decries ‘political warfare' in effort to release grand jury transcripts
By Casey Gannon , CNN Two victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse have filed letters to the court condemning the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and cited the lack of respect they feel has been showed toward them by President Donald Trump and his administration. Both of the victims remained anonymous in their writings sent on Monday, with one calling the latest handling of the so-called Epstein Files "political warfare." "Dear United States, I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole 'Epstein Files' with more respect towards and for the victims. I am not some pawn in your political warfare. What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely," one of the victims wrote. Another victim argued that priority has only been on protecting "wealthy men." "(I) feel like the DOJ's and FBI's priority is protecting the "third-party", the wealthy men by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims, "know who they are,'" one of the victims wrote. While neither letter outwardly requests federal Judge Richard Berman in New York to keep the transcripts under seal, both strongly urge him to take all necessary precautions in concealing victims' identities. One of the victims suggested that a third party review the release of the documents to ensure that no information related to the victims is revealed. The other victim told the judge that it is an "upmost priority" for any information regarding identify of the victims be redacted. Both emotional letters submitted to the judge showed clear frustration towards the administration's handling of the files. "I appreciate your time reading my short thoughts and feeling and my anxiety and frustration is NOT aimed at you, obviously. It is aimed at the very government here, the ones asking to release these transcripts, exhibits, etc., of which the victims are not privy to while they have concluded that there is nothing more to see on the files they hold. Yet no one has seen them, but them," one of the letters read. "I am beside myself." Victims in the case were asked to respond to the government's request to release grand jury transcripts by August 5. - CNN
