Latest / Trumponomics / How Trump’s Tariffs Are Everywhere and Nowhere

Transcript

How Trump’s Tariffs Are Everywhere and Nowhere · Trumponomics

0:00
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
0:13
Speaker 2: I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
0:17
Speaker 2: and this is Trumppernomics, the podcast that looks at the
0:20
Speaker 2: economic world of Donald Trump, how he's already shaped the
0:23
Speaker 2: global economy, what on earth is going to happen next?
0:30
Speaker 2: This week, we're investigating the curious case of the everywhere
0:34
Speaker 2: nowhere tariffs. For as long as Donald Trump has been
0:37
Speaker 2: back in the White House, everybody has been talking about
0:40
Speaker 2: his tariffs, and never more than on April second, when
0:43
Speaker 2: he announced he was liberating the US economy by slapping
0:46
Speaker 2: hefty trade levees on pretty much all of America's trading partners.
0:51
Speaker 2: Since then, we've talked about the level of the tariffs,
0:53
Speaker 2: the negotiations over bringing them down. Politicians and consumers have
0:58
Speaker 2: also talked about how they are added to inflation, especially
1:01
Speaker 2: in all those big arguments about affordability and the cost
1:05
Speaker 2: of living before and after the recent US off year elections.
1:09
Speaker 2: The President recently has himself seemed to admit that tariffs
1:13
Speaker 2: on some key food products like beef and coffee were
1:15
Speaker 2: pushing up costs for households, and he wanted to cut
1:18
Speaker 2: them We've also waited to see how tariffs might hit
1:21
Speaker 2: jobs and profits for American companies. But amid all this talk,
1:26
Speaker 2: we've not seen a lot of real evidence of where
1:28
Speaker 2: exactly the tariffs were hurting, and with the stock market
1:32
Speaker 2: still booming, we've not heard many businesses admit that tariffs
1:36
Speaker 2: were affecting their bottom line, though, as you'll hear later,
1:39
Speaker 2: recent GDP revisions do suggest that US profits in the
1:43
Speaker 2: second quarter of this year did fall off a cliff.
1:46
Speaker 2: So who has paid for the tariffs, how have they
1:49
Speaker 2: affected the US economy, and what's the evidence that they're
1:52
Speaker 2: accomplishing any or all of the President's objectives, notably cutting
1:57
Speaker 2: the trade deficit with China. They're the riddles we're hoping
2:03
Speaker 2: to solve on today's show, and we've got two great
2:06
Speaker 2: detectives to help us get to the bottom of it.
2:09
Speaker 2: Senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Brad Setzer
2:12
Speaker 2: my old friend. He's an expert on global trade and
2:14
Speaker 2: capital flows, and his regular blog on the CFL page
2:18
Speaker 2: is called Follow the Money. We worked together approximately half
2:21
Speaker 2: a million years ago, and unlike me, he then went
2:23
Speaker 2: back to the US Treasury to be Deputy Assistant Secretary
2:26
Speaker 2: for International Economics under President Obama. Brad, great to have
2:30
Speaker 2: you finally on Trumponomics.
2:31
Speaker 3: N's pleasure, and it wasn't that one.
2:34
Speaker 2: We obviously both still look very youthful, but it makes
2:37
Speaker 2: me feel old.
2:39
Speaker 3: The illusion.
2:41
Speaker 2: Also joining us as so often Anna Wong, chief US
2:44
Speaker 2: Economists for Bloomberg Economics, and before this she worked at
2:47
Speaker 2: the Federal Reserve, US Treasury and on so common at
2:50
Speaker 2: the White House Council of Economic Advisors during Donald Trump's
2:54
Speaker 2: first term.
2:55
Speaker 1: Anna Hi Hi, I actually also worked for a Brad
2:58
Speaker 1: Setser under Obama intration when he was Deputy Assistant Secretary.
3:03
Speaker 1: He's my old past.
3:10
Speaker 2: And let me start with you just remind us how
3:14
Speaker 2: much the average or effective tariff rate on goods coming
3:18
Speaker 2: into the US has gone up. You know, and we've
3:21
Speaker 2: probably lost track of a lot of the negotiations and
3:24
Speaker 2: where things are, but there has been a significant increase
3:28
Speaker 2: in the level of tariffs to come into the US.
3:32
Speaker 1: So the effective tariff rate is roughly around fourteen point
3:37
Speaker 1: five percent, just roughly. Administration just announced some exemptions for
3:42
Speaker 1: food imports last Friday, so that should knock off another
3:47
Speaker 1: point two percentage point from that. So you can say
3:50
Speaker 1: roughly around fourteen ish percent.
3:53
Speaker 2: Memory, I think it was about two or three coming
3:55
Speaker 2: into this administration, so it's a pretty significant increase. The
3:59
Speaker 2: question I asked you last week is who is paying
4:01
Speaker 2: for these tariffs? Where are we seeing it?
4:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we look at all the data we have,
4:07
Speaker 1: which is import prices, and you reconstruct a tariff inclusive
4:11
Speaker 1: import price index. We also looked at PPI, We looked
4:14
Speaker 1: at CPI. So taking all the information together, we have
4:18
Speaker 1: come to this breakdown. It would be about four percent
4:22
Speaker 1: of the price cost born by foreigners, seventy percent absorbed
4:27
Speaker 1: by any kind of intermediate firms in the US, and
4:31
Speaker 1: twenty six percent absorbed by US consumers through higher prices.
4:36
Speaker 2: When you say it's that certain chunk of it has
4:38
Speaker 2: been absorbed by consumers, that thirty percent we're seeing that
4:42
Speaker 2: in prices.
4:44
Speaker 1: Yes, So we estimate that CPI and core PCEE inflation
4:49
Speaker 1: is a roughly zero point three percentage point higher than
4:54
Speaker 1: it would have been.
4:55
Speaker 3: Without those tariffs.
4:57
Speaker 1: So most of those tariffs passed through are showing up
5:01
Speaker 1: in core goods CPI, things like house appliances, washing machines,
5:07
Speaker 1: or audio equipment, sports equipments. Those type of things. And
5:11
Speaker 1: in fact, that point three percentage point addition on core
5:15
Speaker 1: CPI and core pc inflation. That's quite similar to a
5:19
Speaker 1: top down model from the FED too. So at the
5:22
Speaker 1: FED we have this back of envelope model on the
5:25
Speaker 1: impact of tariff. So a tariff hit similar to what
5:30
Speaker 1: we see right now in total would have pushed inflation
5:34
Speaker 1: up by one point one percentage one roughly there. According
5:37
Speaker 1: to the FED model, if there's one hundred percent pass through,
5:41
Speaker 1: So if there's point three or roughly thirty percent of
5:45
Speaker 1: the pass through, then that corresponds to roughly point three
5:48
Speaker 1: percentage point edition on CPI. And that's indeed what we
5:51
Speaker 1: have seen in the year over year increase of core
5:55
Speaker 1: good CPI. We have seen that went from naked zero
6:00
Speaker 1: point one percent that's year over year core good CPI
6:05
Speaker 1: to now one point five percent year over year. Now
6:08
Speaker 1: that's a one point six percentage point swing.
6:11
Speaker 2: And Brad just as we'll get into some of the details,
6:14
Speaker 2: but just sort of sort of on the broad scope
6:17
Speaker 2: of what Anna just said, that thirty percent is absorbed
6:20
Speaker 2: by consumers, and then it looks like about sixty sixty
6:23
Speaker 2: five percent by those kind of intermediate firms who have
6:27
Speaker 2: to pay the tariff at the border. Is that roughly
6:30
Speaker 2: how you would look at it.
6:32
Speaker 3: I mean, more or less. Yeah, I think a lot
6:33
Speaker 3: of estimates are.
6:34
Speaker 4: Converging around similar numbers. You can just see from the
6:37
Speaker 4: import price data that foreigners aren't paying it, so then
6:41
Speaker 4: it's just a question of who's absorbing it in the
6:43
Speaker 4: US economy. It has been a slight surprise that only
6:47
Speaker 4: roughly a third looks like it's been passed on to consumers,
6:50
Speaker 4: an unusually high fraction seems like it's been absorbed by
6:54
Speaker 4: the supply chain, by intermediate importers.
6:56
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously, Bloomberg, we are often listening in on
6:59
Speaker 2: earning schools when companies are announcing their results. We're tracking
7:04
Speaker 2: profits and earning revisions, and we're also keeping an eye
7:08
Speaker 2: on the stock market, which seems to have been doing
7:10
Speaker 2: pretty well. And even just in this recent earning season,
7:14
Speaker 2: I seem to remember my colleagues talking about most companies
7:18
Speaker 2: actually beating their expectations on profits. Maybe you first bad,
7:23
Speaker 2: why do you think we're not hearing so much from
7:26
Speaker 2: companies about having to pay these having to take these
7:29
Speaker 2: higher prices or the tariffs in their margins.
7:33
Speaker 4: Well, I mean sort of One of the ironies is
7:35
Speaker 4: that the parts of the US economy that generate the superprofits,
7:39
Speaker 4: you know, the tech sector, the pharmaceutical sector, they've been
7:43
Speaker 4: entirely exempted from the tariffs.
7:45
Speaker 3: Why wouldn't Nvidia be talking.
7:46
Speaker 4: About it because there isn't yet a terraff chips. Why
7:49
Speaker 4: is it not impact Advisor's bottom line? Well, there isn't
7:52
Speaker 4: yet a tariff on pharmaceuticals, and we've had some kind
7:54
Speaker 4: of crazy fluctuations in trade because of expected tariffs on pharmaceuticals.
8:00
Speaker 4: But at the end of the day, the tariffs haven't
8:03
Speaker 4: hit those sectors, and I guess in other cases you're
8:05
Speaker 4: seeing offsetting shocks. Like a firmlike Caterpillar would normally feel
8:10
Speaker 4: the impact of the steel tariffs would normally feel the
8:13
Speaker 4: impact of higher tariffs on parts, but there's a lot
8:16
Speaker 4: of demand for generators and for some of the equipment
8:19
Speaker 4: used to make data centers, So you kind of end
8:21
Speaker 4: up with offsetting shocks and don't have that clear impact
8:25
Speaker 4: on the bottom line. That's the best I can do.
8:27
Speaker 4: It is a bit of a mystery. It does not
8:30
Speaker 4: feel like it's been fully passed on by consumers. We
8:32
Speaker 4: know it hasn't been absorbed by importers, So it implicitly
8:36
Speaker 4: has to be impacting someone's bottom line in those sectors
8:40
Speaker 4: where there are tariffs.
8:41
Speaker 2: And what's your sense of where that? I mean, if
8:44
Speaker 2: you're saying sixty percent is being felt somewhere by corporate America.
8:49
Speaker 2: Is this the little guy who's finding the getting squeezed
8:53
Speaker 2: rather than these big companies we hear on the earning schools.
8:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the stock market is not the economy. It's
9:00
Speaker 1: very important to know that the S and P five
9:02
Speaker 1: hundred only has about five hundred firms, but the total
9:05
Speaker 1: US economy has about seven million firms.
9:08
Speaker 2: You have that on your Twitter handle, date you more
9:10
Speaker 2: or less you know common brackets. You know the stock
9:13
Speaker 2: market is not the economy, and of.
9:16
Speaker 1: Which ninety percent of those seven million firms have only
9:19
Speaker 1: less than twenty employees. And most US firms don't export
9:23
Speaker 1: at all either. And another very specific feature about the
9:27
Speaker 1: stock listed companies is that in total, they generate thirty
9:31
Speaker 1: percent of revenues from outside of the US. So offsetting
9:35
Speaker 1: shocks include, for example, the dollar depreciation this year, and
9:39
Speaker 1: that ten percent dollar depreciation had boosted the revenues form
9:43
Speaker 1: revenues for those SMP five hundred firms.
9:47
Speaker 2: So their profits abroad and suddenly if you're just measuring
9:50
Speaker 2: it in the US, they're worth more.
9:52
Speaker 3: Yes.
9:53
Speaker 1: So if you want to look at the profit situation
9:56
Speaker 1: in the rest of America, primarily these small businesses, we
9:59
Speaker 1: have to look to the national accounts and there you
10:02
Speaker 1: see a pretty clear evidence of profit hit. So the
10:05
Speaker 1: second quarter GDP corporate profit was revised down significantly from
10:11
Speaker 1: the first estimate of roughly sixty five billion to just
10:16
Speaker 1: seven billion.
10:17
Speaker 2: In the revised estimate, sixty five turned into seven. I
10:21
Speaker 2: know it is in that particular bit of the national
10:23
Speaker 2: accounts does sometimes jump around a lot, but is that
10:25
Speaker 2: a big revision?
10:26
Speaker 3: That is a big revision.
10:28
Speaker 1: When you look at this the change of corporate profits
10:31
Speaker 1: from the second quarter of twenty twenty five compared to
10:35
Speaker 1: the end of twenty twenty four, you see that most
10:38
Speaker 1: of that decline are in manufacturing sector, wholesale trade and
10:42
Speaker 1: transportation warehousing, motor vehicles. So we are seeing at the
10:47
Speaker 1: aggregate levels some kind of margin hits, but it's just
10:51
Speaker 1: not showing up in the stock market.
10:53
Speaker 2: That is a very striking number that the profits having
10:56
Speaker 2: gone down for sixty five and a half to just
10:58
Speaker 2: down the seven billion in the second quarter, And as
11:01
Speaker 2: you pointed out, and there's evidence that it's the wholesale sector.
11:06
Speaker 2: And when you look a bit deeper into the numbers,
11:08
Speaker 2: are we then likely to see if the corporate sector
11:12
Speaker 2: as a whole, even if it's these kind of smaller
11:14
Speaker 2: businesses that are a little bit below the radar, if
11:17
Speaker 2: they're the ones who are feeling the hit, are we
11:20
Speaker 2: going to see that in jobs? Is there an economic
11:23
Speaker 2: impact which we're still waiting to see from that?
11:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I think we can always look at these
11:30
Speaker 1: empirical data and then go back to the theoretical models
11:34
Speaker 1: and think about evaluate how good or bad they are.
11:37
Speaker 1: So going back to this FED model that internally the
11:41
Speaker 1: Divisional of International Finance has on the impact of tariff.
11:45
Speaker 1: In twenty eighteen, the FED staff ran assimilation on what
11:49
Speaker 1: a fifteen percentage point tariff shock would do the unemployment
11:54
Speaker 1: and the impact depends on whether the FED is looking
11:57
Speaker 1: through the impact on prices. So I would say in
12:01
Speaker 1: the current situation, the FED is looking through it somewhere
12:04
Speaker 1: in between. So according to the lookthrough strategy, the unemployment
12:09
Speaker 1: rate should be going up by about zero point three
12:12
Speaker 1: two point five percentage points in the first year after
12:17
Speaker 1: the shock, and I would say that's roughly where we are,
12:21
Speaker 1: because when we start the year, the Wall Street consensus
12:24
Speaker 1: for unemployment rate was about four point one at the
12:28
Speaker 1: end of twenty twenty five, and now we're looking at
12:31
Speaker 1: four point five. So in fact, these macro models are
12:36
Speaker 1: performing okay, Brad.
12:38
Speaker 2: If you're looking at the kind of overall impact of
12:41
Speaker 2: these tarerts, they've obviously been very uncertain, unpredictable, and if
12:48
Speaker 2: we were designing a trade policy, we'd probably want the
12:50
Speaker 2: very least. We probably want something that was a bit
12:52
Speaker 2: more stable and followed a slightly more predictable path. But
12:57
Speaker 2: if you just were told that the effective tariff rate
13:01
Speaker 2: had gone up from three percent to around fourteen percent
13:05
Speaker 2: over the course of six to nine months, and then
13:08
Speaker 2: you looked at these various economic indicators that change in
13:12
Speaker 2: the openness of the US economy, do you think it's
13:14
Speaker 2: had a less harmful impact than we might have predicted
13:17
Speaker 2: at the beginning of the year.
13:19
Speaker 3: Yeah, modestly less harmful.
13:21
Speaker 4: I mean, largely because businesses have absorbed so much of
13:24
Speaker 4: the one off shock, it hasn't been all felt by consumers,
13:28
Speaker 4: and so consumers really haven't paired back spending on other goods.
13:32
Speaker 4: Of course, part of it is also that other things
13:34
Speaker 4: are happening. But for the tariffs, the big increase in
13:38
Speaker 4: spending on data centers and all the investment in AI
13:41
Speaker 4: might have been propelling the US economy quite forward at
13:45
Speaker 4: a pretty fast clip. The strong run up in the
13:47
Speaker 4: stock market is generating a wealth effect even now, and
13:50
Speaker 4: that is also supporting household consumption. But all told, if
13:54
Speaker 4: you said we've reincreased teriffs by a percentage point with
13:58
Speaker 4: no offsetting policy changes, and at the end of that
14:02
Speaker 4: six months consumer prices are only up thirty basis points,
14:05
Speaker 4: that's a little smaller than I would have expected. Now,
14:08
Speaker 4: I do think, and I think Jay Powell thinks as well,
14:11
Speaker 4: that we're going to see a little bit of a
14:12
Speaker 4: lagged increase in the price level.
14:14
Speaker 3: But in aggregate, it was never at.
14:17
Speaker 4: This level as opposed to the levels that came out
14:20
Speaker 4: after Liberation Day. It was never at a level that
14:23
Speaker 4: I thought was going to lead to a recession. In
14:26
Speaker 4: order to get to a recession, you needed tariffs of
14:28
Speaker 4: more like twenty percent two percentage points of GDP taken
14:31
Speaker 4: out of the economy, and you needed no offsets, no
14:34
Speaker 4: tax cuts to put money back in. And what we
14:37
Speaker 4: have seen is a much compared to that giant shock,
14:41
Speaker 4: a more manageable shock, and then there have been some offsets.
14:45
Speaker 2: It's not easy. We talked about it before on the show.
14:47
Speaker 2: It's pretty hard for politicians to raise taxes in the
14:50
Speaker 2: current environment. But the President has raised these taxes and
14:53
Speaker 2: he's made a bunch of revenues.
14:56
Speaker 4: And then he's arguably paid a bit of a political
14:57
Speaker 4: price for it. I mean, hence the fall in the
15:00
Speaker 4: price of coffee, or the tariffy on coffee, hence the
15:03
Speaker 4: decisions to exempt consumer goods that aren't made in the US.
15:08
Speaker 3: From some of the tariffs.
15:10
Speaker 4: Even if the aggregate impact has been somewhat more modest
15:13
Speaker 4: than might have been initially expected, it still has impacted
15:16
Speaker 4: certain very salient prices, and it certainly directionally has increased
15:22
Speaker 4: the cost of living, which is an issue here as
15:24
Speaker 4: you know. So I wouldn't say it's been politically costless.
15:28
Speaker 4: It just hasn't pushed the economy off a generally growing trajectory.
15:49
Speaker 2: Let's sort of change the focus a bit. I guess
15:51
Speaker 2: we should also put in a health warning. Anyone who's
15:53
Speaker 2: a dedicated listener will notice that we've resolutely not talked
15:56
Speaker 2: about the possibility that half of these tariffs are going
15:59
Speaker 2: to get unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The principal reason
16:03
Speaker 2: why we haven't talked about them is everybody else's, and
16:06
Speaker 2: the slightly less principled is that we just thought every
16:09
Speaker 2: time we did would be guarantee that the moment we
16:11
Speaker 2: put it out there would be a decision that would
16:13
Speaker 2: suddenly put everything in question. So when that happens, we
16:16
Speaker 2: will get Brad and Anna back to talk about what
16:19
Speaker 2: that means. But Brad, outside of China, I suspect you're
16:23
Speaker 2: one of a handful of people who understands the Chinese
16:26
Speaker 2: balance of payments, and you've often pointed to things that
16:30
Speaker 2: people don't want to notice or would rather go away.
16:33
Speaker 2: Of course, one of the key objectives of these tariffs
16:37
Speaker 2: was to reduce the US trade deficit and encourage American
16:42
Speaker 2: producers to make more in the US, encourage US consumers
16:46
Speaker 2: to buy more American products. I mean, we obviously it
16:49
Speaker 2: is early days, but how is that side of the
16:52
Speaker 2: agenda going well?
16:55
Speaker 4: I mean, unfortunately, there's really no impact that there's been
16:58
Speaker 4: a reallocation of production to the United States. We're just
17:02
Speaker 4: not seeing a boom in manufacturing, and not a boom
17:06
Speaker 4: in the kind of manufacturing that was substitute for China.
17:09
Speaker 3: So just zero evidence.
17:11
Speaker 4: I would say that is happening again early, but zero
17:14
Speaker 4: is the right number. There was a reallocation of final
17:18
Speaker 4: assembly away from China to Southeast Asia in a quite
17:23
Speaker 4: significant way, and also to Taiwan. If you look at
17:26
Speaker 4: the latest trade numbers out of Taiwan, they're going up
17:28
Speaker 4: like crazy, and that is a function at least in
17:31
Speaker 4: part of doing your servers in Taiwan rather than finyal
17:34
Speaker 4: assembly in China. The interesting thing is that after the
17:38
Speaker 4: latest deal, the deal that was negotiated in Korea, the
17:42
Speaker 4: base tariff on China is going to come down from
17:45
Speaker 4: thirty to twenty. Now there's legacy tariffs on some goods
17:48
Speaker 4: from the Trump one trade case, and in some cases
17:52
Speaker 4: those are twenty five. In some cases those are seven
17:54
Speaker 4: and a half, some cases those are zero. But for
17:56
Speaker 4: most of the goods it's the new tariffs are either
17:59
Speaker 4: going to be twenty seven and a half, which is high,
18:01
Speaker 4: or twenty which is also high. But twenty is not
18:04
Speaker 4: that different from the nineteen or twenty now facing Southeast Asia.
18:09
Speaker 3: So structurally, I.
18:11
Speaker 4: Think there was a lot of movement out of China
18:13
Speaker 4: to do final assembly elsewhere in anticipation of a different
18:17
Speaker 4: terra structure than has actually emerged. What has emerged, if
18:21
Speaker 4: this sticks, is a terra structure that's too high on
18:23
Speaker 4: Southeast Asia and too low on China to generate the
18:27
Speaker 4: kind of reallocation away from China that you saw on
18:30
Speaker 4: Trump's first term, and it's still too small, particularly with
18:34
Speaker 4: the exchange rate moves, to get much production coming back
18:38
Speaker 4: to the US.
18:38
Speaker 2: That's really interesting. I mean, I think a lot of
18:40
Speaker 2: fair amounted people will say it's pretty hard to just
18:43
Speaker 2: quickly build a factory, and so we might not see
18:45
Speaker 2: that physical production move. But I think if your main
18:47
Speaker 2: goal is to wean the US off a particular right
18:53
Speaker 2: liiance on China, and that's obviously been a goal that's
18:56
Speaker 2: also carried through from the first Trump administration through the
18:59
Speaker 2: Biden years, that is a very striking conclusion from the
19:04
Speaker 2: recent trade deal, and actually some of our geoeconomists analysts
19:08
Speaker 2: we're making the same point. It seems odd to be
19:11
Speaker 2: in effect penalizing some of the countries that are trying
19:14
Speaker 2: to compete with China, whose basket we might want to
19:16
Speaker 2: put more eggs in. But anna the trade deficit is
19:20
Speaker 2: there a sense? Is the composition of the trade deficit fit?
19:23
Speaker 2: I mean, have we reduced the amount of imports coming
19:26
Speaker 2: into the US with these tariffs?
19:28
Speaker 1: I can offer a perspective on what these earning calls
19:31
Speaker 1: are saying. So Bloomberg Economics and Bloomberg Intelligence have been
19:35
Speaker 1: using AI extraction technology to extract all the TERRORFF related
19:39
Speaker 1: quotes from the earnings transcripts so far, and what I
19:43
Speaker 1: have seen is at number one, a theme that emerges.
19:46
Speaker 1: As Brad said, there are many other offsetting things that's
19:49
Speaker 1: happening outside of this tariff space that's helping beef up
19:55
Speaker 1: the margins of firms like AI, and also deregulations on
19:59
Speaker 1: environmental stuff on autos. However, the second most dominant theme,
20:04
Speaker 1: I would say is how firms mitigate these tariff costs.
20:08
Speaker 1: And I see a lot of firms mentioning sourcing more
20:13
Speaker 1: efficient sourcing outside of China, and in fact, many of
20:17
Speaker 1: these firms are projecting forward guidance saying that in twenty
20:21
Speaker 1: twenty six their effective tariff rate would be lower. I mean,
20:25
Speaker 1: regardless of what the statutory tarif rate is because many
20:29
Speaker 1: of the supply chain mitigation strategies they put in this
20:32
Speaker 1: year will be in full operation next year, and all
20:36
Speaker 1: of it surrounds sourcing outside of China. And I looked
20:40
Speaker 1: at those statements and I wonder, well, but what if
20:43
Speaker 1: there's a US China deal that lower the Chinese tariff
20:48
Speaker 1: and to below the Southeast Asian because many of these
20:51
Speaker 1: mitigation strategy involved moving to Southeast Asia or to the
20:56
Speaker 1: USMCA region. As of now, this positive pigure partly hinges
21:01
Speaker 1: on these mitigation strategies.
21:04
Speaker 2: That's interesting. They thought that was the one sure thing,
21:07
Speaker 2: was that there would want to be a bit less
21:09
Speaker 2: reliant on China, and then it turns out maybe they
21:11
Speaker 2: didn't need it. I am kind of intrigued. He's been
21:14
Speaker 2: so variable and unstable in his trade policies that you've
21:18
Speaker 2: told us in the past. Producers were possibly not raising
21:21
Speaker 2: prices because they thought, well, I might have to cut
21:23
Speaker 2: prices again. You know, they may all go away in
21:25
Speaker 2: a week's time. And at the same time, the threat
21:28
Speaker 2: of tariffs or the reality of tariffs, was making them
21:31
Speaker 2: do all these cost cutting things. If the tariffs then
21:34
Speaker 2: go away, down the road, he would have helped increase
21:37
Speaker 2: the efficiency of US business.
21:38
Speaker 1: Right probably, But if the tariff were to suddenly go away,
21:43
Speaker 1: for example with the Supreme Court ruling, it would be
21:46
Speaker 1: super polish for the market. Because when you read these
21:50
Speaker 1: earning transcripts, what struck me is that had there not
21:55
Speaker 1: been tariffs, these profit margins would be through the roof.
21:59
Speaker 1: Like even with tariffs, they're already talking about it being
22:03
Speaker 1: really good, and even Ford and GM of these big
22:07
Speaker 1: auto makers are talking about how they're finally getting to
22:10
Speaker 1: margins of eight to ten percent, and the auto sector
22:13
Speaker 1: is so resilient.
22:14
Speaker 3: In fact, for.
22:15
Speaker 1: Them, the tariff is creating domestic protectionalism, I mean, which
22:20
Speaker 1: is benefiting them from their perspective, even though it does
22:24
Speaker 1: create a more than one billion tariff costs for some
22:26
Speaker 1: of these auto firms. But the original intent of tariff
22:30
Speaker 1: is domestic protectionalism, and some firms, for example in auto
22:35
Speaker 1: and steel sectors, are seeing some of that.
22:39
Speaker 2: Brad quite a lot of voters for Donald Trump thought
22:42
Speaker 2: this was just about buying fewer goods from the rest
22:46
Speaker 2: of the world, and we have made those goods more
22:49
Speaker 2: expensive to some degree, have we reduced the amount coming
22:53
Speaker 2: into the country we have the tariffs reduced the number
22:57
Speaker 2: of imports coming into the country.
22:58
Speaker 4: I'll start with a dodge in the come back and
23:00
Speaker 4: actually answer the question. The dodges of course we lack
23:03
Speaker 4: trade data for the past two months because the government.
23:07
Speaker 4: The correct answer is that so far the trade deficit
23:11
Speaker 4: has not gone down. And then the further component of
23:14
Speaker 4: that answer is we've had some of the most crazy
23:17
Speaker 4: swings in the trade data in human history, tied to
23:21
Speaker 4: swings in products that didn't end up having any tariffs.
23:24
Speaker 4: So we have this huge surgeon gold imports in the
23:27
Speaker 4: first quarter because everybody was afraid that gold was going
23:30
Speaker 4: to get tariffed. Well, guess what, Gold didn't get hit
23:32
Speaker 4: by any tariffs, and now some of that gold's flying
23:35
Speaker 4: out of the US back to London. People were terrified
23:39
Speaker 4: that the high value added pharmaceuticals were going to be
23:42
Speaker 4: tariffed and that was going to undermine all these tax
23:44
Speaker 4: efficient supply chains ie produced in Ireland to avoid payan
23:48
Speaker 4: US corporate income tax. So you have gigantic quantities, not
23:52
Speaker 4: big quantities physically, but valueized, crazy numbers of pharmaceuticals coming
23:57
Speaker 4: into the US in the first quarter and so forth.
24:01
Speaker 3: That turned out not.
24:02
Speaker 4: To be necessary because pharmaceutical companies are doing deals.
24:06
Speaker 3: Who knows quite what's going to happen with those deals.
24:09
Speaker 4: Maybe they'll be more fill and finish, but the net
24:11
Speaker 4: effect was you had these giant swings and distortions with
24:15
Speaker 4: no actual tariff being imposed. When you look through that,
24:19
Speaker 4: imports are not really down. And when you look further
24:23
Speaker 4: through that, I think you'll see that imports in some
24:25
Speaker 4: sectors that have been heavily tariffed, like autos, are a
24:29
Speaker 4: little down, and then imports in sectors that are tied
24:33
Speaker 4: to capital expenditure in data centers and so forth, and
24:39
Speaker 4: which have not been heavily tariffed are up and up
24:42
Speaker 4: a lot. So the aggregate will mask a lot of
24:45
Speaker 4: different stories. But we're not currently trending towards a smaller deficit.
24:50
Speaker 4: I think there's a lot of reasons for that, one
24:52
Speaker 4: of which is that a big boom in capital expenditures
24:56
Speaker 4: normally pulls and imports, and we still rely on imported chips.
25:00
Speaker 4: The build out of TSMC and Arizona's taken time, and
25:03
Speaker 4: so you know, you really are seeing big increases in
25:06
Speaker 4: imports in those categories, and I fully expect that to
25:09
Speaker 4: be the dominant theme of the second half and the
25:11
Speaker 4: trade data once we get the data, just on this reallocation.
25:17
Speaker 4: For a firm like Apple, the fentanyl tariff which used
25:20
Speaker 4: to be twenty percent and now ten that was hitting
25:23
Speaker 4: them because the fentanyl tariff didn't have any exclusions. For
25:27
Speaker 4: the reciprocal tariff, which was the tariff on everybody else,
25:31
Speaker 4: you had an electronics and semiconductor's exclusion. Now that electronics
25:35
Speaker 4: and semiconductctor exclusion did not include game stations. We are
25:40
Speaker 4: kind of weird and arbitrary and where you draw the limit.
25:43
Speaker 4: And that's true across the board. So Apple's mitigation strategy
25:47
Speaker 4: would just be get out of China. For some others,
25:50
Speaker 4: your mitigation strategy was initially to go to Southeast Asia
25:54
Speaker 4: because it was much lower ten than on China. That
25:57
Speaker 4: mitigation strategy may not work as well going forward, and
26:00
Speaker 4: your next mitigation strategies final assembly in Mexico or Central
26:04
Speaker 4: America where you have very strong exclusions, presuming that the
26:09
Speaker 4: USMCA renegotiation doesn't change things. To me, one of the
26:13
Speaker 4: surprises though, is that in the macro data, you would
26:16
Speaker 4: think all this policy uncertainty would have had a bigger
26:19
Speaker 4: impact and you really just don't see the policy uncertainty
26:23
Speaker 4: impact yet. But it really has made life difficult for
26:27
Speaker 4: a lot of firms. And I mean it's made life
26:29
Speaker 4: difficult for a lot of analysts. I always put a
26:31
Speaker 4: star next to the estimates of the effective teriff rate
26:34
Speaker 4: because some tack, some tariffs don't stack, there are exclusions,
26:40
Speaker 4: there are rebates.
26:41
Speaker 3: It has become insanely complex.
26:44
Speaker 2: Anna, I guess all these things always have to come
26:47
Speaker 2: back to the FED. You said yourself their model for
26:50
Speaker 2: thinking about things and the effect of tariffs was sort
26:52
Speaker 2: of broadly holding up the fact that consumers are taking
26:57
Speaker 2: about a third of this on the chin and then
27:01
Speaker 2: you're seeing the rest in various ways in the corporate America,
27:04
Speaker 2: but it's not really as obvious because there's so much
27:07
Speaker 2: stuff going on. Does that affect how they might be
27:11
Speaker 2: thinking about inflation coming down the track? I mean, one
27:14
Speaker 2: thing I heard you say was maybe there isn't this
27:17
Speaker 2: isn't a lagged effect. We may have seen most of
27:19
Speaker 2: what we're going to see, Is that right?
27:21
Speaker 3: Yeah?
27:22
Speaker 1: I think what we are seeing right now reflect well
27:26
Speaker 1: one of the model's forecasts. It's not the same result
27:29
Speaker 1: as what the Fed's research has been saying earlier this year,
27:33
Speaker 1: but it matches the result of one particular model from
27:36
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, which is most of it would be absorbed
27:40
Speaker 1: by firms and hence there will be the hit would
27:42
Speaker 1: be on the labor market. So at the end of
27:45
Speaker 1: the day, the US economy is mostly a service driven economy.
27:50
Speaker 3: You look at the CPI.
27:51
Speaker 1: Index, about three quarters are services sectors, only a quarters
27:57
Speaker 1: goods sector. Also, if you look at it from the
28:00
Speaker 1: income perspective, two thirds of the US is labor share,
28:04
Speaker 1: the rest is capital share. So what will happen to
28:08
Speaker 1: inflation in the next twelve months, importantly will be driven
28:13
Speaker 1: by the labor market. And there are so many things
28:17
Speaker 1: that's heading the labor market. Aside from tariff there's also
28:20
Speaker 1: the issue of is AI reducing hiring, which is another
28:25
Speaker 1: almost as big as an issue as a driver as tariffs.
28:29
Speaker 1: And my answer to that is, I think both tariffs
28:33
Speaker 1: and AI point toward the direction of a drag, a
28:37
Speaker 1: major drag to the labor market. If I were the FED,
28:40
Speaker 1: I would be more worried about downside risks to the
28:42
Speaker 1: labor market.
28:44
Speaker 2: Right. So my takeaway from this is just because we
28:48
Speaker 2: did promise we would sort of answer those riddles that
28:51
Speaker 2: I posed at the start questions households. We see and
28:56
Speaker 2: hear people talking about affordability and high cost of things.
29:00
Speaker 2: They are clearly feeling the pain, and some of that
29:03
Speaker 2: is about tariffs, but there's an awful lot of other
29:06
Speaker 2: things that are affecting their costs and their outlook. Corporate
29:10
Speaker 2: America paying about two thirds of the tariffs. It's not
29:14
Speaker 2: being paid by foreign exporters. But there's so much other
29:19
Speaker 2: good news in corporate America now with AI and other
29:24
Speaker 2: things that the bad news associated with tariffs is literally
29:27
Speaker 2: getting lost in the mix. So I guess that might
29:29
Speaker 2: take aways that they tarifs are a lot easier to
29:32
Speaker 2: talk about than to find in the real life economy.
29:35
Speaker 2: Anna Wong, Brad Setter, thank you so much, thank you,
29:39
Speaker 2: thank you, thanks for listening to Trumpnomics from Bloomberg. It
29:53
Speaker 2: was hosted by me Stephanie Flanders, and I was joined
29:55
Speaker 2: by Brad Setter, Senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations,
30:00
Speaker 2: what Chief US economist for Bloomberg Economics. Trumponomics was produced
30:04
Speaker 2: by Samasadi and Moses and with help from Amy Keen.
30:08
Speaker 2: Sound design was by Blake Maples. And Kelly Gary and
30:11
Speaker 2: Sage Bowman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts, and to help
30:15
Speaker 2: others find us and enjoy us, please rate and review
30:18
Speaker 2: it highly wherever you listen to podcasts.