U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he would impose reciprocal tariffs to match duties put on American goods by other countries.
“It’s our declaration of independence,” Trump said at an event in the White House Rose Garden. “We will establish a minimum baseline tariff of 10%.”
Reuters:
Rates for China would be set at 34% for China, while the European Union and Japan would face 20% and 24%, respectively.
S&P 500 futures reversed gains and fell to a 1.6% loss, suggesting investors expect deep losses when Wall Street opens on Thursday. Nasdaq futures, reflecting tech companies such as Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft, were down 2.3% after gaining earlier on Wednesday.
I see this as net positive. For the most part, these tariff levels are just the starting point for further negotiations. And Mexico and Canada are still exempt from further tariffs. I think the market will settle down and begin to parse the details and realize it’s at worst a mixed bag of news.
I’m looking at the big technology companies that are sitting on enormous piles of cash. If they’re going to get pinched by this retreat, I’m a buyer on weakness. It’s just the market over-reacting, and I’m very happy to take advantage of that. — Jason Britton, Chief Investment Officer, Reflection Asset Management, Charleston, South Carolina
MacDailyNews Take: Let the negotiations begin!
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
Negotiations are not going to happen on Australia protecting our biosecurity by imposing conditions on US agriculture imports.
Outcome is going to be the US consumer paying more for the McDonalds (Australian Beef) or find out out that products are not going to be available, as per what happened when China imposed sanctions on Australian products, we just found markets elsewhere.
Will be interesting to see the reaction of the American public when this all comes back to bite them in the face, and hip pocket.
Trump is a terrible negotiator, and a bad businessman.
He bankrupted himself several times, and now he’s going to do it to all of us.
AAPL down $50 so far because of Trump.
S&P doubled under Biden, down 12% thanks to the Trump administration.
you people don’t get that this is a tax. you are kidding right.
this is just a way of raising your taxes, taking money from you, in a way they get to claim by definition they did not raise your taxes. this is a convoluted way to raise revenue. everybody will pay more no matter what.
it would have been cheaper, more economical, and way less painful to tax the 1.3 million people who are in the 1 percent. why? because of several real life truths, they will never miss the tax on the interest of the money, why? Another truth here, they make that money back in days if not hours. they have had tax cut after tax cut after tax cut and every time it tanks the economy. so yes it is past time the pay more than a school teacher in taxes.
if you fired every civilian employee of the Federal government that is 6.7 percent of the budget. so why do it? good question. it is only a stunt, it’s what businesses do to play on the psychology of shareholders. the biggest cost to any corporation is the ceo, notice they never take a pay cut. job cuts are arbitrary numbers to make it look as if things are moving.
BOB, socialism has NEVER worked and that–at least–if what you are advocating. People of your ilk find it easy/natural to spend another’s money. The hubris and presumption required to so easily adopt that mindset is simply bizarre.
“they will never miss the tax on the interest of the money” Steal it…they’ll never know. Bizarre.
Besides people in-the-know state plainly, the rich taxed at very heavy rates wouldn’t come close to covering the debt/deficit. The US is at 1 TRILLION (greater in ’25) on just interest payments alone. Besides, productivity is the one absolute that could get the US out of their $$ hole…IF a financial magician is able to walk the very fine with inflation that would result with rigorous productivity. The Bernie Bros (your kin) aren’t are going to be the ones to unleash the productivity needed. It’s the entrepreneur…the one willing/able to risk their money for a productive pursuit. Cripple them with disproportionate taxes and the GDP/productivty needed ain’t going to happen.
“the biggest cost to any corporation is the ceo”
Time for a little reading BOB. AAPL’s CEO has been making millions and millions for nearly 2 decades…and is now a billionaire. Meanwhile AAPL approaches 3T mkt value. AAPL’s been doing pretty well with the CEO’s salary (like it or not).
The rich aren’t “bad people” any more than the poor. If wrought legally, wealth should be a sign of industriousness, at least….say nothing of invention, intelligence, discipline, philanthropy and….
Horatio Bon, do you also see dead people. No where in BOB’s post does he talk about socialism, nowhere. He explains that this is just a back door means of raising taxes, where the Republicans can hide behind the common definition of taxation and claim they are not raising taxes. Clearly this is revenue for the government from businesses, and those businesses are American business. He seems to further explain, that the revenue, like every other taxes on any business is passed on to customers through higher prices. The reflection you must follow as some people will be paying more for items and services they will turn around and require more money to cover that. That’s why all prices and all economic groups will be paying more. He sees this as a convoluted way of raising revenue and he is right. This is one of the reason why countries moved to a much simpler taxing system.
Having the top one percent pay their fair share of taxes is in no way socialism.
How in the world do you get socialism out of that? Socialism – a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Look up the terms before you use them. People do have political agendas that involves confusing an issue.
Justin, do “all for one, one for all” & “to each according to their means,” ring a bell? Take from the rich and give to the poor is the pinnacle of of the Marxist ideal…of which socialism is the start. Lenin once said, “socialism is for Communism.” They are sprigs of the same branch. The well-known communist in the Congress expounds “tax the rich mantra” at every turn. He used to decry the millionaires until he became one. Now he decries billionaires.
“Having the top one percent pay their fair share of taxes is in no way socialism.”
Besides evidence of a mind that’s been warped by common Liberal culture…wtf is “fair share” and who’s in the place to determine what’s “fair”? As well, why is a certain segment punished for doing no wrong? As noted in response to BOB, unless wrought illegally, there absolutely no “fairness” in selecting out a certain segment of the population for special–punitive treatment. In the end, it’s culture agreeing to steal from one more than another. Maybe you think like BOB…
“They’ll never know!
To the heart, I’ll bet…
you didn’t know the Marxist’s initially embraced the graduated income tax (ding the wealthy harder) because they didn’t want to crush the rich all at once…take a little now and more later? BOB’s post fits ALL of these. That’s how I get socialism out of his statement. Socialism isn’t the neat and tidy means-of- production definition found in Wikipedia. Most think it’s nice and considerate, when in actuality it’s part of a brutal track…unless you don’t acknowledge the brutality inhumanity of Marxism/Communism.
Speaking of “track”:
“Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism; radicalism had to surrender to socialism; and socialism could never resist communism”. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
He lived it. He knew it. He didn’t define from wikipedia. You need to look up terms and change your info source(s).
Horatio, you do know that in most companies the CEO is the highest paid person in the company. Apple is not the only company in the world. There are some companies that pay their CEO a billion dollars a year. As an aside, the president does not make that kind of money and we know the responsibility of being president is much greater than any of the CEOs, so it is hard to claim they desire these arbitrary high salaries. There are plenty of CEOs that make more money than Cook, how and why? Those companies are not valued as high, nor do they come close to Apple’s revenue streams.
Horatio, a billionaire could spend 1 million dollars a year for 1000 years, or they could put it in the bank or some safe interest bearing account at 5% and make 50 million dollars a year. You do know that the billionaire only pays tax on that 50 million right? Hey, they will not miss a meal. Now think about those with say 10 billion, at an interest rate of 5%, that’s 500,000,000.00 dollars a year. Paying more in taxes is not a problem.
Albert,
as you decide what goes in/out of another’s wallet.
Simply bent thinking…with a load of presumption and hubris.
Imagine, you have 2 lawn chairs and your neighbor that makes less than you, has no chairs. They think like you and take–yes take–one of your’s because you only have one butt and have no need for two chairs.
Different “materials,” same principle. A thousand bucks, you–if you learned your neighbor absconded–would address your neighbor, or maybe even report your neighbor, if you had solid proof and if the chair was of significant value.
Again, deciding what’s worthy for another to spend (lose), is a mental sickness…as I think Marxism (the origin of the thinking) isn’t a healthy paradigm.
“From each according to their need…to each according to their ability.”
If an indi determines they want to sacrifice their assets to another…they are free to do so (philanthropy), but the govt making the decision obliterates the right of the indi. It is directly linked to the indi’s right of “private property,” of which was integrated into the US Constitution and was directly refuted with Marxism.
Make the link…it’s not that hard. Critically ask yourself, “what gives me the right to spend what’s in another’s back-pocket?” Then ask, why isn’t it stealing if you enable?
Globalization wasn’t an accident, it was painstakingly shaped to provide advantage to the American economy. As was North American free trade (free trade with Canada was created by Ronald Reagan, and then renegotiated by Trump himself!!)
Abandoning those systems means going it alone in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing world. Doing so while also abandoning our most important trading partners will be insanely bad.
Globalization started 10 yrs earlier with NIxon and it was linked to bringing China into the modern age. Many heap praise on Nixon for the achievement and others think China had a parallel plan the whole time…to rise and become superior. China wrought biggest gains. The US has become richer nominally, but has become hollowed out, but fatter.
The ENTIRE World is shunning globalization and it started well before Trump’s term. You’ve heard of BRICS and their efforts? You’ve read about the ME countries NOT wanting to trade oil in dollars? Our good friend to the north has curious connections with China that clearly ding the usual “globalization” paradigm.
You apparently forget that Biden’s choice to freeze Russian assets at the start of the Ukr war shook the World with fear and accelerated the globalization “abandonment?” If the richest country on the globe can freeze their assets, they can freeze mine on a whim. Who would want to be a part of that and who would THEN want to bankroll our debt IF the host would/could close so easily, the bank doors? Not only was comprehensive deglobalization made material, our debt (sad, but true survival) was put at greatest risk since 1971 (Nixon/gold)
“Doubled under Biden.” IF you believe that was a result of his econ plan, you are lacking awareness. Those with assets (stocks, RE, etc) gained immensely because of govt spending (flooding the market with $$…inflating assets).
Per bankruptcy, almost all billionaires have experienced it at least once.
Bad negotiator? Ok, maybe not your style, (or mine), but he didn’t b/c a billionaire via brute strength. Mex, India, Japan and others have yielded modified tariff impositions already…b/c Trump is a bad negotiator. Oh-ok.
We are in a profoundly difficult situ. Treasury Sec has said in so many words the Country is likely facing a new economic sys (read: default). There are just a few ways to get out of such a situ:
1). austerity (Americans have NO tolerance)
2). inflate debt away (Americans have NO tolerance and political suicide).
3). default (we’ve done it before and it’s likely option. Swiping of a “wand).
NONE are good and NONE are w/o pain.
There are benefits with tariffs…esp if reciprocal tariffs changes the flow that’s created in the US the World’s largest trade deficit. If they are worthless, ask Japan why they have a 300% tariff on rice. Canada; 300% tariff on cheese, India; tariffs on meat, maize, wheat, diary products range from 30% to 60%.
One HAS TO ask oneself, what is unfair/stupid about “reciprocal tariffs” esp if the the Country has the lowest tariffs in the World?
Btw, I don’t like ANY tariffs, except recip. Tariffs create trade friction (higher prices and challenge relationships), and the recip T’s are having and should continue to change behavior to the positive.
The “reciprocal tariffs”–the ones published yesterday–are not reciprocal tariffs at all. They are figures calculated from trade deficits, and have nothing to do with actual tariffs–which are usually too complex to reduce to a single figure, sometimes based on trigger points that are rarely or never reached. In the non-trivial cases (trivial= pseudo-tariffs calculated for countries we don’t trade with or uninhabited territories), the actual calculation seems be the trade deficit in goods with each country (i.e. exports – imports) divided by imports from the country. The published formula–∆τᵢ = (x-m) / (ε x φ x m)–contains a trick. “ε” (price elasticity of import demand) seems to be set at 4 and “φ” (elasticity of import prices) at 0.25, causing them to cancel out. That leaves an actual formula of ∆τᵢ = (x-m) / m. There are also many mysteries, like why charge new protectionist tariffs on import items needed for domestic manufacture that we’re never going to make here (e.g., latex for rubber) or commodities not significantly grown here (e.g., coffee–the coffee from Hawaii is nice, but it’s a tiny fraction of world growth). That suggests this is more political messaging than rational trade policy. Otherwise Russia would be among the counties listed, and islands with only birds on them would not.
US-Russia trade is heavily restricted and has shrunk significantly due to sanctions and geopolitical tensions. As of April 2025, trade continues but is limited by measures imposed after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and escalated following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
The US has banned imports of Russian oil, gas, and certain goods like seafood and diamonds, while export controls block advanced tech like semiconductors from reaching Russia.
In 2021, before the Ukraine war kicked off, US-Russia trade was worth about $36 billion, with Russia supplying oil, metals, and fertilizers, and the US exporting machinery and vehicles. By 2023, that figure had dropped to under $5 billion, per US Census Bureau data, as sanctions bit hard. Some trade persists—think agricultural goods or niche industrial materials not fully restricted—but it’s a shadow of what it was.
MDN always mocked EU for taxing Apple – exaggerated penalties for AppStore & Messages & ApplePay etc. that will only dilute the OS & weaken privacy, but USA gov is hacking at Apple too for same reasons.
The irony is, now the USA is tanking its and the world’s economy all by itself for immature, unprofessional politics!
If this keeps up for 4 years, it’s not just the U.S. Empire Hegemony that’s gone, USA will be 2nd/3rd world country.
‘Reciprocal’ tariffs? Are you folks as dumb as Trump?