The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would
forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.
The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.
Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.
The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).
The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.
Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.
For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study
.
GDP impacts with retaliation
Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada
(the largest destination for US exports), the EU
and China
have all said they will respond in kind.
To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.
The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.
The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)
Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.
Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).
Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.
Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.
At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.
GDP impacts without retaliation
In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.
Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.
Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.
The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.
Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.
Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.
With local elections looming, the Lib Dem leader has moved on from Brexit in a bid to woo disillusioned former Tories
The most newsworthy thing Ed Davey could have done last week would have been to turn up to his local election campaign launch in a boring suit and stand in front of a load of party placards to give a speech about voting for change in your community. Given the Lib Dem leader’s proclivity for election campaign stunts, it would have been a man-bites-dog level of surprise that he was no longer prepared to charge around in fancy dress while trying to get attention for his party’s message.
Of course, he didn’t do that: the man in a boring suit talking about change was Keir Starmer, while Davey chose to ride a hobby horse. His message from the back of the toy horse was that the Liberal Democrats are in a “two-horse race” with the Tories in many of the English council seats up for grabs in May. But he also argued that the Lib Dems were the “natural home” for voters who were fed up with Labour. His party is hoping it can hoover up more voters in the “blue wall” of the home counties where the Conservatives have alienated reasonably centrist middle-class types both by being incompetent in government and lurching right.
Amid the continued global market downturn (particularly US markets
and dollar downturns
), supporters of the President got some good news. After two months of lower month-to-month job growth, initial reporting for March shows an increase in the number of new jobs. From NPR
:
U.S. employers added 228,000 jobs in March. That’s about twice the number added the previous month, when revised figures show employers added 111,000 jobs. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1% in February, as 232,000 people joined or rejoined the workforce. [Source
]
Given how much Trump apologists are sharing this news, it’s great to know that we can once again trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It’s amazing how easily that faith comes when someone they like is in the White House.
As someone who has trusted those numbers (and their revisions) across both parties, job growth now and in the past is, of course, good news. Here’s to hoping that if revisions happen, they will only revise up. Only time will tell.
All that said, it sure seems like a lot of Trump supporters and the President himself are making a lot of causation/correlation errors in their interpretation of this news:
GREAT JOB NUMBERS, FAR BETTER THAN EXPECTED. IT’S ALREADY WORKING. HANG TOUGH, WE CAN’T LOSE!!!
Donald Trump Truth Social 04/04/25 08:57 AM
— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) April 4, 2025
Granted, “IT’S ALREADY WORKING” can be interpreted in many ways (I look forward to our Trump whispers explanations). But coupled with “HANG TOUGH” (i.e., don’t panic over the last 48 hours), it sure seems like part of the “IT’s” that is “ALREADY” (as in right now) “WORKING” are the Tariffs that dropped two days ago.
Unless you are willing to advance the theory that companies started to hire in March based on market-crushing tariffs that would be implemented on the second day of the following month, this really feels like a correlation error.
Then again, I guess only time will tell. One good thing about the Trump tariffs is that the President had the presence of mind to start them on the second day of April. That means, except for April 1st, this month’s jobs report will almost exclusively include data from what happens after the tariffs were announced.
I’m wondering if any of our readers want to bet that the April jobs report will show the same level of growth as this month.
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon
or making a one-time contribution via PayPal
. Thanks for your consideration.
Hard truths come in many forms, including sometimes in under 144 characters. Former regular commenter and editor-in-chief of the must-read site Ordinary Times
, Will Truman, just dropped this banger:
Just because this isn’t why you voted for him doesn’t mean you didn’t vote for this.
And considering that he has been talking about this issue for decades, launched a trade war in his first term, AND continually campaigned on tariffs (see for example, articles 1
, 2
, and 3
just from OTB), pretending that one didn’t think he’d do what he was promising is really weak tea.
FWIW, in a representative democracy this is true of all elections. I can name a TON of things about Biden and his policies I deeply disagreed with, and at the same time, I am prepared to own that is ultimately what I voted for based on the choices I had.
A new book, Underdogs, demolishes the myth that it is homogeneous in its hostility to immigration
‘Many of those who act as the champions of the white person against immigrants,” Labour MP David Winnick told the House of Commons
in 1968, “have not in the past gone out of their way to defend the interests of the white working class.”
It was the first time anyone had referred to the “white working class” in parliament to describe a segment of the British population. Half a century on, that segment has become the focus of one of the most contentious and polarising of debates. For many on the right, the white working class constitutes a distinct group, both their distinctiveness and their problems, stemming largely from their whiteness. Many on the left have, Joel Budd notes, “fallen silent on the subject”, nervous of racialising issues of class.
“Saturday Night Live” took aim at President Donald Trump’s new tariff policy and the growing backlash against Tesla in a biting political sketch this weekend, coining a new phrase to mock the president’s economic outlook: MAGDA — “Make America Great Depression Again.”
“We’re [going to] do MAGDA,” said cast member James Austin Johnson, reprising his role as Trump.
“Make America Great Depression Again. It’ll be better than great, it’ll be a fantastic, unbelievable depression.”
The cold-open sketch kicked off with Trump brushing off recent market turmoil caused by his proposed tariffs, claiming it was “all part of the plan” and quipping, “There’s nowhere to go but up – or perhaps further down.”
“This depression’s [going to] be so great, we’ll be the ones eating the cats and the dogs. That’s [going to] be fun,” he added.
The sketch comes as the latest round of Trump tariffs
went into effect earlier this week. This week’s steep losses for the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq were among the worst in the past decade as stocks tumbled for a second day in a row.
President Trump
urged Americans to give him time on the policy, writing on the social media platform Truth Social
, “We are bringing back jobs and businesses like never before. Already, more than FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT, and rising fast! THIS IS AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTION, AND WE WILL WIN.”
The segment featured a parade of fictionalized administration figures, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who appeared to distance himself from the tariffs, and Elon Musk
as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Musk, played by returning former cast member Mike Myers, joined “Trump” at the podium wearing a Wisconsin cheesehead and cracking jokes about both the state’s recent Supreme Court election and Tesla’s rough public image.
“I’m an idiot, I should’ve just bought Wisconsin.”
The sketch then introduced a fictional new Tesla innovation: a car that vandalizes itself. Myers-as-Musk unveiled the Tesla Model V, claiming it could autonomously draw crude images or graffiti, like a swastika, all without human input.
“Recently, our dealerships have been the target of so many attacks, and suddenly no one likes Tesla cars,” Musk said.
“So I asked myself why? Then I answered myself, because of me.”
He continued, “We are introducing the new Tesla Model V, the first electric car in history to be fully self-vandalizing. With features like self-smashing headlights, self-slashing tires, and AI-powered graffiti.”
The sketch comes amid a spike in anti-Tesla incidents across the country. A recent Fox News report documented more than 50 cases
of violence targeting Tesla vehicles, charging stations, and owners, including keying, hateful graffiti, arson, and even an alleged drive-by shooting.
Find Your Fight
by Jay Ruderman isn’t just a book—I found it to be a rallying cry. A deeply personal, straight-to-the-heart call to action for anyone who feels that pull to create real, lasting change in the world. Ruderman, a lifelong champion of social justice and inclusion, doesn’t deal in vague ideals or abstract encouragement—he hands you the blueprint. This is about turning conviction into movement, passion into impact. It speaks clearly and is highly motivating.
What makes this newly released book stand out isn’t just its message—it’s the way Ruderman delivers it. He doesn’t just talk about the fight; he lives it. We need more of this. He brings the reader into his own journey, sharing both his victories and the roadblocks along the way. And that’s what makes it land so powerfully—his honesty, his experience, his unwavering belief that change isn’t reserved for the powerful or the well-connected. It’s for anyone willing to step up and claim their fight.
But this book isn’t just about his journey. Ruderman shines a light on other changemakers, proving that activism takes many shapes and forms. Whether your passion is disability rights, mental health, or any other social justice cause, this book doesn’t just inspire—it equips. It moves you from *caring* to *doing,” so essential today when many are on the sidelines of life. It’s time to do, not simply “stand with,” and Ruderman makes this case as clearly as can be.
Find Your Fight isn’t here to coddle you. It’s here to wake you up. To shake you out of waiting for the “perfect moment” and remind you that the time to act is now. If you’ve ever felt the urge to stand up for something bigger than yourself but didn’t know where to begin, this book hands you the map.
And Ruderman doesn’t stop at motivation—he offers a playbook. Some standout takeaways:
1. Choosing Your Cause with Heart: Passion is the fuel of activism. Ruderman drives home the point that when you fight for something you genuinely believe in, your conviction becomes contagious. Others feel it. Others join in.
2. The Power of Relentless Persistence: Ruderman echoes President Calvin Coolidge’s wisdom: “Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” Change doesn’t happen overnight—it happens because people refuse to quit.
3. Becoming an Expert: If you’re going to advocate for something, *know your stuff*. Ruderman stresses that deep knowledge isn’t just an asset—it’s a necessity. Expertise earns credibility, influence, and, ultimately, results.
4. Finding Your People: No one fights alone. Ruderman highlights the power of collaboration—of bringing together people whose strengths complement your own, amplifying your impact through collective effort.
5. Not Being Afraid to Stir the Pot: Change is disruptive by nature. Ruderman reminds us that controversy isn’t something to fear—it’s often a sign you’re pushing society forward. The discomfort is part of the process.
Through personal passion and strategic action, Find Your Fight offers more than inspiration—it provides the tools to turn conviction into real-world change.
At its core, this book is part memoir, part manual—an unfiltered, hard-earned guide to activism straight from someone who’s been in the trenches. Ruderman lays it all out—the struggles, the wins, the lessons learned—so that you don’t just walk away thinking about change. You walk away creating it.
Michael R. Mantell, Ph.D. is a San Diego-based retired psychologist, best-selling author, international speaker, and a highly sought after cognitive behavioral coach whose actionable, valuable, and practical work has been featured on Fox News, ABC-TV, NBC-TV, CBS-TV, The New York Times, and The Huffington Post.
I never thought Democrats had a chance in Florida.
Two special elections for Congress were held in Florida, both being strong Republican seats. One was the seat vacated by Michael Waltz who left to join the Trump administration where he could leak classified information on Signal group chats with other morons.
Democrats thought the seat was competitive, but Republican Randy Fines won last night by 14 points.
In the other district, vacated by Matt Giggity Gaetz, Democrats outspent Republican Jimmy Patronis yet still lost by 14.6 points. What were they thinking running a candidate named Gay in Florida, in Matt Gaetz’s old district, nonetheless?
This gives Republicans and Trump a House advantage of 220 to 213.
As I said, I didn’t believe Democrats had a shot in Florida. One indicator was that Elon Musk didn’t campaign and drop millions of dollars into those races…like he did in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, so it’s not Democrats versus Republicans. It’s Liberal versus Conservative. The court had a 4-3 Liberal majority last night, and today, it’s still a 4-3 liberal majority.
This race was the most expensive judicial contest in US history, with $90 million invested in the race, with $25 million of that coming from Elon Musk alone. That’s probably just claw machine money for him, but he still didn’t get to snatch a state supreme court seat and probably spent $25 million to catch a plushie saying, “Keep on truckin’.”
Liberal Susan Crawford defeated Conservative Brad Schimel by ten points last night. It wasn’t even close. How did Elon in a cheesy cheesehead not work?
Why is the Democratic win in Wisconsin significant and the GOP win in Florida not?
The two districts in Florida were already Republican, and one of them is the most conservative fucknut district in the nation. How are Democrats supposed to win where voters are racist and stupid enough to send Matt Gaetz to Congress five times? They might be more racist and stupid than Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert’s voters. If anything, Democrats can take comfort in that the Republicans’ margins of victories were 15 percent lower in those districts than last November.
This is bad news for Republicans in the midterms because when Trump isn’t on the ballot, fewer MAGAts vote. Republicans should enjoy that 220-213 House majority while it lasts because it won’t. We’re not going to talk about the Senate today.
Wisconsin is significantly different. Trump won the state last November…barely. The friends I made last July in Milwaukee told me they were afraid he’d win the state, and he did by less than one percent.
Special elections usually have lower voter turnout, and last night’s in Wisconsin was predicted to be tight. That was another failed prediction because the Liberal won 55-45. That’s a 10-point Democratic win in a state that has been decided by less than one point in each of the past three presidential races.
When I heard Elon was spending big money in Wisconsin on a state supreme court race, I knew Republicans were scared. And when I heard Elon was going to personally campaign in Wisconsin for a state supreme court race, I knew Republicans were stupid. Has no one shown Elon his polls?
A new Harvard/Harris poll shows that 49 percent hate Elon while 39 like him. But maybe Elon didn’t see the poll and only listened to Trump, who posted to Shit Social after the poll results were released, “Wow!!! People are loving Elon, a GREAT PATRIOT. Nice to see!!! DJT.”
If that’s what convinced Elon to go to Wisconsin to take a giant dump, thank you, DJT, you shit-fire smoldering dumbass. Speaking of the walking orange turd, his polls are down too. In fact, the only newly elected president to have polls worse than Trump’s is Donald Trump.
The only president worse than Trump is Trump. We didn’t need a second Trump administration to remind us how fucking horrible and rancid the first one was. Seriously, America, what’s wrong with you?
The good news here is that none of this bodes well for Trump winning a third term if he’s somehow able to destroy the Constitution first. The other good news is, he’s going to lose the House in 2026. The bad news for us is that he’s still going to “legislate” through executive orders for the next four years.
I can’t make predictions about the 2028 presidential election because I’m not confident we’ll have an election or at least a fair one in 2028. Do you think Trump is going to serve his term without engaging in fuckery with the elections? He has already issued an illegal executive order changing rules on national elections. Since when can a president single-handedly change election laws?
Our future elections will have the same integrity as the elections in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. By the way, I predict that over the next four years, some government structure or land will be named after Donald Trump. He may do it himself with an EO. They may create a monument identical to the Washington Monument and name it the Trump Monument, except it’ll have to be a lot smaller.
Keir Starmer can help redefine global trade while strengthening new – and old – alliances
‘Liberation Day” was, of course, a tragic idiocy based on a bewildering inversion of reality. The rest of the world has not been ripping off or pillaging and plundering the US, as claimed by Trump launching his salvo of tariffs
, the highest for a century. The truth is the opposite.
There is no American “national emergency”. The US still represents the same 25% of world GDP, as it did in 1980. More than half the goods it imports are from affiliates of US multinationals denominated and paid for in dollars, so its deficit is an accounting identity with itself rather than reflecting economic weakness.
