Finance
Free trade flaws fueled Trump’s rise in 2016 — and the problems remain, top economist says
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks after attending a wake for New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer Jonathan Diller, who was shot and killed while making a routine traffic stop on March 25 in the Far Rockaway section of Queens, in Massapequa Park, New York, U.S., March 28, 2024.
Shannon Stapleton | Reuters
Decades of trade deficits and a strong dollar created too many “losers” in the U.S. economy who turned to Donald Trump’s protectionist policies, according to Richard Koo, chief economist at the Nomura Research Institute — and those conditions remain.
Trump’s “America First” economic policies led his administration to institute a slew of trade tariffs on China, Mexico, the European Union and others, including slapping 25% duties on imported steel and aluminum.
As the Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election, Trump has proposed a baseline 10% tariff on all U.S. imports and a minimum levy of 60% on imported Chinese products.
These policies have drawn widespread criticism from economists, who argue that tariffs are counterproductive, as they make imported goods more expensive for the average American.
Speaking to CNBC’s Steve Sedgwick on the sidelines of the Ambrosetti Forum on Friday, Koo said protectionism was a “horrible thing,” but that Trump’s approach “does have some economic logic.”
“When we studied economics and free trade, in particular, we were taught…that free trade always creates both winners and losers in the same economy, but the gain that winners get is always greater than the loss of the losers, so the society as a whole always gains. So that’s why the free trade is good,” he noted.
Koo nevertheless argued that this rests on the assumption that trade flows are balanced or in surplus, while the U.S. has been running huge deficits for the last forty years, which have expanded the number of “losers.”
“By 2016, the number of people who consider themselves losers of free trade, were large enough to elect Trump president, and so we have to really go back and say to ourselves: what did we do wrong to allow this many people in United States to view themselves as losers of free trade?” he said.
For Koo, the key problem was the exchange rate, as the strength of the U.S. dollar incentivized foreign imports and hurt U.S. companies exporting around the world.
“We kind of let the exchange rate be decided by so-called market forces, speculators, my clients, Wall Street types, but the foreign exchange rate has to be set in a way that the number of losers does not grow to a point where the free trade itself is lost,” Koo said.
He pointed to a similar pivotal moment in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan faced the same issue of a strong dollar and rising protectionism. At the time, Reagan responded by facilitating the Plaza Accord with France, West Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom to depreciate the U.S. dollar against the respective currencies of these countries through intervention in the foreign exchange market.
“That’s the kind of thing we should have been more conscious of doing. Instead of allowing [the] dollar to go wherever the market takes [it], and then these people who are not as fortunate as we are in the financial markets, end up suffering and end up voting for Mr. Trump,” Koo added.
He argued that economists need to move beyond the idea that the trade deficit is simply down to “too much investment” and “too few savings” in the U.S., as this means deficit can only be reduced by remaining in recession until domestic demand weakens so much that U.S. companies can export more goods, which would not be possible in a democracy.
Koo again pointed to past dealings with Japan, suggesting that if the argument held that overseas companies are just filling in where U.S. companies cannot satisfy domestic demand, then the American companies fighting Japanese firms in the 1970s and 70s should have recorded huge profits due to excess demand.
“But that did not actually happen. It’s the opposite that happened. So many of them went bankrupt, so many losers of free trade were left in the streets, because it was not savings and investment issue, it was the exchange rate issue,” he said.
“The dollar should have been much weaker, and Reagan understood that that’s why he took that action.”
Walmart stock may be a steal.
Former Walmart U.S. CEO Bill Simon contends the retailer’s stock sell-off tied to a slowing profit growth forecast and tariff fears is creating a major opportunity for investors.
“I absolutely thought their guidance was pretty strong given the fact that… nobody knows what’s going to happen with tariffs,” he told CNBC’s “Fast Money” on Thursday, the day Walmart reported fiscal fourth-quarter results.
But even if U.S. tariffs against Canada and Mexico move forward, Simon predicts “nothing” should happen to Walmart.
“Ultimately, the consumer decides whether there’s a tariff or not,” said Simon. “There’s a tariff on avocados from Mexico. Do you have guacamole with your chips or do you have salsa and queso where there is no tariff?”
Plus, Simon, who’s now on the Darden Restaurants board and is the chairman at Hanesbrands, sees Walmart as a nimble retailer.
“The big guys, Walmart, Costco, Target, Amazon… have the supply and the sourcing capability to mitigate tariffs by redirecting the product – bringing it in from different places [and] developing their own private labels,” said Simon. “Those guys will figure out tariffs.”
Walmart shares just saw their worst weekly performance since May 2022 — tumbling almost 9%. The stock price fell more than 6% on its earnings day alone. It was the stock’s worst daily performance since November 2023.
Simon thinks the sell-off is bizarre.
“I thought if you hit your numbers and did well and beat your earnings, things would usually go well for you in the market. But little do we know. You got to have some magic dust,” he said. “I don’t know how you could have done much better for the quarter.”
It’s a departure from his stance last May on “Fast Money” when he warned affluent consumers were creating a “bubble” at Walmart. It came with Walmart shares hitting record highs. He noted historical trends pointed to an eventual shift back to service from convenience and price.
But now Simon thinks the economic and geopolitical backdrop is so unprecedented, higher-income consumers may shop at Walmart permanently.
“If you liked that story yesterday before the earnings release, you should love it today because it’s… cheaper,” said Simon.
Walmart stock is now down 10% from its all-time high hit on Feb. 14. However, it’s still up about 64% over the past 52 weeks.
Sign up for the Spotlight newsletter, a hand curated collection of video clips selected by CNBC’s top editors and producers. Your daily recap of top business highlights and leading stories.
Investors may want to reduce their exposure to the world’s largest emerging market.
Perth Tolle, who’s the founder of Life + Liberty Indexes, warns China’s capitalism model is unsustainable.
“I think the thinking used to be that their capitalism would lead to democracy,” she told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “Economic freedom is a necessary, but not sufficient precondition for personal freedom.”
She runs the Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF — which is up more than 43% since its first day of trading on May 23, 2019. So far this year, Tolle’s ETF is up 9%, while the iShares China Large-Cap ETF, which tracks the country’s biggest stocks, is up 19%.
The fund has never invested in China, according to Tolle.
Tolle spent part of her childhood in Beijing. When she started at Fidelity Investments as a private wealth advisor in 2004, Tolle noted all of her clients wanted exposure to China’s market.
“I didn’t want to personally be investing in China at that point, but everyone else did,” she said. “Then, I had clients from Russia who said, ‘I don’t want to invest in Russia because it’s like funding terrorism.’ And, look how prescient that is today. So, my own experience and those of some of my clients led me to this idea in the end.”
She prefers emerging economies that prioritize freedom.
“Without that, the economy is going to be constrained,” she added.
ETF investor Tom Lydon, who is the former VettaFi head, also sees China as a risky investment.
“If you look at emerging markets… by not being in China from a performance standpoint, it’s provided less volatility and better performance,” Lydon said.
Budgeting Basics for Small Businesses
Donald Trump sacks America’s top military brass
Walmart sell-off bizarre, buy stock despite tariff risks: Bill Simon
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
The Essential Practice of Bank and Credit Card Statement Reconciliation
Are American progressives making themselves sad?
-
Economics1 week agoDonald Trump wants states and cities to do as they are told
-
Economics1 week agoDefense stocks drop after Trump says Pentagon spending could be halved
-
Economics1 week agoCut debt or face economic heart attack
-
Technology1 week agoReddit CEO Steve Huffman Unveils Monetization Strategy for 2025
-
Economics1 week agoPPI January 2025:
-
Leaders1 week agoAdebayo Ogunlesi – From Nigerian Roots to Global Financial Leadership
-
Economics1 week agoMexico, Canada tariffs could add $6,000 to the cost of a car, by one estimate
-
Blog Post1 week agoPower of Ratio Analysis in Business Performance Assessment