Connect with us

Economics

Trump’s trade war is starting to look not so scary on Wall Street

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to the media as he meets with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (not pictured) at Trump Turnberry golf club on July 28, 2025 in Turnberry, Scotland.

Christopher Furlong | Getty Images

U.S. tariffs on incoming goods look to be settling in only slightly less than what President Donald Trump had threatened in April, but the difference has been enough to ease some of Wall Street’s worst recession fears.

With the U.S.-European Union trade deal over the weekend, it now appears that the effective tariff rate, or the net impact aside from the nominal level, will end up in the 15%-20% range. That’s well above the low single-digit rate in place at the beginning of the year, but well off the feared 25% rate or worse that could have happened as a result of the April 2 announcement.

Economists had feared that aggressive tariffs Trump proposed in his April 2 “liberation day” announcement would spike inflation and lead to a pronounced slowdown or recession.

But doomsday pronouncements around the tariffs have abated since then. Economists cite a strong global growth backdrop, a less-than-expected, long-term inflationary impact of the tariffs and a general easing in financial conditions as reasons for why the landscape looks less dire.

JPMorgan Chase, for instance, has lowered its recession risk from a liberation-day level of 60% down to 40% — still higher than normal, but at least less pessimistic.

“Tariffs are a tax hike on U.S. purchases of foreign goods, but this tax drag is not likely to be large enough to derail the U.S. expansion,” JPMorgan chief economist Bruce Kasman said in a note.

Like others, the bank had expected the Trump tariffs to result in a damaging round of retaliation globally. “But an expected rise in global trade restrictions has turned into a modest step toward opening markets for the U.S.,” Kasman said.

Tariffs still a danger

Commentary around Wall Street following the U.S-EU deal for 15% tariffs echoed the belief that the recession risk had dimmed, even if tariffs still have the strong potential to exert a stifling impact on growth.

“We still believe the most likely outcome is slow growth and firm inflation: Not a recession, but a backdrop where the adverse effects of trade and immigration controls on growth outweigh the boost from deregulation and fiscal largesse,” Morgan Stanley strategist Michael Zezas wrote.

To be sure, the final outcome of the trade negotiations is far from clear.

There are still a slew of other issues that need to be settled before Trump’s imposed Aug. 1 deadline, which could still result in significant levies affecting major U.S. trading partners, including Japan and others.

Further aggression in the trade skirmishes “could easily tip the scales toward a mild recession,” Zezas added. “In sum, we see outcomes for the U.S. economy skewing toward a slowdown, but with more clarity on the fiscal situation and deficits now front-loaded, the risk of a substantial recession is easing.”

The U.S.-Europe deal will give the Federal Reserve more to chew on this week when it discusses the impact that tariffs will have on inflation. Since Trump has taken office, the Fed has held its benchmark short-term interest rate steady, in large part because policymakers are cautious over the impact tariffs will have on inflation.

Markets don’t expect any action at the meeting, which concludes Wednesday. But they will be watching for clues on the Fed’s further intentions, which will be influenced by where the final effective tariff rate lands.

The Fed is expected to approve a rate cut in September, and the chances of that happening seemingly would increase if the economy weakens while inflation is held in check.

“Effective tariff rates are significantly higher than they were at the start of the year,” Citigroup economist Andrew Hollenhorst wrote. “But with major trading partner tariffs stabilizing closer to 15% than the much higher rates proposed on April 2, markets and Fed officials will be increasingly confident that the drag on growth and upside risk to inflation will be modest.”

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending