分类： business

Japan’s export sector experienced a downturn in May, primarily driven by a significant 25% drop in automobile shipments to the United States. This decline is attributed to the heightened tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. According to the Finance Ministry, overall exports decreased by 1.7% year-on-year, a figure that, while concerning, was less severe than the anticipated decline forecasted by analysts. Concurrently, imports plummeted by 7.7%, indicative of weakening domestic demand and marking a steeper fall compared to April’s 2% decrease. The trade deficit for May stood at 637.6 billion yen, equivalent to $4.4 billion. Despite ongoing discussions, Japan has yet to secure an agreement with the U.S. to resolve the tariff issue. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, following a meeting with President Trump at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, noted that the two nations remain at odds on several key points. Trump has levied a 25% tariff on Japanese automobiles and a 24% tariff on other goods, with recent statements suggesting potential increases in auto tariffs. Ishiba has underscored Japan’s role as a crucial ally in the bilateral defense alliance with Washington, emphasizing efforts to safeguard national interests. The auto industry, a cornerstone of Japan’s economy, exports over a million vehicles to the U.S. annually. Tokyo has consistently highlighted the contributions of automakers like Toyota and Honda, which manufacture vehicles in North America, bolstering the economy and generating employment.

The narrative that globalization hollowed out the American middle class has been a topic of intense debate. A recent analysis challenges this notion, arguing that the timing of wage stagnation in the U.S. does not align with the era of globalization. John Lettieri of the Economic Innovation Group highlights that wage stagnation occurred primarily between 1973 and 1994, predating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. In fact, wages began to grow again shortly after NAFTA’s implementation. However, the story is more nuanced. While NAFTA had minimal negative effects on specific industries, the ‘China Shock’ following China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 had a more significant impact on American wages, particularly for the working class. Between 2003 and 2015, median wages flattened, coinciding with increased competition from China. The Great Recession further exacerbated wage stagnation post-2007. Despite these factors, the most prolonged period of wage stagnation occurred before globalization, from 1973 to 1994. This era was marked by multiple economic shocks, including oil crises, inflation, and shifts in global monetary policies. Theories explaining this stagnation include productivity slowdowns, financialization, the decline of unions, and inflation. However, none of these factors alone fully account for the 20-year stagnation. The productivity slowdown, which aligns closely with the stagnation period, remains a leading explanation, though its exact causes are still debated. Other factors, such as de-unionization and financialization, played partial roles but do not fully explain the phenomenon. Ultimately, the wage stagnation of 1973-1994 may have resulted from a combination of these factors, rather than a single cause. This complex interplay underscores the challenges of isolating economic trends and highlights the need for further research to understand this pivotal period in American economic history.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has projected a 0.2% decline in global goods trade for this year, attributing the downturn to U.S. President Donald Trump’s fluctuating tariff policies and the ongoing trade tensions with China. The WTO cautioned that the situation could worsen significantly if Trump implements his most stringent reciprocal tariffs. The global trade forum highlighted that North America would experience the sharpest decline, with exports expected to plummet by 12.6% and imports by 9.6% this year, even without the harshest tariffs. The WTO’s report, based on the tariff landscape as of Monday, initially anticipated continued trade expansion in 2025 and 2026. However, Trump’s trade war has compelled WTO economists to drastically revise their forecasts. If Trump enacts the toughest tariffs on most nations, global trade in goods could slump by 1.5%, primarily due to the uncertainty unsettling businesses. Earlier this month, Trump temporarily suspended the most severe tariffs for 90 days, allowing over 70 countries to address U.S. trade concerns. Concurrently, he has escalated taxes on Chinese imports to 145% and is embroiled in protracted tariff negotiations with Canada and Mexico. WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala emphasized that the persistent uncertainty threatens to hinder global growth, with particularly adverse effects on the most vulnerable economies. WTO Chief Economist Ralph Ossa noted that trade policy uncertainty significantly dampens trade flows, reducing exports and weakening economic activity. He stressed the importance of understanding the wide-ranging and often unintended consequences of tariffs in an increasingly tense global trade environment.

President Donald Trump is poised to upend decades of established global trade norms with his anticipated announcement of reciprocal tariffs on April 2, a date he has dubbed “Liberation Day.” This bold move, aimed at reducing America’s reliance on foreign goods, is expected to create significant disruptions for global businesses and strain relations with both allies and adversaries. Since the 1960s, tariffs have been the product of multilateral negotiations, but Trump’s unilateral approach seeks to redefine this process. Richard Mojica, a trade attorney, warns that this strategy will necessitate widespread adjustments across industries. Trump’s rationale centers on America’s persistent trade deficits, which he attributes to higher tariffs imposed by other countries on U.S. exports. His solution? Raise U.S. tariffs to match those of trading partners. Economists, however, caution that tariffs often burden consumers and may not achieve the desired outcomes. While some, like Christine McDaniel, suggest that reciprocal tariffs could incentivize other nations to lower their tariffs, the broader consensus is that Trump’s approach introduces significant uncertainty into global trade. The White House has yet to clarify key details, such as whether tariffs will be adjusted on a product-by-product basis or averaged across countries. Critics argue that Trump’s grievances overlook the fact that many high foreign tariffs were agreed upon during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations and are not uniquely targeted at the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. economy has outperformed other advanced economies in recent years, raising questions about the urgency of Trump’s trade policies. Beyond tariffs, Trump is also targeting foreign practices like subsidies and value-added taxes (VATs), further complicating the trade landscape. While VATs are applied equally to domestic and imported goods, Trump views them as a trade barrier, a stance most economists dispute. Ultimately, Trump’s tariffs have not significantly narrowed the U.S. trade deficit, which economists attribute to broader macroeconomic factors like low savings rates and high consumer spending. As the global trade environment grows increasingly chaotic, businesses and governments alike are bracing for the ripple effects of Trump’s protectionist agenda.