Business
Companies Scrambling To Respond To Trump’s ‘Beautiful’ Tariff Hikes
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Adam Pack
Companies are scrambling to respond to President-elect Donald Trump’s “beautiful” tariff proposals that his administration may seek to enact early in his second term.
Proactive steps that companies are taking to evade anticipated price increases include stockpiling inventory in U.S. warehouses and weighing whether they need to completely eliminate China from their supply chains and raise the price of imported goods affected by tariff hikes, whose costs will be passed onto consumers.
Free-trade skeptics are touting companies’ anticipatory actions as delivering a clear sign that Trump’s proposed tariff hikes are already achieving their intended effect of pressuring retailers to eliminate China from their supply chains. However, some policy experts are warning that higher tariffs will be a regressive tax for America’s lower and middle-income families and make inflation worse, according to retailers and economists who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
On the campaign trail, Trump proposed a universal tariff of up to 20% on all imports coming into the U.S. and a 60% or higher tariff on all imports from China. Trump is considering Robert Lighthizer, the former U.S. trade representative during his administration’s first term who is well-known for favoring high tariffs, to serve as his second administration’s trade czar, the Wall Street Journal first reported.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "The word tariff to me is a very beautiful word because it can save our country, truly… I saved our steel industries by putting tariffs on steel that China came in and dumped… They had committees that were put in charge of what to do with the money. We were… pic.twitter.com/jj88zenMRP
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 2, 2024
‘Mitigation Strategies To Lessen The Impact’
Companies are taking preemptive measures, such as stockpiling goods in U.S. warehouses, to work proactively against anticipated price increases that higher tariffs would inflict, Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chains and customs policy for the National Retail Federation, told the DCNF during an interview.
“They’re looking at different mitigation strategies to lessen the impact that they might feel from the tariffs,” Gold told the DCNF. “One of those strategies is to start looking at potentially bringing in cargo, bringing products earlier to get ahead of potential tariffs that Trump might put in place.”
Importing goods into the U.S. ahead of schedule leads to additional costs for retailers that will likely be passed onto consumers, but waiting to import goods from China after a 60% or higher tariff on Chinese imports goes into effect would be substantially more expensive, according to Gold.
A recent NRF study projected that Trump’s proposed tariff hikes on consumer products would cost American consumers an additional $46 billion to $78 billion a year.
“A tariff is a tax paid by the U.S. importer, not a foreign country or the exporter,” Gold said in a press release accompanying the study. “This tax ultimately comes out of consumers’ pockets through higher prices.”
Decoupling From China
Part of the rationale behind Trump’s tariff proposals is to force manufacturing jobs to return to the United States and pressure companies to completely eliminate China from their supply chains, according to Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass.
“I hope in addition to stockpiling, they’re also looking at actually moving their supply chains out of China and ideally back to the United States,” DiPlacido told the DCNF.
“For a long time, the framing has been what is best for just increasing trade flows, regardless of the direction those flows are going. What that’s resulted in for the last 25 years is a flow of manufacturing, a flow of factories and a flow of jobs, especially solid middle class jobs out of the United States and across the world,” DiPlacido added.
But completely shifting production outside of China is not feasible for some retailers even if companies have taken further steps to diversify their supply chain for the past decade, according to Gold.
“It takes a while to make those shifts and not everyone is able to do that, Gold acknowledged. “Nobody has the [production] capacity that China does. Trying to find that within multiple countries is a challenge. And it’s not just the capacity, but the skilled workforce as well.”
In addition, companies who move production out of China to avoid a 60% tariff on imported goods from the nation could still get hit by a 20% across the board tariff if they move their supply chain to countries other than the United States, Gold and several economists told the DCNF.
“They’re talking about tariffs on imports for which there’s not a domestic producer to switch to,” Clark Packard, a research fellow on trade policy at the CATO institute, told the DCNF in an interview. “For example, we don’t make coffee in the United States, so why are we going to impose a tariff on coffee?”
“Who are we trying to protect?” he added.
Some economists are also pessimistic that the president-elect’s planned tariff hikes will ultimately bring jobs that moved overseas to cheaper labor markets back to the United States.
“What we actually saw from the 2018-2019 trade war was a decrease in manufacturing output and employment because of the tariffs,” Erica York, senior economist and research director of the Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy, told the DCNF in an interview. “It played out just like every economist predicted: higher costs for U.S. consumers, reduced output, reduced incomes for American workers, foreign retaliation that’s harmful.”
The president-elect’s proposed tariff hikes could also eliminate more jobs than those saved or created as a result of protecting domestic industries, such as the U.S. steel or solar manufacturing industries, that may benefit from higher tariffs on foreign competitors, Packard told the DCNF.
“It’s disproportionate — the cost that is passed onto the broader economy to protect a very small slice of U.S. employment,” Packard said. Trump’s 25% tariff on imported steel enacted during his first administration slightly increased employment in the U.S. steel industry, but each job that was maintained or created came at a cost of roughly $650,000 that likely killed jobs in other sectors forced to buy more expensive steel, according to Packard.
‘Bipartisan Recognition’
Despite tariffs’ potential to force companies to raise the price of goods they import into the United States, DiPlacido defended Trump’s proposed tariff hikes as essential to eliminating U.S. dependence on China for a variety of strategic goods and consumer products.
“We need to be able to manufacture a broad range of goods in the United States. And we need the job security and the economic security that a strong manufacturing industrial base provides,” DiPlacido said. “That’s going to be important to any future conflict or emergency that the United States may have with China or with anyone else.”
DiPlacido, citing Trump’s dominant electoral performance, also believes Trump has the “mandate” to carry out the tariff proposals he floated during the campaign.
“There’s a sort of a bipartisan recognition of the problem. Even the Biden administration kept almost all of Trump’s tariffs in place,” DiPlacido told the DCNF. “I think he has the political mandate, and that’s often a harder thing to get.”
However, some economists are questioning whether the thousands of dollars of projected costs that American families would be forced to pay as a result of these tariff hikes could create political backlash that has so far failed to materialize against Trump and Biden’s relatively similar trade policies.
“Voters were rightly pretty upset about price increases and inflation,” Packard told the DCNF. “We’re talking about utilizing a tool in tariffs that will increase relative prices.”
“Tariffs as a whole are a regressive tax,” Gold told the DCNF. “They certainly hit low and middle income consumers the hardest.”
Retailers are forecasting a decrease in demand for consumer products as a result of Trump’s tariff proposals, according to Gold.
The incoming Senate Republican leader has also notably criticized Trump’s proposed tariff hikes.
“I get concerned when I hear we just want to uniformly impose a 10% or 20% tariff on everything that comes into the United States,” Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Senate GOP leader, said in August during a panel on agriculture policy in his home state. “Generally, that’s a recipe for increased inflation.”
Business
We need our own ‘DOGE’ in 2025 to unleash Canadian economy
From the Fraser Institute
Canada has a regulation problem. Our economy is over-regulated and the regulatory load is growing. To reverse this trend, we need a deregulation agenda that will cut unnecessary red tape and government bloat, to free up the Canadian economy.
According to the latest “Red Tape” report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, government regulations cost Canadian businesses a staggering $38.8 billion in 2020. Together, businesses spent 731 million hours on regulatory compliance—that’s equal to nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs. Canada’s smallest businesses bear a disproportionately high burden of the cost, paying up to five times more for regulatory compliance per-employee than larger businesses. The smallest businesses pay $7,023 per employee annually to comply with government regulation while larger businesses pay $1,237 per employee.
Of course, the Trudeau government has enacted a vast swath of new regulations on large sectors of Canada’s economy—particularly the energy sector—in a quest to make Canada a “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter by 2050 (which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting emissions with activities such as planting trees).
For example, the government (via Bill C-69) introduced subjective criteria—including the “gender implications” of projects—into the evaluation process of energy projects. It established EV mandates requiring all new cars be electric vehicles by 2035. And the costs of the government’s new “Clean Electricity Regulations,” to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity, remain unknown, although provinces (including Alberta) that rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity will surely be hardest hit.
Meanwhile in the United States, Donald Trump plans to put Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will act as a presidential advisory commission (not an official government department) for the second Trump administration.
“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” the two wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited.”
If Musk and Ramaswamy achieve these goals, the U.S. could leap far ahead of Canada in terms of regulatory efficiency, making Canada’s economy even less competitive than it is today.
That would be bad news for Canadians who are already falling behind. Between 2000 and 2023, Canada’s GDP per person (an indicator of incomes and living standards) lagged far behind the average among G7 countries. Business investment is also lagging. Between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) in Canada decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) while it increased by $3,418 (to $26,751) per worker in the U.S. And over-regulation is partly to blame.
For 2025, Canada needs a deregulatory agenda similar to DOGE that will allow Canadian workers and businesses to recover and thrive. And we know it can be done. During a deregulatory effort in British Columbia, which included a minister of deregulation appointed by the provincial government in 2001, there was a 37 per cent reduction in regulatory requirements in the province by 2004. The federal government should learn from B.C.’s success at slashing red tape, and reduce the burden of regulation across the entire Canadian economy.
Addictions
Annual cannabis survey reveals many positive trends — and some concerning ones
On Christmas Eve, during his final year of high school, Justin Schneider’s friend handed him his first bowl of weed.
Schneider says he remembers it being an especially stressful evening and thinking, ‘Oh my God, they were lying to us about this.’
“Here I was this ‘good kid,’ staying away from alcohol and drugs, but this stuff is the best thing I’ve ever had,” he said. “But that reaction was brought on because it was the first time I’d ever taken any type of medication for anxiety.”
At first, Schneider used cannabis to cope with generalized anxiety, depression and insomnia. By his late twenties, he had become a heavy user.
In 2018, after more than 20 years of daily cannabis use, he was finally able to overcome his cannabis dependency with the help of a psychiatrist and addictions counselor.
Canadians’ relationship with cannabis has shifted dramatically since it was first legalized for non-medical use in 2018, a new survey shows.
The 2024 Canadian Cannabis Survey, released by Health Canada Dec. 6, reveals cannabis use has become increasingly normalized, driven by broader legal access and growing social acceptance. It also suggests legalization has achieved many of policymakers’ key goals.
But Schneider and others warn cannabis is not without its risks, and say better public education is required to address some of cannabis’ lesser known risks.
Our content is always free. Subscribe to get Break The Needle’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.
‘Some sketchy guy’
Health Canada’s annual survey, which collected responses from more than 1,600 Canadians aged 16 and older, reveals a thriving legal cannabis market in Canada.
The number of users purchasing cannabis through legal channels has nearly doubled since legalization, rising from 37 per cent in 2019 to 72 per cent today.
“I imagine if I was just starting out [with cannabis] now, I wouldn’t ever have to interact with some sketchy guy, and that would have been easier growing up,” said Jesse Cohen, a 34-year-old daily cannabis user from Montreal.
Cohen uses cannabis to unwind after work or while performing menial tasks at home. Today, he picks up his supply from a sleek, well-lit government-regulated dispensary. He feels this interaction is safer than buying it on the black market.
Cohen says he has also seen the quality and variety of products on the market improve — accompanied by an increase in price.
In the survey, just over one-quarter of all respondents said they used cannabis for non-medical purposes in the past year, up from 22 per cent in 2018. Among youth, that number was 41 per cent.
The number of youth using cannabis has remained stable since 2018, a finding that challenges some critics’ claims that legalization would lead to higher rates of youth consumption.
“For youth, I do think that the whole legalization de-stigmatized and took the risk out of it — it wasn’t a taboo subject or a taboo activity anymore — so there wasn’t the same draw,” said Ian Culbert, executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association, a non-profit that promotes public health.
“Let’s face it, youth experiment, and if it’s something your grandmother is doing, you don’t necessarily want to be doing it too.”
Another positive trend, Culbert says, is that cannabis users now seem to be better informed about the risks of driving while high.
Only 18 per cent of people who had used cannabis in the past year reported getting behind the wheel after cannabis use, down from 27 per cent in 2018.
Culbert interviewed cannabis users when cannabis was legalized. At that time, many said they thought their driving abilities improved when under the influence of cannabis.
“Of course, that’s just not the truth … They felt that their video game experience was so much better when they were consuming, therefore why wouldn’t driving a car be better?” Culbert said.
“I think [because of] education efforts, and the fact that police across the country have put in programs to identify and prosecute people who are driving impaired, that message has gotten through, and people are now equating it to drinking alcohol and driving.”
Public health campaigns also seem to have raised awareness of cannabis’ risks to physical health. Successive Health Canada cannabis surveys have shown a growing understanding of cannabis’ effects on lung health and youth brain development.
Schneider believes public health campaigns now need to focus more on the mental health risks associated with heavy cannabis use.
“I think there’s a responsibility to say that, for a small proportion of people, it can be very psychologically addictive and very, very risky to mental health.”
According to Health Canada, regular cannabis users can experience psychological and mild physical dependence, with withdrawal symptoms that include irritability, anxiety, upset stomach and disturbed sleep.
“You don’t actually have anxiety,” said Schneider about his own withdrawal symptoms. “But your brain creates it anyway, driving you to use cannabis to relieve it.”
Research also shows frequent use of high-THC cannabis is linked to an increased risk of psychosis, a mental condition marked by a disconnection from reality. Individuals with mental disorders or a family history of schizophrenia are at particular risk.
In the survey, only 70 per cent of respondents said they had enough reliable information to make informed decisions about cannabis use. And the number of respondents saying they have not seen any education campaigns or public health messages about cannabis has increased, from 24 per cent in 2019 to 50 per cent today.
Culbert says the revenue that the government generates from cannabis creates a disincentive for it to issue strong health warnings.
“There’s no coherence in our regulatory and legal frameworks with respect to health harms and the level of regulation,” he said.
“Governments are addicted to their sin taxes,” he said.
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.
-
Health2 days ago
Cancer drug pioneer praises RFK Jr., suggests link between childhood cancer and COVID shots
-
National1 day ago
Trudeau not seeking re-election as MP following resignation as prime minister
-
Carbon Tax1 day ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Business1 day ago
Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
US Ally’s Approach To Handling Drones Over Military Bases Is Vastly Different From Biden Admin
-
Business2 days ago
Report: Chinese government considering sale of TikTok to Elon Musk, possible X merger
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Trump Could Put An End To Biden’s Offshore Wind Vanity Projects
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
No, Really. Carney Is An Outsider. And Libs Are Done