'Trump’s tariff fixation is part of a global economic plan that is solid.' Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty

Faced with President Trump’s economic moves, his centrist critics oscillate between desperation and a touching faith that his tariff frenzy will fizzle out. They assume that Trump will huff and puff until reality exposes the emptiness of his economic rationale. They have not been paying attention: Trump’s tariff fixation is part of a global economic plan that is solid — albeit inherently risky.
Their thinking is hard-wired onto a misconception of how capital, trade and money move around the globe. Like the brewer who gets drunk on his own ale, centrists ended up believing their own propaganda: that we live in a world of competitive markets where money is neutral and prices adjust to balance the demand and the supply of everything. The unsophisticated Trump is, in fact, far more sophisticated than them in that he understands how raw economic power, not marginal productivity, decides who does what to whom — both domestically and internationally.
Though we risk the abyss staring back when we attempt to gaze into Trump’s mind, we do need a grasp of his thinking on three fundamental questions: why does he believe that America is exploited by the rest of the world? What is his vision for a new international order in which America can be “great” again? How does he plan to bring it about? Only then can we produce a sensible critique of Trump’s economic masterplan.
So why does the President believe America has been dealt a bad deal? His chief complaint is that dollar supremacy may confer huge powers on America’s government and ruling class, but, ultimately, foreigners are using it in ways that guarantee US decline. So what most consider to be America’s exorbitant privilege, he sees as its exorbitant burden.
Trump has been lamenting the decline of US manufacturing for decades: “if you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country.” But why blame this on the dollar’s global role? Because, Trump answers, foreign central banks do not let the dollar adjust downwards to the “right” level — at which US exports recover and imports are restrained. It is not that foreign central bankers are conspiring against America. It is just that the dollar is the only safe international reserve they can get their hands on. It is only natural for European and Asian central banks to hoard the dollars that flow to Europe and Asia when Americans import things. By not swapping their stash of dollars for their own currencies, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the People’s Bank of China and the Bank of England suppress the demand for (and thus the value of) their currencies. This helps their own exporters boost their sales to America and earn even more dollars. In a never-ending circle, these fresh dollars accumulate in the coffers of the foreign central bankers who, to gain interest safely, use them to buy US government debt.
And there’s the rub. According to Trump, America imports too much because it is a good global citizen which feels obliged to provide foreigners with the reserve dollar assets they need. In short, US manufacturing has been in decline because America is a good Samaritan: its workers and middle class suffer so that the rest of the world can grow at its expense.
But the dollar’s hegemonic status also underpins American exceptionalism, as Trump knows and appreciates. Foreign central banks’ purchases of US Treasuries enable the US government to run deficits and pay for an oversized military that would bankrupt any other country. And by being the linchpin of international payments, the hegemonic dollar enables the President to exercise the modern-day equivalent of gunboat diplomacy: to sanction at will any person or government.
This is not enough, in Trump’s eyes, to offset the suffering of American producers who are undercut by foreigners whose central bankers exploit a service (dollar reserves) America provides them for free to keep the dollar overvalued. For Trump, America is undermining itself for the glory of geopolitical power and the opportunity to accumulate other people’s profits. These imported riches benefit Wall Street and realtors but only at the expense of the people who elected him twice: Americans in the heartlands who produce the “manly” goods such as steel and automobiles that a nation needs to remain viable.
And that’s not the worst of Trump’s concerns. His nightmare is that this hegemony will be fleeting. Back in 1988, while promoting his Art of the Deal on Larry King and Oprah Winfrey, he bemoaned: “We are a debtor nation. Something’s going to happen over the next number of years in this country, because you can’t keep on losing $200 billion a year.” Since then, he has become increasingly convinced that a terrible tipping point is approaching: as America’s output diminishes in relative terms, the global demand for the dollar rises faster than US incomes. The dollar then has to appreciate even faster to keep up with the reserve needs of the rest of the world. This can’t go on forever.
For when US deficits exceed some threshold, foreigners will panic. They will sell their dollar-denominated assets and find some other currency to hoard. Americans will be left amid international chaos with a wrecked manufacturing sector, derelict financial markets and an insolvent government. This nightmare scenario has convinced Trump that he is on a mission to save America: that he has a duty to usher in a new international order. And that’s the gist of his plan: to effect in 2025 a decisive anti-Nixon Shock — a global shock that cancels out the work of his predecessor by terminating the Bretton Woods system in 1971 which spearheaded the era of financialisation.
Central to this new global order would be a cheaper dollar that remains the world’s reserve currency — this would lower US long-term borrowing rates even more. Can Trump have his cake (a hegemonic dollar and low-yielding US Treasuries) and eat it (a depreciated dollar)? He knows that the markets will never deliver this of their own accord. Only foreign central banks can do this for him. But to agree to do this, they need to be shocked into action first. And that’s where his tariffs come in.
This is what his critics do not understand. They mistakenly think that he thinks that his tariffs will reduce America’s trade deficit on their own. He knows they will not. Their utility comes from their capacity to shock foreign central bankers into reducing domestic interest rates. Consequently, the euro, the yen and the renminbi will soften relative to the dollar. This will cancel out the price hikes of goods imported into the US, and leave the prices American consumers pay unaffected. The tariffed countries will be in effect paying for Trump’s tariffs.
But tariffs are only the first phase of his masterplan. With high tariffs as the new default, and with foreign money accumulating in the Treasury, Trump can bide his time as friends and foes in Europe and Asia clamour to talk. That’s when the second phase of Trump’s plan kicks in: the grand negotiation.
Unlike his predecessors, from Carter to Biden, Trump disdains multilateral meetings and crowded negotiations. He is a one-on-one man. His ideal world is a hub and spokes model, like a bicycle wheel, in which none of the individual spokes makes much of a difference to the functioning of the wheel. In this view of the world, Trump feels confident that he can deal with each spoke sequentially. With tariffs on the one hand and the threat of removing America’s security shield (or deploying it against them) on the other, he feels he can get most countries to acquiesce.
Acquiesce to what? To appreciating their currency substantially without liquidating their long-term dollar holding. He will not only expect each spoke to cut domestic interest rates, but will demand different things from different interlocutors. From Asian countries that currently hoard the most dollars, he will demand they sell a portion of their short-term dollar assets in exchange for their own (thus appreciating) currency. From a relatively dollar-poor eurozone riddled with internal divisions that increase his negotiating power, Trump may demand three things: that they agree to swap their long-term bonds for ultra-long-term or possibly even perpetual ones; that they allow German manufacturing to migrate to America; and, naturally, that they buy a lot more US-made weapons.
Can you picture Trump’s smirk at the thought of this second phase of his masterplan? When a foreign government acquiesces to his demands, he will have chalked up another victory. And when some recalcitrant government holds out, the tariffs stay put, yielding his Treasury a steady stream of dollars which he can dispense with any way he deems fit (since Congress controls only tax revenues). Once this second phase of his plan is complete, the world will have been divided into two camps: one camp shielded by American security at the cost of an appreciated currency, the loss of manufacturing plants, and forced purchases of US exports including weapons. The other camp will be strategically closer perhaps to China and Russia, but still connected to the US through reduced trade which still gives the US regular tariff income.
Trump’s vision of a desirable international economic order may be violently different from mine, but that gives none of us a licence to underestimate its solidity and purpose — as most centrists do. Like all well-laid plans, this may, of course, go awry. The depreciation of the dollar may not be sufficient to cancel out the effect of tariffs on prices US consumers pay. Or the sale of dollars may be too great to keep long-term US debt yields low enough. But besides these manageable risks, the masterplan will be tested on two political fronts.
The first political threat to his masterplan is domestic. If the trade deficit begins to shrink as planned, foreign private money will stop flooding Wall Street. Suddenly Trump will have to betray either his own tribe of outraged financiers and realtors or the working class that elected him. Meanwhile, a second front will be opening. Regarding all countries as spokes to his hub, Trump may soon discover that he has manufactured dissent abroad. Beijing may throw caution to the wind and turn the BRICS into a New Bretton Woods system in which the yuan plays the anchoring role that the dollar played in the original Bretton Woods. Perhaps this would be the most astonishing legacy, and comeuppance, of Trump’s otherwise impressive masterplan.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The loopholes are the system.”
We never seem to get it right. The stock market is seriously undervalued, apparently because of over-regulation. The water companies pollute at will. And the world’s crooks launder their ill-gotten gains in our property market.
Does _anyone_ around the world come close to getting the right balance?
Anil excels in historical distortions with his silence about the London based Tariq Rahman and Bangladesh Nationalist Party; and the antics of rabid Islamists of the Jaamat Islam.
That isn’t surprising considering his Woke Marxism which even in its old fashioned 1940s pre- Progressive avatar had deep links with extreme Islamists of the Muslim League like HS Suhrawardy.
Bangladesh has a tortured history in its being a part of Pakistan till 1971.
But I donot expect this writer to be factual about history, given his penchant for turgid and disingenuous renditions.
Regarding Tulip, I wonder if he shows the same zeal for unearthing the real facts of political dalliances with Islamic extremists aligned to ISIS and Al Qaeda, of Bangladesh as well as Pakistan, who have found safe havens in the U.K.
Do you happen to know why India is harbouring HASINA?
Is there any likelihood that she will ever face Justice?
India is “harbouring” Hasina for the same reason the Dalai Lama is being harboured.
She is pro India, she protected the Hindu minority from genocide (I know, that doesn’t matter so much because it’s the muslims doing the “cleansing”), and because while it’s likely she was corrupt, there is zero chance she will receive a fair trial.
As far as justice, none of the Pakistanis responsible for the gruesome 1971 genocide were handed over for punishment, the US did not hand over Kissinger to stand trial for his open support to Pakistan, and the West, so keen to sanction Russia, were happy with the islamic nations falling over each other to support Pakistan.
Incidentally, the reason the Bangladeshi muslims are so incensed with her has little to do with her corruption, real or not. Bdesh was in fact doing fairly well economically, and ousting her will actually end up costing them economically, it’s also a given that her replacement will be as corrupt.
It’s more so because she is a legacy of the more “Bengali” political faction that was getting in the way of “purifying ” Bdesh by getting rid of the Hindus. 6% of the population now, down from 13% in 1971, and soon to be 1% or lower.
But, thankfully, all those whining about Gaza will be sleeping easy while that happens.
I gave an unvarnished reply but UH wants to spare the real culprits- CIA, Soros, Clinton who sponsor Islamic extremists in Bdesh whose face is Yunus, it’s unelected tyrant.
“Hindu minority, too, bore the brunt, not least because Hasina had cultivated a reputation as an Indophilic anti-Islamist.”
I was wondering how it would be somehow justified for the muslims there to wrap up the genocide of the Hindus there, just like alnost every single muslim nation has managed to wipe out religious minorities.
The tragedy is the disinformation carried out on behalf of extremist Islamists by the Western legacy media who are up in arms about supposed Islamophobia but look the other way when Hindus, Buddhists etc are concerned.
The hypocrisy is staggering and explains why in India many of us have given up on the values of the West.
I posted a detailed comment exposing Anil’s distortions and silence on some crucial aspects.
As usual held back by UH as they expose the writer’s biases and prejudices.
I just did this as well and UnHerd suppressed it.
Why is India harbouring Hasina?
Because CIA idiots thought it wise to prop up Al Qaeda backed, Soros financed Clinton groupie Mohammad Yunus by ousting Hasina who was democratically elected.
Seems obvious that Democrats like Islamic jihadists more than an elected government.
You have possibly been fed fake narratives. Yunus who now rules is foisted by CIA and is an Islamist in cahoots with Al Qaeda backed Islamists. He is also the plant of Clinton. It is he who is an unelected tyrant.
There are 5 reasons. One is why, and the first four are em, oh, en, and ee.
UH has sent my several comments to the ” sin bin” you so love..
You can tell it’s a total and utter shitshow when the Beeb and Graun aren’t screaming she is the victim of racism and Islamophobia. Rather directly linked to and beneficiary of bent and crooked kleptocracy.
I did chuckle at her title Anti Corruption and City minister. I mean you have to butter up the City of London – with things like looser regulations/blind eyes/let that one go/enough gray areas/ambiguity etc.. whilst clamping down on all of those things and make things black and white.
Total farce.
Very good point about the lack of ranting from the BBC, etc.! Compare this to the shitstorm they (and Starmer) initiated when Boris Johnson told relatively minor fibs which ultimately led to his departure.
Twaddle – Johnson broke the law, lied about breaking the law and then lied about lying about breaking the law.
He oversaw a culture of parties at Downing Street whilst the then Monarch sat alone mourning the death of her husband of 70+ years, a decorated WWII naval veteran.
He then protected his mate – a demonstrable sex pest.
He was a lazy, irresponsible joker who oversaw policies which led the highest immigration volumes ever into this country.
Twaddle to you too! At least Johnson was inspirational – unlike the drab, procedural, greyness of Starmer – who’s proved himself to be a consummate liar.
I actually agree with you about Boris and what you’ve written here. But Starmer is a more sinister operator who uses the cloak of legal professionalism as a barrier against scrutiny – and relies on the naked Left-wing bias of the BBC and legacy media, and his huge parliamentary majority, to shield him from accountability for his lying and constant diversionary references to the ‘Far Right’.
I wonder why the press give Starmer a free ride on this. His links to Siddiq go back a long way. He went with her on a trip to Bangladesh and met Aunty. He, and other Labour MPs were happy to host Aunty in the HoC and share platforms with her. And this was after it was known that the press and judiciary were being suppressed. Oh, and let’s not talk about LGBT rights.
At the bottom of this article it says,..
’Pratinav Anil is the author of two bleak assessments of 20th-century Indian history. He teaches at St Edmund Hall, Oxford.’
I assume that ‘bleak’ is a weasel word for anti-British. Not only is UnHerd paying this man for his articles but he also gets to teach his attitudes to our student. Is there hope?
Hooe springs eternal…
Once again the U.K. manages to identify the worst possible candidate for a job, and create the worst possible system for her awful family to operate.
Bangladesh, despite being an utter shideshow as noted in other comments, was nevertheless, as acknowledged by the author, leagues ahead of Pakistan economically, despite sharing so much history. Unlike Pakistan, it also had a fertility rate trending down towards replacement only.
Now that, inevitably, after the fall of an unpopular regime, Islamists are taking over, we can expect to see many of those gains reversed. Sometimes “as bad as it is” is “as good as it gets” and now things in Bangladesh are set to take a turn for the worse.
Why is India harbouring HASINA?
That is a question that has often been asked on this thread….
Why the CENSORSHIP here? Particularly if you mention the name HASINA.
Are only four comments allowed on this essay?
Hi dus in Bangladesh have been subjected to horrendous violence since Hasina’s departure. Where’s the outrage?
The Labour Party is a happy home for non-white politicians, all of whom are assumed to be lovely people, very possibly oppressed and discriminated against, and of course virtuously working-class. Labour is certainly incapable of understanding that places like Bangladesh have voracious and corrupt class systems which benefit comrades like Tulip.
It is bad enough to have millions of these third world grafters infesting the country, but when they own vast tracts of real estate and leading Labour politicians, it is sickening.
”asseverated” – you what mate? you taking the piss?
The reply option has been disabled by UH. Sorry, CS – it appears that the motto is ” Let the sleeping d… lie” in this disingenuous article published.
Starmer’s first few months in government have been replete with serious lapses of judgement, commencing with the Sue Gray debacle (she now sits sidelined in the House of Lords with a whacking salary/pension) – followed alomost every week by yet a new revelation – not least his admission that all along he knew of the details relating tothe revolting Rubakubana’s awful background, and yet he lied to the British public at the time of the arrest that he did not. Now it emerges that the foreigner he appointed to tackle corruption and financial crime in the City of London is the niece of a former, massively corrupt Prime Minister of Bangladesh! British Labour and Tory governments have presided over enormous mass immigration from Third World countries where corruption and crime in public office is endemic. No wonder then that our own democratic system, once held up as the pinnacle of decency, fir play and incorruptibility, is now swilling around in the waters of corruption and plummeting standards!
This man needs to resign. He is a grey Purveyor of Gloom without any passion or positive vision, whose capacity for lying to his electorate on really important matters of state puts Boris Johnson in the shadows for his relatively minor fibs by comparison – and for which Starmer tore him to shreds in Opposition, leading to Johnson’s downfall.
How has it come to this?