Connect with us

Business

Warned car tariffs will cost Americans $100 billion, but Trump White House won’t budge — ‘We must become a manufacturing powerhouse’

Published

on



  • Trump’s 25% auto tariffs will unleash “pure chaos,” according to Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, but the Trump administration argues it is rebuilding an industry the U.S. squandered over decades through the wrong trade policies.

Dan Ives already has a term for President Donald Trump’s punitive 25% duty on imported cars — he’s calling it the “tariff announcement heard around the world”. 

The Wedbush Securities analyst warns no one will be spared by the coming Carmaggeddon, least of all Americans. By his calculations, the expected collective hit to U.S. consumers ranges on the order of $100 billion every year as automakers pass on the full brunt of the costs.

“Every auto maker in the world will have to raise prices in some form selling into the U.S., and the supply chain logistics of this tariff announcement heard around the world is hard to even put our arms around at this moment,” he wrote in a research note on Friday.

Ives estimates $5,000 to $10,000 in costs could easily be added to each car depending on whether it’s a mass market or premium brand. “The winner in our view from this tariff is no one,” he continued. 

In a statement to Fortune, the Trump administration did not share Ives’ assessment of the car tariffs.

Instead, steep tariffs are all part of a broader America First agenda that includes policies like deregulation, cheaper and more plentiful energy, as well as tax cuts that feature a new deduction for U.S.-built cars.

Look to a patient China’s strategic approach to building its industry

It argues the tariffs serve a more ambitious goal. The president ultimately aims to restore an industrial base squandered over decades through the wrong trade policies that have resulted in countless U.S. factories moving offshore.

“The Trump administration is committed to delivering on this vision,” White House spokesman Kush Desai wrote in a statement to Fortune.

The short-term hit to economic growth and inflation may be difficult to swallow in a country where investors demand steady returns every quarter. But the White House wants to instill a new approach that emulates Beijing by thinking in much longer timeframes, as Trump explained recently.

It’s exactly this patience in crafting an industrial strategy over a generation that has resulted in China’s auto industry now eclipsing the West in terms of the speed of its technological innovation. 

Currently, only Tesla can still withstand the new domestic competitors like BYD in the world’s largest car market. Worse, with a brutal price war now entering its third straight year, even CEO Elon Musk no longer sees the company’s future first and foremost as an automaker.

Is dominating ‘every step of the supply chain’ a fiction?

Trump wants to change all of this. 

“America cannot just be an assembler of foreign-made parts—we must become a manufacturing powerhouse that dominates every step of the supply chain of industries that are critical for our national security and economic interests,” Desai added. 

Ives, a big believer in Tesla’s recent pivot to humanoid robots, doesn’t believe this is all that realistic, however, since even cars built in America come equipped with foreign-made parts and components that add up to 40% to as much as 50% of its value. 

That kind of re-shoring is simply not cost efficient for parts with a high amount of human labor, like wire harnesses that serve as a vehicle’s electrical nervous system. Other parts, like certain high-tech semiconductors sourced from Taiwan, would need to be onshored for the very first time.

“A U.S. car with all U.S. parts made in the U.S. is a fictional tale not even possible today,” Ives wrote.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Glean CEO Arvind Jain: Lessons from an AI unicorn

Published

on

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Accenture CEO Julie Sweet asks new hires what they’ve learned in the last 6 months: ‘If they can’t answer that question, we know they’re not a learner’

Published

on

Employers are struggling to find the best way to pinpoint the talent they need to drive their businesses to success in the rapidly changing world of AI. Accenture CEO Julie Sweet, though, has a simple question to identify whether her interviewees are ready for the job.

In an interview on the In Good Company podcast with Nicolai Tangen, the CEO of Norges Bank Investment Management, Sweet was asked what she looked for when hiring new consultants at the $64 billion tech giant.

“One question that we ask everyone, regardless of if you’re a consultant or you’re working in technology … we say: ‘What have you learned in the last six months?’ 

“A lot of the time people are asking me, ‘How do I know if someone’s a learner?’ And it’s a very simple way to know. If someone can’t answer that question—and by the way, we don’t care if it’s ‘I learned to bake a cake’—if they can’t answer that question, then we know that they’re not a learner.”

When asked by Tangen what Sweet herself had learned in the last six months, the Accenture CEO said it had mostly been around AI. During an investor call in December, Sweet said she had met with 30 CEOs in the preceding two months, with AI applications at the top of most of their agendas.

Sweet also said she had managed to learn how to bake bread amid her hectic schedule in the last six months.  

Sweet’s curveball question for new hires is indicative of how companies are shifting their recruitment practices following the onset of generative AI, which is upending job specs in every department, requiring a new type of employee.

Bosses have argued that new employees need to be dynamic depending on the changing needs of their business and how AI can be used to supplement their work. 

LinkedIn’s chief operating officer, Daniel Shapero, told Fortune that he asks prospective hires to tell him how they used AI to determine whether they have the desire to learn the tech on the job.

​”What that demonstrates is, if you’re comfortable using AI, then you’re more likely to be someone that helps their organization become more AI-centric,” said Shapero. 

“You hear about people planning family trips, you hear about people summarizing meeting notes. You hear people generating creative ideas for customers. And so there’s a very wide range of things AI can be used for.”

Amid increased uncertainty about the skills and aptitude required for the future of work, Accenture’s Sweet says a strong human resources department has become increasingly vital. 

“I think the best thing to be right now, one of the best fields to be in is HR, because right after gen AI on CEOs’ agendas is talent, and how you train talent has to completely change.”

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared on Fortune.com on January 8, 2025.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s reciprocal tariffs are ‘ripping up trade’ after decades of precedent. Here’s how tariffs got so lopsided in the first place

Published

on



President Donald Trump is taking a blowtorch to the rules that have governed world trade for decades. The “reciprocal’’ tariffs that he is expected to announce Wednesday are likely to create chaos for global businesses and conflict with America’s allies and adversaries alike.

Since the 1960s, tariffs — or import taxes — have emerged from negotiations between dozens of countries. Trump wants to seize the process.

“Obviously, it disrupts the way that things have been done for a very long time,’’ said Richard Mojica, a trade attorney at Miller & Chevalier. “Trump is throwing that out the window … Clearly this is ripping up trade. There are going to have to be adjustments all over the place.’’

Pointing to America’s massive and persistent trade deficits – not since 1975 has the U.S. sold the rest of the world more than it’s bought — Trump charges that the playing field is tilted against U.S. companies. A big reason for that, he and his advisers say, is because other countries usually tax American exports at a higher rate than America taxes theirs.

Trump has a fix: He’s raising U.S. tariffs to match what other countries charge.

The president is an unabashed tariff supporter. He used them liberally in his first term and is deploying them even more aggressively in his second. Since returning to the White House, he has slapped 20% tariffs on China, unveiled a 25% tax on imported cars and trucks set to take effect Thursday, effectively raised U.S. taxes on foreign steel and aluminum and imposed levies on some goods from Canada and Mexico, which he may expand this week.

Economists don’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for tariffs. They’re a tax on importers that usually get passed on to consumers. But it’s possible that Trump’s reciprocal tariff threat could bring other countries to the table and get them to lower their own import taxes.

“It could be win-win,” said Christine McDaniel, a former U.S. trade official now at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. “It’s in other countries’ interests to reduce those tariffs.”

She noted that India has already cut tariffs on items from motorcycles to luxury cars and agreed to ramp up purchases of U.S. energy.

What are reciprocal tariffs and how do they work?

They sound simple: The United States would raise its tariff on foreign goods to match what other countries impose on U.S. products.

“If they charge us, we charge them,’’ the president said in February. “If they’re at 25, we’re at 25. If they’re at 10, we’re at 10. And if they’re much higher than 25, that’s what we are too.’’

But the White House didn’t reveal many details. It has directed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to deliver a report this week about how the new tariffs would actually work.

Among the outstanding questions, noted Antonio Rivera, a partner at ArentFox Schiff and a former attorney with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is whether the U.S. is going to look at the thousands of items in the tariff code – from motorcycles to mangos — and try to level the tariff rates out one by one, country by country. Or whether it will look more broadly at each country’s average tariff and how it compares to America. Or something else entirely.

“It’s just a very, very chaotic environment,” said Stephen Lamar, president and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association. “It’s hard to plan in any sort of long-term, sustainable way.’’

How did tariffs get so lopsided?

America’s tariffs are generally lower than those of its trading partners. After World War II, the United States pushed for other countries to lower trade barriers and tariffs, seeing free trade as a way to promote peace, prosperity and American exports around the world. And it mostly practiced what it preached, generally keeping its own tariffs low and giving American consumers access to inexpensive foreign goods.

Trump has broken with the old free trade consensus, saying unfair foreign competition has hurt American manufacturers and devastated factory towns in the American heartland. During his first term, he slapped tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum, washing machines, solar panels and almost everything from China. Democratic President Joe Biden largely continued Trump’s protectionist policies.

The White House has cited several examples of especially lopsided tariffs: Brazil taxes ethanol imports, including America’s, at 18%, but the U.S. tariff on ethanol is just 2.5%. Likewise, India taxes foreign motorcycles at 100%, America just 2.4%.

Does this mean the U.S. been taken advantage of?

The higher foreign tariffs that Trump complains about weren’t sneakily adopted by foreign countries. The United States agreed to them after years of complex negotiations known as the Uruguay Round, which ended in a trade pact involving 123 countries.

As part of the deal, the countries could set their own tariffs on different products – but under the “most favored nation’’ approach, they couldn’t charge one country more than they charged another. So the high tariffs Trump complains about aren’t aimed at the United States alone. They hit everybody.

Trump’s grievances against U.S. trading partners also come at an odd time. The United States, running on strong consumer spending and healthy improvements in productivity, is outperforming the world’s other advanced economies. The U.S. economy grew nearly 9% from just before COVID-19 hit through the middle of last year — compared with just 5.5% for Canada and just 1.9% for the European Union. Germany’s economy shrank 2% during that time.

Trump’s plan goes beyond foreign countries’ tariffs

Not satisfied with scrambling the tariff code, Trump is also going after other foreign practices he sees as unfair barriers to American exports. These include subsidies that give homegrown producers an advantage over U.S. exports; ostensible health rules that are used to keep out foreign products; and loose regulations that encourage the theft of trade secrets and other intellectual property.

Figuring out an import tax that offsets the damage from those practices will add another level of complexity to Trump’s reciprocal tariff scheme.

The Trump team is also picking a fight with the European Union and other trading partners over so-called value-added taxes. Known as VATs, these levies are essentially a sales tax on products that are consumed within a country’s borders. Trump and his advisers consider VATs a tariff because they apply to U.S. exports.

Yet most economists disagree, for a simple reason: VATs are applied to domestic and imported products alike, so they don’t specifically target foreign goods and haven’t traditionally been seen as a trade barrier.

And there’s a bigger problem: VATs are huge revenue raisers for European governments. “There is no way most countries can negotiate over their VAT … as it is a critical part of their revenue base,’’ Brad Setser, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, posted on X.

Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist for Capital Economics, says that the top 15 countries that export to the U.S. have average VATs topping 14%, as well as duties of 6%. That would mean U.S. retaliatory tariffs could reach 20% — much higher than Trump’s campaign proposal of universal 10% duties.

Tariffs and the trade deficit

Trump and some of his advisers argue that steeper tariffs would help reverse the United States’ long-standing trade deficits.

But tariffs haven’t proven successful at narrowing the trade gap: Despite the Trump-Biden import taxes, the deficit rose last year to $918 billion, second-highest on record.

The deficit, economists say, is a result of the unique features of the U.S. economy. Because the federal government runs a huge deficit, and American consumers like to spend so much, U.S. consumption and investment far outpaces savings. As a result, a chunk of that demand goes to overseas goods and services.

The U.S. covers the cost of the trade gap by essentially borrowing from overseas, in part by selling treasury securities and other assets.

“The trade deficit is really a macroeconomic imbalance,” said Kimberly Clausing, a UCLA economist and former Treasury official. “It comes from this lack of desire to save and this lack of desire to tax. Until you fix those things, we’ll run a trade imbalance.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.