Increase in Tariffs Would Trigger Global Economic Decline, Study Finds
A new IMF study finds that a global increase in tariffs could decrease global GDP by nearly 1 percent by 2025 and over 1 percent by 2026.

The chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently delivered a stern warning about the consequences that tariff increases could have on global economic growth. "It's a policy that is harming basically everyone," Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas told the Financial Times. Given the burgeoning support for tariffs from both Democrats and Republicans, Gourinchas' prediction could spell trouble for Americans no matter who wins the election in November.
In its October World Economic Outlook report, the IMF predicts that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) could fall by "0.4 percent in 2025 and by 0.6 percent in 2026," if a "sizeable swath" of global trade is hit with tariffs by mid-2025. Under this scenario, global GDP would decline by 0.8 percent by 2025 and 1.3 percent by 2026.
In its prediction, the IMF implemented a 10 percent tariff on all trade flows between the U.S., E.U., and China to model the retaliatory nature of tariffs. The Fund's scenario also included an extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, decreased net migration to the U.S. and Europe, and higher global borrowing costs.
Early in his campaign, former President Donald Trump floated a specific 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods alongside a 10 percent across-the-board tariff, which he recently increased to 20 percent. "It's just what he thinks galvanized an audience," Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics and Stiefel Trade Policy Center at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. "Let's face it, none of this has any rigorous econometric modeling behind it, so it could be as simple as he thinks 20 percent sounds better."
"Taking the candidates at their word, you would have to say that Trump's tariffs would be orders of magnitude worse than what Kamala Harris might do, or say she will do," Lincicome adds.
Harris' stance on the issue has been less clear, as she has flip-flopped several times since before becoming the Democratic candidate. As vice president Harris presided over the Biden administration's decision to continue Trump-era tariffs, before implementing additional ones earlier this year. Before the presidential debate with Trump, the Harris campaign told The New York Times that she would "employ targeted and strategic tariffs to support American workers, strengthen our economy, and hold our adversaries accountable."
When asked why Harris has not distinguished herself by opposing these measures, Lincicome notes that supporting tariffs is just part of the "conventional wisdom in Washington today" even if polls may not completely support this assertion. "The view among the political experts is that elections are won or lost in a few places with a few votes," and those critical "voters like tariffs."
Given the IMF's projections, bipartisan support for tariffs could lead to increased costs and slower economic growth for Americans regardless of who wins in November.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Given the IMF's projections, bipartisan support for tariffs could lead to increased costs and slower economic growth for Americans regardless of who wins in November.
You mean using taxes to raise prices on imports and things made from imports is a form of inflation that results in slower economic growth?
Like wage increases, or different ?
Let's peek under the grey to see what kind of stupid nonsense Dlam posted.
Wow. It's so stupendously stupid I don't know what to say. I'm stunned into silence.
Stop peeking into my grey box, you weirdo!
Lol
You don't Mute anybody.
We not seeing wage increases. Except for college administrators and stuff. The problems with inflation is that wages are "sticky" and lag behind the price increases in consumer goods.
The problem with inflation is also that not everyone gets a wage increase; and the mechanism of inflation is printing money and giving it to people who don’t produce anything. Consumption without production leads to increasing scarcity and higher prices for people who were already just squeaking by, leading to increasing poverty.
Inflation just means a general rise in prices. It’s almost always caused by printing money. Almost. Tariffs cause inflation by adding the tax to the price of imports and things made from imports, and allow domestic competitors to raise prices if the tariff causes the price of the import to increase beyond what the domestic producer charged without the tariff. (Before the tariff American widget A costs $20 and Chinese widget C costs $15. After the tariff C costs $25. The price of A now rises to $24 because it can.) Because we’re mostly talking about cheap consumer goods, the people who are hurt the most are the people with the least dollars to spend. That makes tariffs an inflationary, regressive tax.
Thanks Wikipedia understanding of broad terms.
Can you now do your wiki dissertation on regulatory costs?
Can you tell us the inflationary cost of domestic products caused by Chinese theft of IP and corporate security costs?
Red herrings are red.
Red herring isn’t defined as something you wish to avoid.
Like you crashing while drunk driving into a wall and complaining about the broken windshield on a totalled car.
A red herring (“WHATABOUT REGULAYSHUNS AND EYE PEE?!?!!??!!?!?!?!?”) is a distraction thrown by someone who wishes to avoid the topic of conversation (tariffs and their negative effect on the economy).
You've been avoiding the questions for months buddy. You refuse to acknowledge the mountain screaming at the mole hill.
Targeted tariffs, by definition, wouldn’t cause a “general rise in prices”.
I’m pretty sure all the tariffs that have been implemented since I was born have been targeted (meaning not across the board), so not sure how you come to your conclusion.
Sticky wages...
And by the by, wages, in the end, are exactly like consumer prices. The oversupply or undersupply of a thing will drive wages up or down.
Hasn't your team been defending the Biden Harris economy on wage growth (despite real wages being down)?
What does IMF think the cost increase from regulatory policies like Paris Accord they support do?
I’m not on a team and haven’t defended anything, dumbass.
Are you capable of discussing tariffs, or do you just shout “Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, Regulayshuns, IP!”?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
So you're Brandy too.
And yes you have a team.
You mean
using taxesraising wagesto raise prices on imports and things made from importsis a form of inflation that results in slower economic growth?Raising minimum wage is… usually other wages are/should be a byproduct of productive value increases (business makes more so can give raise to employees).
Minimum wage short circuits the economic feedback and exerts upward pressure on consumer prices.
"Taking the candidates at their word, you would have to say that Trump's tariffs would be orders of magnitude worse than what Kamala Harris might do, or say she will do," Lincicome adds.
Lol, imagine believing this.
Who has talked up tariffs more, Harris or Trump?
Further, if Harris were more pro-tariff than Trump, most of the posters here would reverse themselves and decide that high tariffs weren't really such a great idea after all.
Why didn't those posters reverse themselves during the previous four years?
As vice president Harris presided over the Biden administration's decision to continue Trump-era tariffs, before implementing additional ones earlier this year. Before the presidential debate with Trump, the Harris campaign told The New York Times that she would "employ targeted and strategic tariffs to support American workers, strengthen our economy, and hold our adversaries accountable."
Or is this yet another, "OMG, we have no idea what a Trump presidency will be like!", except for Harris, and in reverse?
But tariffs are not all they are talking about. "Taking the candidates at their word" was referring to the entirety of "what the candidates might do".
Her various policies such as taxing unrealized capital gains are orders of magnitude more harmful than anything Trump is proposing.
Harris wants to tax UINREALIZED capital gains.
Shall we discuss what might hurt the economy more --- tariffs or taxing money one does not actually have?
I see you’ve decided to go full retard. Don’t do it bruv!
So the US is subsidizing the planet? (Not just the ones that illegally enter the nation)
> Early in his campaign, former President Donald Trump floated a specific 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods alongside a 10 percent across-the-board tariff, which he recently increased to 20 percent
Once upon a time, in an era not too long ago, Republicans actually used to be against tax increases! What the fuck happened?
The anti-trade union types switched from being Democrats to Republicans, with no change in policy demands. That's what happened! The 2024 GOP is now the 1984 Democrat Party. Gotta protect those union jobs from competition, and the consumer gets to pay for it.
Sing along with me, "Look for! The Union Label! The Union Label!"
Once upon a time, in an era not too long ago, Republicans actually used to be against tax increases! What the fuck happened?
I guess by 'not too long ago' you mean, after Ronald Reagan?
I guess I can't figure it out. If Reason keeps saying Harris tariffs are "Trump-like", then are Trump tariffs "Reagan-like"?
Once upon a time people claiming concerns for taxes and costs understood the big behemoth in the room was regulatory costs. What happened?
I mean, he also floated the idea of eliminating the income tax to go along with his tariff policies, but you can just ignore the things he says that you might agree with…
Oh, well, an IMF economist. They have never been wrong.
International monetary fuckyou.
IMF economist declares that nationalist monetary police will decrease the impact of international monetary policy catastrophically.
No conflict of interest to declare.
I remember way back in 2016 when tariffs on chinese goods were put in place. They were so bad for the economy that the Biden-Harris administration increased them.
Process for Gourinchas' IMF projections: "I don't like Donald Trump. Donald Trump started a trade war with China. I'm afraid of China. Although tariffs are always bad and economic forecast models are notoriously bad at forecasting the economy, the general public knows nothing whatever about modeling. Therefore, it is safe for me to announce that my economic forecast model is forecasting a very bad outcome if Trump is elected President again."
Does anyone else remember when Reason viewed the IMF with suspicion rather than slobbering praise?
I remember a decent part of this magazine's history for the last ~20 yrs., that I do not remember.
Is it like their suspicion of the FBI and the intelligence community?
They do things like promote keyenesian economics and globalist managed trade.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm
Not a fan, never have been.
Not a fan, never have been.
I understand the *L*ibertarian opposition. Got any cites from the magazine that aren't from a time before the internet?
I can find some. IMF has never been a well respected institution from most libertarians prior to regime takeover. It is a standard globalist outfit.
New CATO and new Reason are likely fans, believing global managed trade and monetary policies to be free trade and free markets though.
https://reason.com/2010/08/12/did-imf-say-usa-is-doa/
https://reason.com/2008/10/21/trapped-under-ice/
https://reason.com/2002/09/09/return-of-the-anti-capitalist/
https://reason.com/2003/09/18/right-cause-wrong-reason/
https://reason.com/2007/09/19/klein-on-neocon-disaster-capit/
Like these?
https://reason.com/1976/06/01/international-monetary-politic/
https://reason.com/1978/02/01/why-deflation-will-not-happen/
https://reason.com/1981/07/01/rethinking-foreign-aid/
Tariffs are a good idea just like more government regulation is a good idea.
Ah, you see, when Trump imposes tariffs, they're a great idea, yuge, no-one knew about tariffs until Trump brought them up, but when Biden or Harris do so, they're terrible, woke Marxist policies.
If only we had four years of a Harris administration to measure the comments by...
I never saw Trump defenders attack Democrat tariffs. Because they know that any attack they make on those tariffs could be used against the tariffs they defend. Neither do they credit Democrats for continuing Trump’s tariffs because that would mean crediting Democrats. So they just ignore them, or argue against strawmen that only criticize tariffs when they’re Trump’s.
""Because they know that any attack they make on those tariffs could be used against the tariffs they defend. ""
Too bad dems didn't have that understanding when they started their lawfare against Trump.
Or, and this might be hard for you to parse through your hatred, they agreed with the continuation of those tariffs because of bad actors (China) or want the US to use them as a bargaining chip (EU).
More Government Almighty regulation of the wombs of the womb-slaves is a GREAT idea!!!
Ditto-Shitto-till-we're-all-Blotto, Government Almighty regulation (protection) of LITERAL clumps of ENDANGERED SPECIES of cancer cells!!!
Oklahoma now vying with Idaho for most fanatical!
https://news.yahoo.com/woman-cancerous-pregnancy-told-wait-215500885.html
Woman with Cancerous Pregnancy Was Told to Wait in Parking Lot Until She Was 'Crashing'
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/molar-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20375175
From there, we see that MOLAR PREGNANCIES ARE NEVER VIABLE!!! Yet fascist assholes like sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds want to endanger women in the Sacred Name of Unique Human DNA, which is present in a womb-slave!
From the listed source…
There are two types of molar pregnancy — complete molar pregnancy and partial molar pregnancy. In a complete molar pregnancy, the placental tissue swells and appears to form fluid-filled cysts. There is no fetus.
In a partial molar pregnancy, the placenta might have both regular and irregular tissue. There may be a fetus, but the fetus can’t survive. The fetus usually is miscarried early in the pregnancy.
Of course, the reason for tariffs is to lead you to stop buying product(s) from a certain hostile country, and instead buy from a more friendly country, ideally the US.
No one has to pay tariffs if they stop buying the products subject to the tariffs.
I demand the right to buy cheap stuff made by slaves!
What do you think the open borders policy is for?
I demand the Right, ass if from On High, of defining for the millions and billions of mere peons, who is, and who is SNOT, a SLAVE!!!
(All who are SNOT from MY small neighborhood, or in my circle of friends, fiends, My Posse, My Pussies, or My Backscratchers, are SLAVES, damn-shit-all!!!!)
The libertarian case for slavery
Biden increased the tariff on Chinese EVs by 100% with the idea that people will by the cheaper non-Chinese EVs.
Not sure how that's working out.
I think Elon Musk's turn to the "dark side" has really skewed the demand for EVs. Tesla was the gourmet brand of EV until Elon turned into the bad X man, so now the target demographic for EVs doesn't know what to do.
>>IMF
can't spell fallacy without appealing to the IMF
Remember when they said we would be better off if we were more like Europe?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-slaps-tariffs-chinese-evs-164629602.html
The ratio of articles about tariffs to articles about Ukraine is staggering.
And the JD Vance Is Wrong articles have practically disappeared altogether. Libertarian priorities move in mysterious ways.
Harris is on the record stating that when it comes to Bidenomics she wouldn’t change a thing. Sooooo, she and Trump are on exactly the same page when it comes to loving “beautiful” tariffs. Any Harris supporter that says otherwise is FoS.
The globalists who gain power and influence through imbalanced trade and parallel legislative action are upset that their influence and money might be negatively impacted?
Maybe find a more disinterested party to make your point.
Increase in Tariffs Would Trigger Global Economic Decline, Study Finds
Funny. For 30 yrs. we've been hearing relatively non-stop proposals of everything up to outright liquidation of vast swaths of humanity in order to bring about a decline much, much more massive than Trump's tariffs could possibly achieve. I don't recall the IMF leading any charges about the decline in global GDP in response to those messages.
since before becoming the Democratic candidate.
When did that happen again? I don't remember any vote on that.
The Democratic Party oligarchs had to select Kamala to preserve democracy.
but, but, but .... IT'S JUST Tariffs.
Taxes don't harm anybody..... /s
Sincerely,
Reason Staff.
Oh no! No-one told Europe. This just raised them today.
It's almost like China uses slave labor to keep their products cheap.
China exempts their Value-Add tax on all exports and the USA exempts all their taxes on imports (It’s ZERO-Tax China -> USA) as well as not having an EPA shutting them down because chicken-little said the sky was falling down.
That is how the USA is so dependent on China. Both nations make Domestic pickup the ‘government’ bill on that trade path China -> USA.
And lets not forget the Universal Postal Union that actually makes US citizens subsidize the shipping on China imports.