Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In


Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here


Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.


Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.


Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

You must login to add post.


Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here
Sign InSign Up

Qaskme

Qaskme Logo Qaskme Logo

Qaskme Navigation

  • Home
  • Questions Feed
  • Communities
  • Blog
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask A Question
  • Home
  • Questions Feed
  • Communities
  • Blog

Become Part of QaskMe - Share Knowledge and Express Yourself Today!

At QaskMe, we foster a community of shared knowledge, where curious minds, experts, and alternative viewpoints unite to ask questions, share insights, connect across various topics—from tech to lifestyle—and collaboratively enhance the credible space for others to learn and contribute.

Create A New Account
  • Recent Questions
  • Most Answered
  • Answers
  • Most Visited
  • Most Voted
  • No Answers
  • Recent Posts
  • Random
  • New Questions
  • Sticky Questions
  • Polls
  • Recent Questions With Time
  • Most Answered With Time
  • Answers With Time
  • Most Visited With Time
  • Most Voted With Time
  • Random With Time
  • Recent Posts With Time
  • Feed
  • Most Visited Posts
  • Favorite Questions
  • Answers You Might Like
  • Answers For You
  • Followed Questions With Time
  • Favorite Questions With Time
  • Answers You Might Like With Time
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 12/10/2025In: News

Is India upgrading its engagement with the Taliban government, including plans to reopen its embassy in Kabul?

India upgrading its engagement with t ...

diplomatic recognitionembassy reopeningforeign policyindia–afghanistan relationss. jaishankartaliban government
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 12/10/2025 at 1:21 pm

    India’s Renewed Outreach to Afghanistan: A Delicate Diplomatic Shift Yes, India is indeed upgrading its engagement with the Taliban government in Afghanistan and is reportedly planning to reopen its embassy in Kabul after more than three years of limited operations. This marks a significant — and caRead more

    India’s Renewed Outreach to Afghanistan: A Delicate Diplomatic Shift

    Yes, India is indeed upgrading its engagement with the Taliban government in Afghanistan and is reportedly planning to reopen its embassy in Kabul after more than three years of limited operations. This marks a significant — and cautious — recalibration in New Delhi’s foreign policy toward a country with which it shares deep historical, cultural, and economic ties.

    Background: From Withdrawal to

    Reconnection

    When the Taliban seized power in August 2021, India, like most other nations, swiftly evacuated its diplomats and suspended its official presence in Kabul. At that time, New Delhi’s stance was one of wait and watch, reflecting deep concern about the Taliban’s past links to terrorism and their implications for India’s security interests, particularly regarding Pakistan-based extremist groups.

    But ever since the past two years, ground realities have shifted. The Taliban, as it sought world legitimacy and economic relief, was more amenable to initiate negotiations. India, for its part, realizes that it is neither strategically nor long-term viable to fully isolate Afghanistan — especially since China, Pakistan, Iran, and Russia have all maintained or expanded their presence in Afghanistan.

     Plans to Reopen the Embassy

    It is said that India has been making logistical and security preparations to re-establish its full-fledged embassy in Kabul, which has been operating in a limited form since 2022 under a “technical mission.”

    It has largely handled the distribution of humanitarian assistance, monitoring of development projects, and visas for Afghan students and patients traveling to India.

    A formal re-opening would be India’s most openly diplomatic engagement with the Taliban government so far — an exercise of pragmatism and symbolism. It signifies India’s desire to exercise influence over Afghanistan and protect its investments, which amount to over $3 billion in infrastructure and relief activities since 2001.

     India’s Strategic Motivations

    India’s fresh initiative is driven by a mix of security, economic, and geopolitical interests:

    • Counteracting Pakistani Influence: Pakistan has dominated Kabul for decades. Reopening an embassy enables India to restore a foothold and ensure that Afghan ground is not used against India.
    • Humanitarian Obligation: India has supplied wheat, medicine, and COVID-19 shots to Afghanistan despite the Taliban regime. Strengthening diplomatic ties enables smoother delivery of aid to Afghans.
    • Regional Stability: A stable Afghanistan is beneficial to India’s connectivity and trade interests in Central Asia, particularly under projects like the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
    • Engagement over Isolation: India prefers to engage the de facto powers to influence developments rather than letting a vacuum fall into the lap of their rivals like China or Pakistan.

    Diplomatic Tightrope: Recognition vs. Engagement

    It must be noted that India has not yet recognized the Taliban regime officially, but nor will it do so at this time. It’s an issue of practical engagement more than political approval in order to restore its embassy.

    • New Delhi continues to hold out for inclusive politics, women’s empowerment, and counter-terror commitments as the terms of full diplomatic recognition.

    This realistic approach allows India to defend its interests without deviating from the general international belief of action under the leadership of the United Nations.

    Broader Implications & International Reactions

    • The international community has largely interpreted India’s action as a pragmatic and necessary step. The Western nations, many of whom have limited contact with the Taliban, view India as a trusted interlocutor who can help moderate the regime’s attitude.
    • While Afghans themselves, above all those recipients of Indian scholarships, medical aid, and development initiatives — have in general been welcoming the shift as one made by a friend over a long time, rather than an exchange ally.
    • India’s re-engagement with Afghanistan during the Taliban period is a diplomatic balance of the tightrope kind — a balancing act that is a mix of realism and humanitarian sensitivities. By reopening its embassy and upgrading relations, New Delhi aims to be a player in the changing political landscape of Afghanistan, protect its people-to-people ties, and prevent the country slipping further into isolation.

    It is a modest but important shift — one that reflects India’s growing self-assurance as a regional power that can promote its national interests without compromising moral and strategic imperatives.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 53
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 12/10/2025In: News

Did the newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, meet with Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss trade, defense, and technology cooperation?

the newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador t ...

defense cooperationnarendra modisergio gortechnology cooperationtrade cooperationu.s.–india relations
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 12/10/2025 at 1:00 pm

    Fostering Ties: US Ambassador Sergio Gor Meets PM Modi Indeed, the recently appointed US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor had a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi to talk about significant areas of bilateral cooperation — that is, trade, defense, and technology. The encounter is aRead more

    Fostering Ties: US Ambassador Sergio Gor Meets PM Modi

    Indeed, the recently appointed US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor had a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi to talk about significant areas of bilateral cooperation — that is, trade, defense, and technology. The encounter is a shift in the dynamics of evolving US–India relations as the two countries further develop their strategic partnership amid more evolving times.

     A New Chapter in U.S.–India Diplomacy

    Sergio Gor, just elected president last week, embodies a new wave of diplomacy in Washington policy with India. His meeting with Prime Minister Modi was one of his initial major encounters, reflecting the Biden administration’s ongoing excitement about India as an Indo-Pacific regional leader.

    The conversation centered on the establishment of greater mutual trust and further cooperation under powerful strategic frameworks like the Quad partnership (U.S., India, Japan, and Australia). Both countries reasserted their common vision for maintaining stability, prosperity, and freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific — an indirect message for balancing China’s growing footprint.

    Trade & Economic Partnership

    In business, the two leaders pledged to build more robust supply chains and boost bilateral trade levels, already in excess of $200 billion a year. In exchange of ideas was lowering trade barriers, creating digital economy connections, and promoting American business investment into India’s new green technologies and manufacturing sector.

    India wanted greater market access in U.S. markets for its IT-enabled services and pharmaceuticals, and the U.S. advocated more reciprocal e-commerce regimes and intellectual property protection. The meeting reiterated shared commitment to more vision-driven and balanced economic partnership.

     Defense & Security Cooperation

    Defense was also a corner stone of the talks. The two leaders are said to have addressed ongoing projects under the U.S.–India Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), such as co-development of jet engines, drones, and advanced military technologies.

    Washington still regards India as a central defense ally capable of making a positive contribution to the security of the region. Coordinated military exercises, exchange of intelligence, and collaborative defense manufacturing are going to become more emphasized over the next several months — marking enhanced defense coordination in the evolving world power calculus.

    Tech, AI, and Innovation

    The highlight of the conversation was technology collaboration — particularly in the areas of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, semiconductor innovation, and quantum computing.

    India’s emergence as a hub for digital innovation in recent times has drawn huge American attention. Gor showed interest in bolstering U.S. collaborations with Indian start-ups and universities with the aim of developing a corridor of technology between Silicon Valley and Bengaluru.

    The two countries also talked about increasing ethical AI norms and avoiding next-generation tech misuse, an emerging global threat.

     A Strategic Partnership for the Future

    The conversation between Sergio Gor and Prime Minister Modi further strengthened the perception that U.S.–India relations had transcended transactional relationships. The alliance now is based on democratic values intersecting, collective trust, and shared interest in creating the world order of the 21st century.

    As Gor has said in his post-meeting statement, “The United States views India not only as a partner, but as a friend and a force for stability and innovation in the world.”

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 42
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 12/10/2025In: News

Did Donald Trump lose the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado?

Donald Trump lose the 2025 Nobel Peac ...

2025 nobel peace prizeaward controversydonald trumpinternational politicsnobel peace prizepeace efforts
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 12/10/2025 at 12:15 pm

     2025 Nobel Peace Prize Winner: María Corina Machado María Corina Machado, who has long been an outspoken advocate of democratic reform in Venezuela, was the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for demonstrating "courageous leadership and dedication to the restoration of democracy in her country."Read more

     2025 Nobel Peace Prize Winner: María Corina Machado

    María Corina Machado, who has long been an outspoken advocate of democratic reform in Venezuela, was the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for demonstrating “courageous leadership and dedication to the restoration of democracy in her country.”

    For many years, Machado was politically harassed, excluded from voting, and targeted for her security, but she continued to mobilize Venezuelans calling for free and fair elections. Her triumph is evidence of international recognition of those who are resisting authoritarianism in Latin America.

    Her Nobel victory was met by human rights activists, Western countries, and democracy campaigners as a stern reminder that moral courage and nonviolent resistance still can triumph even in hostile political climates.

    Donald Trump’s Nobel Aspirations and Global Attention

    Donald Trump was discussed in some quarters of politics and the media as a potential future recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, mainly for his previous diplomatic efforts such as:

    • Shepherding the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states in 2020.
    • Negotiating with North Korea during his presidency.
    • Accepting credit for maintaining relative global stability through “peace through strength” policies.

    His own supporters believed these actions put him in a place to be deserving of international praise for promoting peace through unconventional means. Critics argued that his divisive rhetoric and foreign policy agenda made this remote, though.

     Why the Nobel Committee Chose to Award Machado, Not Trump

    The Nobel Committee action was an affirmation of its dedication to grassroots human rights activism and not geopolitics concessions or diplomacy of the person.
    Machado’s peaceful resistance of Venezuela’s brutal regime was aligned with the roots of the Nobel Peace Prize — nonviolence, liberty, and human dignity.

    By contrast, Trump’s international relations style, though sometimes daring, was often seen as political and transactional, and this most likely dented his candidacy with the committee.

    Global Reaction

    The news elicited different reactions across the world:

    • Democrats of democracy welcomed Machado’s honor as needed.
    • Trump supporters protested the action, calling it political and contending that the Nobel Committee overlooked Trump’s diplomatic successes.

    Most watched it as a symbolic act — that in an era of populism and authoritarian rule, the Nobel Committee chose to reward resilience, moral courage, and human rights activism over power or politics.

    Final Thoughts

    Donald Trump’s rout of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize by María Corina Machado is a bigger global message: actual peace is not built through bargaining, but through unyielding courage and the protection of democratic values.

    While Trump’s political record is contentious, Machado’s victory is a testament to persistence — that even in one of the world’s most repressed nations, the fight for freedom is a cause worthy of the world’s finest accolades.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 55
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 11/10/2025In: News

How do tariffs influence inflation and central bank monetary policy?

tariffs influence inflation and centr ...

central bankingcost-push inflationinflationinterest ratesmonetary policytrade policy
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 11/10/2025 at 4:43 pm

    Step 1: What a Tariff Does in Simple Terms A tariff is a tax on imported goods. When a government imposes one, it makes foreign products more expensive. Depending on the situation, that cost can be absorbed by foreign exporters, domestic importers, or — most often — passed on to consumers. So, whenRead more

    Step 1: What a Tariff Does in Simple Terms

    A tariff is a tax on imported goods. When a government imposes one, it makes foreign products more expensive. Depending on the situation, that cost can be absorbed by foreign exporters, domestic importers, or — most often — passed on to consumers.

    So, when tariffs go up, the prices of imported goods typically rise, which can cause inflationary pressure in the domestic economy.

    Imagine your country imposes tariffs on imported electronics, steel, and fuel:

    • Smartphone prices rise by 10–15%.
    • Cars and appliances, which use imported steel, become more expensive.
    • Transport costs rise because fuel prices go up.

    Before long, the general price level — not just of imports, but of many everyday items — starts to climb.

    Step 2: The Inflationary Pathway

    Tariffs influence inflation in two main ways:

    Direct Effect (Higher Import Prices):

    Imported goods become more expensive immediately. This raises the consumer price index (CPI), especially in countries that rely heavily on imports for consumer goods, fuel, or raw materials.

    Indirect Effect (Ripple Through Supply Chains):

    Many domestic industries use imported components. When tariffs make those components costlier, domestic producers raise prices too.

    • A tariff on steel increases the price of cars, construction materials, and machinery.
    • A tariff on textiles pushes up clothing prices.

    This is called cost-push inflation — when production costs rise, pushing overall prices upward.

     Step 3: The Central Bank’s Dilemma

    Enter the central bank, the institution responsible for keeping inflation stable — usually around a target (like 2% in many advanced economies, 4% in India).

    When tariffs raise prices, the central bank faces a policy dilemma:

    • On one hand, higher prices suggest the economy is “overheating,” pushing the bank to raise interest rates to cool inflation.
    • On the other hand, tariffs also slow economic growth by making goods costlier and reducing demand — meaning the economy might already be weakening.

    So the central bank has to decide:

    Should we treat tariff-induced inflation as a temporary supply shock — or as a lasting threat that needs tightening policy?

    This is not an easy choice.

    Step 4: How Central Banks Typically Respond

    Most central banks view tariff-driven inflation as transitory, especially if it’s limited to certain sectors. But if the effects spread widely or persist, they have to act.

    Here’s how they approach it:

    Short-term, one-off tariffs:

    • If tariffs are isolated (say, on a few products) and the inflation spike looks temporary, the central bank may “look through” it.
    • They might keep interest rates unchanged, reasoning that hiking rates would slow growth unnecessarily.

    Broad or sustained tariffs:

    • If tariffs are widespread (like during a trade war) and push up prices across many goods, inflation expectations can become anchored higher.
    • In that case, central banks may tighten monetary policy — raising interest rates to prevent inflation from spiraling.

    Exchange Rate Channel:

    • Tariffs can also influence currencies.
    • A tariff war might make investors nervous, causing currency depreciation.
    • A weaker currency makes imports even more expensive, reinforcing inflation.

    To counter this, the central bank may raise rates to defend the currency and anchor expectations.

     Real-World Examples

     United States (2018–2020: The U.S.–China Tariffs)

    • The Trump administration imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods.
    • Prices rose in sectors like electronics, appliances, and machinery.

    The U.S. Federal Reserve initially hesitated to cut rates even as trade tensions slowed growth because tariffs were fueling price volatility.

    Over time, the Fed judged the inflationary impact as temporary but warned that prolonged trade disputes could unanchor inflation expectations.

    🇮🇳 India’s Tariff Adjustments

    • India has occasionally used tariffs to protect industries or reduce current account deficits (e.g., on gold, electronics, and textiles).
    • These measures raised domestic prices, especially for consumer goods.

    The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) closely monitors such price pressures because imported inflation can spill over into food and fuel inflation — areas that strongly affect ordinary households.

    Step 5: The Broader Trade-Offs

    The relationship between tariffs, inflation, and monetary policy shows how one policy tool can clash with another:

    • Trade policy (tariffs) tries to protect domestic industries or balance trade.
    • Monetary policy tries to maintain stable prices and steady growth.

    When tariffs push prices up, the central bank may have to raise interest rates — but higher rates make borrowing costlier for households and businesses, potentially slowing investment and job growth.

    This creates a tug-of-war between protecting industries and protecting purchasing power.

     Step 6: The Human Side of It All

    For ordinary people, the effects show up in very tangible ways:

    • Groceries, electronics, and fuel get costlier.
    • The interest rate on loans or EMIs may rise as the central bank tightens policy.
    • Businesses facing higher input costs may delay hiring or reduce wage growth.

    In short, tariffs can quietly squeeze household budgets and slow the economic heartbeat — even if they’re politically popular for protecting domestic industries.

     Step 7: The Long-Term Picture

    Over time, the inflationary effect of tariffs tends to fade if firms adjust supply chains or consumers shift to local alternatives.

    But if tariffs are frequent, unpredictable, or global (like in a full-scale trade war), they can entrench structural inflation — forcing central banks to keep interest rates higher for longer.

    That’s why many economists see tariffs as a risky, inflationary tool in a world where monetary policy already struggles with price stability.

     In Summary

    Tariffs are not just trade tools — they’re macro triggers. They can:

    • Raise inflation directly by making imports more expensive.
    • Amplify cost pressures across industries.
    • Complicate central bank decisions by mixing inflation with slower growth.

    For central banks, it becomes a balancing act between fighting inflation and supporting the economy. For consumers, it often means higher prices and tighter financial conditions.

    In the end, tariffs may protect a few industries — but they tend to tax everyone else through higher living costs and the ripple of stricter monetary policy.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 52
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 11/10/2025In: News

What are the distributional effects of tariffs?

the distributional effects of tariffs

consumer welfaredeadweight lossincome distributionproducer surplustariffstrade policy
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 11/10/2025 at 4:22 pm

     What "Distributional Effects" Are When economists refer to distributional effects, they're wondering: How do tariffs' costs and benefits fall on society's various groups? Tariffs don't only increase the price of foreign goods—they redistribute income among consumers, manufacturers, and the governmeRead more

     What “Distributional Effects” Are

    When economists refer to distributional effects, they’re wondering:

    How do tariffs’ costs and benefits fall on society’s various groups?

    Tariffs don’t only increase the price of foreign goods—they redistribute income among consumers, manufacturers, and the government. Notably, this redistribution can benefit some groups at the cost of others.

     The Key Stakeholders in the Tariff Narrative

    Consumers:

    • Households are nearly always the initial losers. Tariffs increase the cost of foreign imports and occasionally domestic substitutes as well. Whether it’s electronics, apparel, fuel, or food, typical families pay more for the same items.
    • Poverty-level families tend to feel the crunch more intensely because they allocate a higher percentage of their income towards consumption staples.
    • More affluent families might be able to absorb the expense more readily, yet even they experience a reduction in purchasing power.

    Domestic Producers / Industries:

    • Those producers that are in competition with imports are typically the primary beneficiaries of tariffs.
    • For instance, if a nation sets a 25% tariff on imported steel, home steel manufacturers will be able to sell more at increased prices.
    • Protection can help preserve jobs temporarily in such industries and spur domestic investment.

    But there’s a catch: the tariff cuts back on competition, which sometimes induces inefficiency and slows long-term innovation.

    Government / Treasury:

    • The government raises tariff revenue, which can be substantial, particularly for high-volume tariffs.
    • In other nations, tariffs are a significant source of revenue for the government to finance public services.

    But this revenue is taken directly from customers, so it’s not an overall “gain” to the economy—it’s simply a redistribution from families to the state.

    Exporters and Upstream Industries:

    • Tariffs can also indirectly harm domestic companies that use imported inputs.
    • As an example, car companies utilizing imported components will have to pay more and pass it on to customers or take reduced profit margins.

    Moreover, foreign retaliation may target exporters, cutting down sales abroad.

    How the Distribution Plays Out

    Economists tend to imagine this in a supply and demand diagram, pointing to three places:

    • Consumer Loss: The biggest area, of higher prices and less consumption.
    • Producer Gain: Smaller, in favor of domestic producers insulated from competition.
    • Government Revenue: Piles a small offset to the losses.

    The take-home point is that the consumer loss typically exceeds the producer gain plus government revenue, resulting in a deadweight loss. That is, whereas some gain, the overall economy is made worse off.

     Real-Life Examples

    U.S.–China Tariffs (2018–2020):

    • Winners: U.S. steel and aluminum producers.
    • Losers: Higher-paying consumers of electronics, appliances, and machinery; farmers who lose out on retaliatory tariffs on soybeans and pork.
    • Outcome: U.S. net welfare loss, with the gains very concentrated in a select number of industries.

    India’s Protective Tariffs:

    • Protective tariffs on smartphones initially benefited local players such as Reliance Jio and local assembly plants.
    • Higher smartphone prices and imported accessories were paid by consumers.

    Export sectors occasionally lost out owing to retaliatory action from trading partners.

     Social and Political Implications

    Tariffs generate distributional effects that help account for why trade policy is politicized:

    • Workers in industries that are protected by tariffs favor them, but consumers and industries that export oppose them.
    • Poor households might experience the biggest burdens of costs of necessities, so tariffs would be regressive.
    • Concentrated large gains (such as one industry or firm) are highly organized and politically mobilized, but losses spread over millions of consumers are less transparent.

    This unevenness frequently structures debates on trade policy: special-interest lobbying against low prices for everyone.

    More Than Economics: Long-Term Consequences

    Tariffs even affect structural change within the economy:

    • Labor reallocations: Workers flow into protected industries, potentially dampening innovation and productivity growth over the long term.
    • Investment behavior: Local firms may grow in response to protection, but they can also relax without global competition.
    • Global trade relationships: Tariffs can lead to retaliation, hurting exporters and potentially moving jobs overseas.

    Thus, though some sectors might prosper briefly, the overall distributional impact can produce inefficiencies and disparities that last well past the imposition of the tariff.

     Summary in Simple Terms

    Consider tariffs as a redistribution of wealth with an underlying cost:

    • Winners: A few domestic producers and the government treasury.
    • Losers: The majority of consumers, poor families, exporters, and firms that depend on foreign inputs.
    • Net impact: The economy generally loses efficiency and overall well-being, although some groups gain.

    In a way, tariffs are similar to providing a small treat to some industries at the cost of making millions of people pay a more expensive grocery bill. The benefits being concentrated give rise to political support, but the spread costs silently reduce overall well-being.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 59
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 11/10/2025In: News

Can a country improve its terms of trade by imposing a tariff?

a country improve its terms of trade

international tradelarge country assumptiontariffsterms of tradetrade policywelfare economics
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 11/10/2025 at 4:08 pm

     What "Terms of Trade" Actually Is Terms of trade (ToT) quantify the value of a nation's exports in relation to its imports. Simply put, it is the rate at which you exchange what you sell to the world for what you purchase from it. Terms of Trade  Export Prices Import Prices Terms of Trade Import PrRead more

     What “Terms of Trade” Actually Is

    Terms of trade (ToT) quantify the value of a nation’s exports in relation to its imports. Simply put, it is the rate at which you exchange what you sell to the world for what you purchase from it.
    Terms of Trade 
    1. Export Prices
    2. Import Prices
    3. Terms of Trade
    4. Import Prices
    5. Export Prices
    If your prices for exporting are higher or your prices for importing are lower, your terms of trade are better — i.e., you can purchase more imports with the same number of exports.
    Increasing your terms of trade is essentially negotiating a better bargain in international trade — you pay less and receive more. All countries would be happy about that.

     The Theory: The “Optimal Tariff” Argument

    That’s where economics comes in with the concept of the optimal tariff — an idea that goes back to the early 20th century, with economists such as Bickerdike and Johnson.
    The thinking is this:
    • Assume your nation is big enough in global trade to make a difference in world prices (such as the U.S., EU, or China).
    • You put a tariff on imports — 10%, for example.
    • Foreign exporters have increased obstacles to selling into your market.
    • To maintain their commodities competitive, they may reduce their export prices.
    If that is the case, your nation pays less for imports, but your exports remain at about the same price.

    Your terms of trade are better.

    In this case, some of the burden of the tariff is placed on foreign producers instead of your domestic consumers. You receive better prices from overseas, and the revenue from the tariff contributes to your national income.
    In the theoretical economic world alone, that’s a win-win — at least for your nation.

    Why It Only Works for “Large” Economies

    The important assumption here is that the nation has market power — the capacity to influence world prices.
    • A small economy (such as Nepal or Costa Rica) can’t; world prices are determined by much bigger markets. Any tariff it levies simply increases local prices and penalizes its own citizens.
    • A big economy (such as the U.S., China, or the EU) can shape world demand sufficiently that foreign producers may pass on some of the tariff by reducing prices.

    That’s why this concept is referred to as the “optimal tariff” — it’s the tariff that optimizes the welfare of a country by enhancing its terms of trade just sufficient to cover the loss of efficiency from restricting trade.

    But There’s a Catch: Retaliation

    In real life, the world economy is not a game with one player. When one large nation applies tariffs, others retaliate.
    • This reprisal negates any initial gain due to improved terms of trade and usually leads to a trade war, lowering world welfare for all.
    • Throughout the U.S.–China trade war (2018–2020), both countries applied tariffs to shield their own industries and enhance bargaining leverage.
    • Rather than enhancing terms of trade, both countries incurred greater import prices, dislocated supply chains, and reduced growth.
    • Economists subsequently calculated the alleged “gains” from better trade terms as entirely offset by losses to consumers and exporters.
    So, theory may tell us that an optimal tariff makes things better, but the reality is that retaliation murders the gain.

    Contemporary Complexity: Global Value Chains

    One other reason the theory falls apart today is the nature of contemporary trade.
    • Years ago, nations primarily exchanged finished goods: one country sold cars, another textiles. Nowadays, production is splintered across borders — a product can travel 5–6 countries before it is delivered to consumers.
    • Placing a tariff on “imports” usually means levying taxes on components and materials your industries require. That increases costs for manufacturers at home, undermines exports, and can deteriorate your terms of trade instead of enhancing them.
    So, something that could have succeeded in the 1950s no longer works for the highly interdependent 2025 world economy.

     The Human Angle: Winners and Losers

    Even in theory, when a nation improves its national terms of trade by raising a tariff, not all are winners.
    • Consumers pay more — they lose purchasing power.
    • Protected industries win in the short term, with less foreign competition.
    • Exporters usually lose when trading nations retaliate.
    Poor families will hurt the most, as tariffs usually target first imported necessities (fuel, food, or technology).
    So, although the country’s overall well-being may appear healthier on paper, the effects on distribution can prove to be politically charged.

    Historical Examples

    The American Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930): Meant to defend American farmers and enhance terms of trade, it actually unleashed a worldwide retaliation that further exacerbated the Great Depression.
    The U.S.–China Tariffs (2018–2020): Designed to better America’s trade position, they increased consumer prices and damaged manufacturing exports. Analysis concluded that there was nearly no net gain in U.S. terms of trade after allowing for retaliation.
    India’s selective import tariffs in recent years demonstrate that low, sector-specific duties can short-term spur domestic production, but the overall benefits are frequently balanced by more expensive imports and reduced export growth.

    In Summary

    So, can a nation enhance its terms of trade by raising a tariff?
    In theory, yes — if it’s a large economy, if the tariff is small, and if other countries don’t retaliate.
     In practice, nearly never — because international interdependence and political reaction undo those gains.
    The reality is:
    Tariffs are like painkillers — they may provide temporary relief, but excessive use creates greater long-term harm.
    Whereas a wisely calibrated tariff could temporarily adjust trade terms to benefit a dominant country, consumer welfare, global trust, and economic efficiency costs are typically far greater than the gains. Cooperation and open trade continue to be the longer-run run more sustainable way to raise welfare and prosperity in today’s global economy.
    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 55
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 11/10/2025In: News

Do tariffs reduce welfare, and if so, by how much?

tariffs reduce welfare

consumersurplusdeadweightlosseconomicwelfareglobaltradetariffwelfarelosstradepolicy
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 11/10/2025 at 3:28 pm

    What "Economic Welfare" Actually Is In economics, welfare is not only government assistance or people's social programs. It means the general well-being of individuals within an economy — generally quantified in terms of: Consumer welfare (how satisfied consumers are with goods and services), ProducRead more

    What “Economic Welfare” Actually Is

    In economics, welfare is not only government assistance or people’s social programs. It means the general well-being of individuals within an economy — generally quantified in terms of:

    • Consumer welfare (how satisfied consumers are with goods and services),
    • Producer welfare (domestic producers’ profits and incomes), and
    • Government revenue (taxes collected, including tariffs).

    When trade is unfettered, nations specialize in products they make best — the principle of comparative advantage. Consumers pay less and have more choices, and producers can sell in international markets.
    When tariffs come into the equation, that efficiency is disrupted.

    How Tariffs Work — and Where Welfare Is Lost

    A tariff is like a tax on foreign goods. Let’s consider a simple scenario:
    Your nation imposes a 20% tariff on foreign steel. The government earns some revenue, domestic steel manufacturers gain since their products become comparatively cheaper, but consumers (and industries that consume steel) pay higher prices.

    Here’s what occurs in welfare terms:

    • Consumers lose since prices rise — they pay more or consume less.
    • Domestic producers gain since they get to sell at higher prices and have less foreign competition.
    • The government gains tariff revenue.

    But… some of the consumer loss does no one any good. It’s a deadweight loss — raw inefficiency brought about by misshapen prices and lower volume of trade.

    So tariffs certainly redistribute welfare (to producers and the state at the expense of consumers), but they decrease overall welfare because the consumer losses outweigh the gains elsewhere.

    Measuring the Loss — The “Deadweight” in Action

    Economists represent this on supply-and-demand diagrams. In the absence of tariffs, imports meet the difference between what domestic producers provide and what consumers want. When tariffs increase prices:

    Consumers purchase less,

    • Some efficient foreign producers are cut out,
    • Domestic producers increase, even if they’re less efficient.

    That misallocation of resources — making something domestically that could have been imported at lower cost — is the welfare loss.

    • Quantitatively, research estimates that
    • For low tariffs (such as 5–10%), welfare losses are low — usually under 0.1% of GDP.
    • For massive tariffs (such as in the course of trade wars), losses can accumulate to billions of dollars.

    In the case of the U.S.–China tariff war (2018–2020), for example, estimates indicated:

    • U.S. consumers and businesses paid about $50–60 billion a year in additional expenses.
    • The net loss of welfare to the U.S. economy was approximately 0.3–0.4% of GDP, or roughly $80 billion — even considering government tariff revenue.

    That’s an enormous price for a policy designed to “protect” jobs.

     The “Optimal Tariff” Exception

    Economists do identify one theoretical exception — the “optimal tariff” argument. If a large nation (such as the U.S. or China) is able to drive world prices, it might, in theory, be able to impose a tariff that helps it slightly enhance its terms of trade — getting foreign sellers to reduce their prices.

    In that unlikely instance, some of the burden is transferred overseas, and domestic welfare may rise somewhat.

    But only if:

    • If other nations fail to retaliate, and
    • If the tariff is minor and short-term.

    In reality, retaliation is sure to follow, erasing any benefit and often making everyone worse off globally.

     Beyond Numbers — The Human Side of Welfare

    • Models can be heartless, but tariffs have human effects.
    • Consumers pay more for necessities such as food, fuel, or electronics.
    • Exporters are driven out of foreign markets as trading partners retaliate.

    Employees in sheltered industries may be helped in the short term, but those in export-oriented or input-intensive industries tend to lose jobs or work fewer hours.

    Tariffs can have a regressive impact in developing nations as well — affecting poorer households disproportionately because they spend a larger percentage of their incomes on traded products. And over the long term, that disparity itself is a welfare problem.

    A Broader Economic Ripple Effect

    Tariffs also have ripple effects on supply chains. Today’s industries are all interconnected — think of smartphone parts from 20 countries. A tariff on just one input can increase dozens of downstream firms’ costs. That not only lowers efficiency but can hinder innovation and investment.

    Companies waste time and dollars adjusting to tariff change — rearranging supply chains, locating new suppliers, or transmitting costs — rather than using that money for productivity or R&D. That long-term drag is another, less obvious, type of welfare loss.

     When Policymakers Still Opt for Tariffs

    Even with the welfare loss, governments occasionally employ tariffs as short-run tools:

    • To shield infant industries until they can compete.
    • To defend national security industries (such as defense or energy).
    • To react against unfair trade practices (dumping or subsidies).

    These arguments have political traction, but economists caution that protectionism creates a habit — industries become complacent, lobbying to maintain tariffs even after they no longer exist. The temporary cure turns into a chronic disease.

    In Simple Terms

    If we step back from the graphs and models, the reasoning falls into place:

    • Tariffs make some people better off — mainly certain producers and governments — but they make many more people worse off.
    • The overall economic pie shrinks, even if one slice grows larger.

    So yes, tariffs do reduce welfare, usually by creating inefficiencies, raising consumer costs, and distorting production. The exact size of the loss depends on how open the economy is, what goods are taxed, and how trading partners react — but history consistently shows that open economies grow faster, innovate more, and enjoy higher living standards than closed or protectionist ones.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 45
  • 0
Answer
Load More Questions

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 401
  • Answers 389
  • Posts 4
  • Best Answers 21
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Anonymous

    Bluestone IPO vs Kal

    • 5 Answers
  • mohdanas

    Are AI video generat

    • 3 Answers
  • Anonymous

    Which industries are

    • 3 Answers
  • daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui added an answer  What we’re seeing The market numbers are strong. For example, the global market for AI in HR was valued at… 04/11/2025 at 12:02 pm
  • daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui added an answer  What the U.S. is doing Several concrete moves show that the U.S. is treating rare earths as a strategic priority… 04/11/2025 at 11:31 am
  • daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui added an answer What is Prompt Engineering, Really? Prompt engineering is the art of designing inputs in a way that helps an AI… 03/11/2025 at 2:23 pm

Top Members

Trending Tags

ai aiineducation ai in education analytics company digital health edtech education geopolitics global trade health language languagelearning mindfulness multimodalai news people tariffs technology trade policy

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help

© 2025 Qaskme. All Rights Reserved