mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 03/09/2025In: , ,

diagnostics outperform doctors, or sh ...

  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    The Wild, Weird Future of AI in Medicine Alright, let’s cut to the chase—AI’s been storming into medicine like it owns the place lately. These code-wizards? They chew through scans and spit out stuff even the sharpest docs would miss. Tumors, oddball patterns, “hey, your heart’s acting up”—all thatRead more

    The Wild, Weird Future of AI in Medicine

    Alright, let’s cut to the chase—AI’s been storming into medicine like it owns the place lately. These code-wizards? They chew through scans and spit out stuff even the sharpest docs would miss. Tumors, oddball patterns, “hey, your heart’s acting up”—all that jazz. It’s wild. Seriously, no human’s chugging through data at this pace. For patients, it’s a complete level-up: fewer twiddling-your-thumbs-in-waiting-rooms, answers before you even knew you had a question, the whole shebang.

    Doctors vs. Robots: Not the Showdown You Think

    Here’s the thing, though. Just because a computer can detect a lump in a nanosecond, that does not mean you’re going to be getting your next diagnosis from a talking toaster. Docs possess that sixth sense—you know, intuition, gut instincts, the things you can’t program. AI says “hey, this blob is weird,” but your doc puts the pieces together: your cough, your past traumas, the breakdown about your cat last Tuesday. It has nothing to do with being the robot who’s always right; it has everything to do with being the human being who understands.

    Where AI Absolutely Crushes

    Scanning pictures, day in and day out—radiology, pathology, whatever. AI never gets distracted or misses a pixel.
    Acting as alarm system—cancer, diabetes, eye disease, name it. Sometimes before you even feel off at all.
    Repetitive, dull tasks—AI thrive on the stuff that makes people want to scream.

    It’s not that the robots are so smart, they just never get tired or have a hissy fit during shift time.

     Where Humans Still Rule

    – The dirty stuff—actual patients don’t read from the script, believe me.
    – Delivering the bad news, soothing freak-outs, figuring out when to shut your mouth and listen. Luck with teaching an algorithm bedside manner.
    – Ethics. Do we attack full bore with treatment, or is comfort care the way? AI regurgitates numbers, but human beings understand what counts.

     Dream Team, Not Mortal Enemies

    Seriously, it’s not a war. AI is not going to swipe your doctor’s white coat—it’s the world’s most compulsive intern, checking twice, flagging suspicious activity, but the doc’s still in charge. Team, baby. Fewer caught errors, less human mistake, better outcomes for you.

    Don’t Bow Down to the Algorithm

    But seriously, let’s not make AI some robot messiah. Bad data? The AI simply amplifies the screw-ups. Doctors questioning their own judgment? That’s a trainwreck. And when the tech fails—whose fault is it? Yeah, that becomes awkward.

    Medicine Requires Actual Humans

    Bottom line: AI’s not booting doctors out, it’s giving them superpowers (well, almost). People want a human talking to them, not just a screen spitting out diagnoses. But if a bot can spot something your doc missed? Use both, why not?

     

    See less
mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 03/09/2025In: , ,

permanent fixture in healthcare, or f ...

digital healthhealth
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    The Pandemic As a Catalyst, Not a Trend There was no telemedicine prior to the pandemic, but overnight, COVID-19 turned it mainstream. What had previously been employed as a Plan B suddenly became the default mode of connection for millions with their doctors. From those with chronic illnesses intoRead more

    The Pandemic As a Catalyst, Not a Trend

    There was no telemedicine prior to the pandemic, but overnight, COVID-19 turned it mainstream. What had previously been employed as a Plan B suddenly became the default mode of connection for millions with their doctors. From those with chronic illnesses into their elder years to anxious parents wanting a speedy pediatrician’s opinion, individuals found the ease of in-home medical care. Now the question is whether telemedicine becomes part of the care fabric, or melts away as patients find themselves in waiting rooms again.

    Convenience Accommodates Human Needs

    The one benefit that has to be admitted is convenience. No hours of driving, no hours of sitting in a packed waiting room, no risk of getting sick. For people with mobility issues, for people who live in the rural areas, or working individuals who cannot afford to lose half a day of work, telemedicine is a lifeline. It brings care close, and very close, to individuals where they are. For follow-ups, routine check-ups, filling prescriptions, and mental health counseling, most patients would actually prefer a video visit over an in-person one.

     The Limits of the Digital Doctor

    Regardless, medicine remains quite human. A screen will never substitute the comforting presence of a doctor, the nuanced body language observed in a face-to-face exam, or the intimacy of immediate touch. Telemedicine finds it difficult with touch-based conditions—examining lungs via a stethoscope, observing signs of edema, or performing lab work. There’s even the risk of misdiagnosis when physicians can’t observe those physical signs. Medicine still feels more “real” to many when it comes in person.

     A Hybrid Future: Blending the Best of Two Worlds

    The future is going to be hybrid. Picture this: initial visits, minor ailments, and follow-ups done online; while life-critical tests, surgery, and complicated diagnoses done in person. This segregation provides choice to patients without a compromise on quality. Clinics and hospitals are already testing this “digital-physical” mix, where telemedicine is the first contact, lightening the burden on emergency departments and allowing doctors to only handle the serious ones.

     Telemedicine Obstacles That Will Bring It to a Halt

    • Digital divide: Reliable internet and up-to-date hardware aren’t in all homes.
    • Regulation & reimbursement: For the most part, insurers and governments still don’t fairly reimburse virtual visits.
    • Trust & familiarity: Older patients are particularly reluctant to technology or simply prefer to talk to humans.
    • These challenges ensure telemedicine won’t totally kill old-fashioned care anytime soon.

     The Human Touch: Why It Won’t Disappear

    Telemedicine is not going away because it’s already redefine expectations. Once patients get used to the ease of a click of a button to get care, they don’t necessarily want to go back to the good old days on a regular basis. It’s not the new normal for care, maybe, but it’s become the adjunct, long-term piece of care. Healthcare is getting more patient-focused, and telemedicine is part of the whole deal.

     In short: Telemedicine serves to stay, but not as replacement, but as indispensable addition to customary care. The stethoscope shall never be replaced by the webcam, but the webcam has won its place at the doctor’s desk.

    See less
mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 02/09/2025In: , ,

the future of climate policy

company
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    The new climate frontier Climate policy has always been about domestic action: clean energy subsidies, carbon prices, emissions controls and regulations. But there's increasing worry: what if a country covers its own industry by making it cleaner, then cheaper, dirtier imports come flooding in fromRead more

    The new climate frontier

    Climate policy has always been about domestic action: clean energy subsidies, carbon prices, emissions controls and regulations. But there’s increasing worry: what if a country covers its own industry by making it cleaner, then cheaper, dirtier imports come flooding in from abroad?

    That’s carbon leakage — when tight climate regulations at home simply shift emissions elsewhere. Enter in the idea of green tariffs, or carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs). These are essentially tariffs on heavy-carbon foreign goods (like steel, cement, or fertilizer), to implement those and make the playing field fairer for cleaner domestic producers and foreign manufacturers that don’t have comparable climate rules.

    Why green tariffs are gaining traction

    1. Fairness to domestic industries

    If you have one steel factory in Europe that spends a lot of money on costly clean tech and your competitor based overseas does not, the home factory is open to being undercut. Green tariffs are really saying: “If you want to sell here, you’ll have to play by similar climate rules.”

    2. Climate integrity

    Without border adjustments, benefits of domestic country climate can be offset by imported emissions. Green tariffs ensure reducing carbon at home doesn’t just ship pollution abroad.

    3. Political sellability

    Climate policy hurts workers and industries. Framing tariffs as saving local jobs from soiled imports makes climate policy politically sellable.

    4. Pressure on other countries

    By taxing carbon-intensive imports, wealthy nations can incentivize other nations’ exporters to green their supply chains. In theory, this supports climate standards around the globe.

    The risks and controversies

    1. Protectionism in disguise?

    Green tariffs worry that they will be a new disguise for protectionism — hiding behind the language of climate to shield domestic industry. This will indulge WTO grievances and retaliation by trading partners.

    2. Damage to developing countries

    Poor nations can export high-carbon products because they cannot afford green technology. Green tariffs can be used to sanction them for poverty, inducing inequality at the global level unless in tandem with aid and technology transfer.

    3. Price effect on consumers

    As with other tariffs, the cost is passed on. Steel, cement, aluminum — these are the materials of which homes, automobiles, and highways are made. Green tariffs could mean higher cost to customers and taxpayers footing the bill for public infrastructure.

    4. Measuring carbon’s complexity

    How precisely do you actually measure the true carbon footprint of a product? A ton of Chinese coal-based steel is very different from Swedish renewable-energy-based steel. Tracking, verifying, and auditing emissions on international supply chains is a colossal technical challenge.

    Early action: Europe leads the way

    • The European Union is piloting the world’s first large carbon border adjustment mechanism, starting with sectors like steel, aluminium, and fertiliser.
    • The U.S. is also considering the same, partly to keep up with the EU and partly to protect its own interests.
    • Canada, Japan, and the UK are also considering their own green tariffs.
    • That is to say, green tariffs are no longer hypothetical — they’re already making their way into trade policy.

    Who gains, who loses?

    Winners

    • Cleaner industries at home no longer threatened with undercutting.
    • Governments that will be in a position to invest in climate action from the new tariff revenues.
    • Green tech businesspeople, who expect expanding markets for low-carbon goods.

    Losers:

    • Emerging economies that export, with the exception of rich countries pair tariffs with tech transfer and climate financing.
    • Consumers, who will see their products sold at a slightly higher cost from dependence on high-carbon industries.
    • Global trade stability, if tariffs become disputes and retaliations.
    • Human perspective: what this will mean for ordinary folks
    • If you’re a European building contractor, green tariffs can sustain your local cement factory.
    • If you’re an African exporter of fertilizer, overnight new, irreversible costs can appear.
    • If you’re a consumer buying a car or driving through tolls, indirectly you may pay more.
    • So while the ideal of halting climate change is honorable, in the real world the consequence is highly uncertain based on where you are in the global economy.

    Bottom line

    Yes — green tariffs are becoming one of the strongest next-wave instruments of climate policy. They vow fairness, integrity, and global pressure to get carbon-cutting done. They also threaten protectionism, inequity, and more expensive consumer goods.

    • If they’re going to really be the future of climate policy, they’ll have to be combined with:
    • International cooperation (so they’re not trade wars in green wrapping).
    • Economic aid to the Third World (so they can make their industries green without being shut out of markets).
    • Clean carbon accounting (so tariffs actually consider real emissions, not politics).

    Short: green tariffs can help bend world trade into a lower-carbon path — if they are designed and sold as climate initiatives first, and as trade initiatives second.

    See less
mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

the next wave of trade barriers

companynews
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    The promise: why tariffs are sold as job savers Tariffs have long been justified as a way to shield home workers from unfair foreign competition. The logic runs as follows: Low-cost imports flood the market and local factories shut. By placing tariffs on such imports, governments raise them in priceRead more

    The promise: why tariffs are sold as job savers

    • Tariffs have long been justified as a way to shield home workers from unfair foreign competition. The logic runs as follows:
    • Low-cost imports flood the market and local factories shut.
    • By placing tariffs on such imports, governments raise them in price.
    • This should give local industries a chance to keep going — and keeping paying wages.
    • Politically, tariffs are typically framed as “protecting our workers” from low-wage undercutting by foreign workers.

    The reality: varied job outcomes

    1. Temporary job protection

    Tariffs can slow down layoffs in specific industries (steel, textiles, or ag). Workers in those sectors do typically see temporary job protection.

    As an example, American steel tariffs in the 2000s did protect some steel jobs in the short run.

    2. But jobs relocate, not just save

    When tariffs raise the price of imports, industries that use the imports as inputs are negatively affected. Automakers or construction firms that rely on steel are more costly to make.

    That can lead to employment decreases in downstream industries — typically of greater size than jobs saved. A classic analysis of American steel tariffs found that greater numbers of jobs were lost in steel-using industries than jobs saved in steel production.

    3. Long-term competitiveness

    If tariffs become permanent, domestic businesses lose the incentive to innovate or become modernized. That can lock in inefficiency and end up costing jobs anyway, as the international market continues to move forward.

    The hidden sticker shock: shoppers cover the cost

    • That’s where the human story becomes a big part: tariffs don’t just affect business — they show up in everyday prices.
    • An import tariff on washing machines? Consumers pay more at the store.
    • An import tax on fertilizer? Consumers pay more at the farm gate, which subsequently means higher grocery bills.
    • A tax on appliances and computers? Small retailers attempting to modernize equipment are slapped with bigger bills.
    • The ripple effect spreads throughout the economy. Even if only a few jobs are preserved, millions of customers pay a little bit more each day. For poorer households, those extra pennies on staples feel like an oppressive burden.

    The paradox

    • And tariffs stand at the middle of a paradox:
    • Virtually visible gain: Preserving a few thousand jobs in a factory town — easy to see, compelling in politics.
    • Hidden cost: Millions of consumers quietly paying more, and small businesses growing less competitive — less obvious, but ubiquitous.
    • Economists prefer to point out that the cost per job saved with tariffs is extremely high if you include the price increases spread out through the population.

    The bigger picture: security vs. efficiency

    • It’s worth noting that tariffs aren’t always just about jobs or prices. Sometimes they’re about:
    • National security (i.e., protecting domestic semiconductor production).
    • Strategic resilience (i.e., making a country able to produce its own food or medical supplies).
    • Bargaining leverage in trade negotiations.
    • In those cases, governments would gleefully pay increased consumer prices as the cost of protecting “strategic” employment and industries.

    Human impact — who gains, who loses?

    • Winners: Workers in directly protected industries (at least in the short run). Politicians who can stand and deliver preserved jobs.

    Losers:

    • Higher-priced consumers for common goods.
    • Workers in industries that use the tariffed products as inputs (e.g., auto industry workers hit by steel tariffs).
    • Small businesses that have thin margins and cannot absorb new costs.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs generate some jobs at home, but they tend to do so at a collective expense to consumers and the economy in general. They’re akin to putting a bandage on one part of the economy while quietly sapping the strength of the rest of the body.

    If the intention is actually to protect workers, tariffs alone are not enough. They would need to be followed by retraining programs, innovation policy, and competitiveness investment — or otherwise, they are expensive band-aids that shift suffering around rather than curing it.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 02/09/2025In: , ,

small businesses and farmers

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    The level playing field Tariffs don't hit evenly. They can appear to be a harmless tax on imports, but in reality, who you are — a small shopkeeper, a farmer, or an international corporation — will decide whether tariffs become a suffocating weight or merely another entry on a strategy budget. For lRead more

    The level playing field

    Tariffs don’t hit evenly. They can appear to be a harmless tax on imports, but in reality, who you are — a small shopkeeper, a farmer, or an international corporation — will decide whether tariffs become a suffocating weight or merely another entry on a strategy budget.

    For large companies, tariffs are often a problem they can handle. For farmers and small businesses, tariffs tend to be a storm they cannot weather.

    1. The cost to small businesses

     Increased cost of inputs, fewer buffer

    Small businesses tend to buy raw materials, components, or finished products in smaller quantities. When tariffs increase the cost of such imports, small businesses cannot always obtain rebates or easily change suppliers.

    In contrast to big companies, they lack treasury staff and global supplier networks. That leaves tariffs directly squeezing margins — and occasionally forcing price increases customers resist.

    Paperwork and red tape

    Tariffs impose burdens of compliance: paperwork, customs clearance, and codes of classification. For a large multinational, that is managed by legal and logistics functions. For a small company, the owner may be doing the accounting at midnight, so trade bureaucracy is a significant hidden expense.

     Survival vs. strategy

    Lots of small businesses operate on wafer-thin margins. Even a small tariff shock can determine if a café ordering specialty coffee beans keeps going, or if a craft producer who depends on imported steel goes under.

    While giants can afford to take losses for the sake of long-term strategy — their survival timescale often being years or even decades — they can’t.

    2. The special squeeze for farmers

    Farmers, particularly in emerging economies, exist at the interface of trade policy.

    When they purchase inputs

    Seeds, fertilizer, feed, and machinery tend to be imported. Tariffs on inputs translate into increased costs at planting time, with no guarantee of improved selling prices at harvest.

    Small farmers have less negotiating power and less credit availability to absorb those spikes.

    When they sell crops

    If another nation strikes back with tariffs on their exports, farmers are directly impacted. For instance, during the U.S.–China trade war, American soybean farmers lost billions when China put retaliatory tariffs on their products, resulting in oversupply and crashing prices at home. Large agribusinesses might hedge or switch markets — but small to mid-size family farms suffered.

    Market volatility

    Agriculture is already unpredictable with weather and bugs. Throw in trade wars, and small farmers have yet another risk they cannot control. A large agribusiness may diversify internationally; a farmer bound to a local co-op has no one else to sell to.

    3. How large corporations manage better

     Diversification

    Large firms diversify by nations. If one export market imposes tariffs, they switch to another. If one supplier becomes expensive, they have five others in trouble.

    Economies of scale

    Large operators can buffer tariff expense, negotiate with suppliers, or mechanize operations to lower unit cost. They may even transmit some of the tariff expense to smaller suppliers — solidifying their grip.

    Political leverage

    Large companies influence governments, set terms for trade negotiations, or even get exemptions. Small farmers and businesses hardly enjoy the same access or clout.

    4. The ripple effect on communities

    When small businesses and farms get hurt by tariffs, the hurt spreads quickly. Local economies established on family farms and small shops can crumble, causing job losses and rural vitality in decline.

    Meanwhile, large corporations tend to recover more quickly, displacing smaller competitors in the process — which threatens further industry consolidation (fewer, larger competitors controlling markets).

    5. The human factor — resilience and inventiveness

    • In spite of all these, however, small business and farmers tend to react in clever ways:
    • Farmers organize cooperatives to share resources and export together.
    • Small enterprises rebrand as “local and genuine,” turning to domestic sources when imports become expensive.
    • Others shift to specialty markets less exposed to tariff price battles.
    • Yet these options take time, coordination, and chance — high-end luxuries not available to all small players.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs don’t fall evenly.

    • Large companies tend to have means of weathering or even taking advantage of tariff changes.
    • Farmers and small businesses are more sharply, more directly at risk — increased costs, lost markets, survival squeeze with fewer buffers.

    Policymakers tend to market tariffs as a means of “protecting domestic industries,” but in the absence of support schemes (credit lines, adjustment aid, cooperative arrangements, or exemptions for critical farm inputs), the very people they intend to shield — rural communities, family farms, and small shops — can end up bearing the brunt.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

tariffs as a tool for industrial grow

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    The promise: why tariffs are tempting for developing countries Tariffs are an obvious lever for governments trying to jump-start manufacturing or protect strategic sectors: They raise the price of competing imports, giving local firms breathing room to grow, invest, learn, and absorb new technologieRead more

    The promise: why tariffs are tempting for developing countries

    Tariffs are an obvious lever for governments trying to jump-start manufacturing or protect strategic sectors:

    • They raise the price of competing imports, giving local firms breathing room to grow, invest, learn, and absorb new technologies (the classic “infant-industry” argument). Policymakers like tariffs because they’re politically visible and act fast. 

    • When paired with smart export promotion and learning policies, tariffs can be part of a sequence that helps firms become competitive on the global stage (some East Asian economies used protective measures early while pushing firms toward exports).

    So: tariffs can create the space for industrial development — but only if everything else lines up.

    The risks: how tariffs can trap a country into long-term isolation

    The historical record and modern analysis warn of numerous failure modes:

    1. Chronic protection → low productivity and complacency. If protection becomes permanent, firms stop innovating because they can survive behind a tariff wall. That creates inefficient industries that never scale internationally. Many accounts of import-substitution in Latin America document this pattern.

    2. Rent-seeking and political capture. Tariffs create clear winners — and lobbying pressure to keep protection in place even when it hurts the broader economy. That’s a political economy trap that turns temporary help into permanent privilege.

    3. Higher consumer prices and inequality. Tariffs are effectively a tax on imported goods; consumers — often lower-income households for whom imported essentials are a bigger share of spending — pay the bill. That can worsen poverty and political backlashes.

    4. Trade diversion and retaliation. Other countries can retaliate or shift trade patterns, which reduces market access for exporters and can shrink the size of markets domestic firms rely on. Over time that weakens integration into global value chains.

    5. Legal and reputational costs at the WTO and with partners. WTO disciplines allow some flexibility for developing countries, but persistent, broad protection can trigger disputes or reduce the willingness of investors to engage.

    A real-world illustration: many Latin American ISI experiments created protected domestic industries but delivered slow productivity growth, corruption, and a failure to integrate into competitive export markets — the very outcomes policymakers were trying to avoid.

    What distinguishes successful from failing tariff strategies?

    Look for a combination of policy design features:

    1. Temporary & time-bound protection. Protection should have a clear exit and be conditional on performance (e.g., productivity gains, export targets, cost reductions). Permanent tariffs usually signal failure.

    2. Targeted, narrow scope. Protect specific activities that have credible learning spillovers (e.g., complex manufacturing stages) rather than blanket tariffs across the economy. Broad, uniform tariffs encourage rent-seeking. 

    3. Complementary policies. Tariffs alone don’t make firms globally competitive. They must be paired with industrial credit, skills training, R&D support, good infrastructure, competition policy and export incentives. East Asian successes combined protection with export discipline and government capacity to pick and prune industries. 

    4. Clear performance metrics and sunset clauses. Tie protection to measurable outcomes (unit costs, product quality, export market share) and remove it automatically if goals are unmet. That reduces regulatory capture. 

    5. Open to trade and FDI where it matters. Even when protecting a sector, keep links to foreign suppliers, technology licensing, and export markets. Openness to investment and knowledge flows prevents isolation. 

    Practical alternatives and complements to tariffs

    If the aim is industrial growth, countries should consider a menu that includes — but is not limited to — modest, well-designed tariffs:

    • Active industrial policy tools: targeted subsidies, public procurement preferences, matched R&D grants, clusters/industrial parks, and export credit. These can be more transparent and conditional than tariffs. 

    • Trade facilitation & regulatory reform: cut costs for exporters (ports, customs, standards), so firms can reach global markets faster.

    • Skills and infrastructure investment: human capital and power/transport often matter more for competitiveness than tariffs.

    • Smart tariff design: temporary tariffs on intermediate goods only when there’s a clear domestic value-added strategy — and with exceptions for inputs that domestic producers can’t source. 

    Governance checklist — questions policymakers should ask before imposing tariffs

    (If you can’t answer “yes” to most of these, don’t go broad with tariffs.)

    • Do we have an explicit, time-bound plan (with milestones) for the industry?

    • Are the protections conditional on measurable productivity or export targets?

    • Do we have institutions that can enforce sunset clauses and prevent capture?

    • Are we maintaining openness in ways that keep technology and investment flowing?

    • Have we modeled the distributional costs (who pays) and have a mitigation plan for poor households?

    • How will partners or global value-chain buyers react — could we lose critical market access?

    Bottom line — a human take

    Tariffs are neither a silver bullet nor an automatic trap. They are a blunt instrument that can help buy time for learning if used sparingly, temporarily, and within a broader industrial strategy that pushes firms toward export competitiveness and innovation. But if tariffs are broad, permanent, or unaccompanied by investment in skills, competition, and market discipline, they tend to produce the opposite of what leaders want: stagnation, higher prices, and political capture that isolates the country.

    If you’re advising a government, don’t treat tariffs as the first lever — treat them as one temporary tool inside a tightly governed industrial policy playbook. The good news is that modern policy design (and the recent revival of evidence-based industrial policy) gives developing countries smarter options than the blunt ISI experiments of the past — but only if political leaders commit to transparency, metrics, and a sunset.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

tariff wars

news
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    Why tariffs are recessionary (the transmission channels) More expensive → intransigent inflation → tighter money Tariffs are import taxes, so they generally raise input and consumption prices. If inflation re-accelerates, central banks might keep rates up for longer, cooling investment and high-tickRead more

    Why tariffs are recessionary (the transmission channels)


    More expensive → intransigent inflation → tighter money
    Tariffs are import taxes, so they generally raise input and consumption prices.     If inflation re-accelerates, central banks might keep rates up for longer, cooling investment and high-ticket spending. IMF research connects tariff shocks and policy uncertainty with reduced output, exactly through these channels.

    Capex and hiring freeze due to uncertainty
    When companies can’t forecast future tariff levels or access to markets, they slow the opening of factories, hiring, and R&D.     The IMF cautioned that a prolonged rise in tariffs and uncertainty can sharply dampen global growth—not only through increased costs, but because managers hold back on the sidelines

    Supply-chain jams and re-routing expenses

    The 2018–19 U.S.–China episode did not only compress bilateral trade but diverted it, with expensive rewiring of value chains in Asia. That diversion is costly and takes time, which depresses productivity and margins. WTO analysis records substantial trade diversion and recurring high bilateral tariff levels even after “Phase One.

    Confidence shock to markets and consumers

    Markets discount future profits when world trade volumes totter. Consumers facing price surges and gloomy headlines might rein back discretionary expenditures—precisely the type of demand shock that has the potential to transform a slowdown into a slump. Leading forecasts (OECD/IMF) have identified tariff escalation as a primary source of downside risk to already tepid world growth.

    What recent evidence tells us

    2018–19 US-China trade war: Studies identify significant growth expenses, with tariffs landing mostly on US consumers and importers; IMF analysis points to U.S. GDP’s negative contribution from tariff shocks in 2018–19. The WTO reported steep bilateral trade drops and expensive diversion.

    Today’s baseline is ailing: The OECD’s June 2025 forecast puts world growth at ~2.9% in 2025–26, basing that on the assumption existing tariffs remain—in place, not rising. That means the threshold to fall into recession in some parts isn’t high in the event of a tariff shock.

    History’s blaring warning siren: The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was accompanied by a trade collapse on the scale of ~65% during 1929-1934, as nations retaliated—a notorious demonstration of how protectionist spirals may intensify slumps. Contemporary economists habitually invoke it as an example of a policy mistake not to be emulated.


    When does a tariff war go recession-grade?

    Imagine a three-ingredient recipe for disaster:

    Scale: Across-the-board hikes (not just narrow sectors) among multiple large economies—especially if they hit consumer staples, intermediate inputs, and capital goods simultaneously.

    Speed: Rapid implementation gives firms and consumers no time to adjust; inventories drain and price spikes bite before supply chains can re-route.

    Staying power + revenge: If tariffs appear to be long-lasting and prompt tit-for-tat, uncertainty becomes endemic; capex, employment, and trade levels shrink in sync. IMF and OECD projections invariably signal that this combination is what converts a growth headwind into a threat of recession.

    Who gets hurt—and how


    Households: Shell out more for imported products (and locally made products with imported components).     Poor households are hit worst because necessity items command a larger portion of their budget. Data from the 2018–19 episode indicate that consumers paid a large share of the bill.

    Manufacturers & SMEs: Endure higher costs of inputs and order uncertainty; small firms exporting struggle to make the transition to alternative markets or reengineer supply chains.

    Commodity & logistics players: Fluctuating volumes and re-routing can whipsaw shipping rates and port activity—well for some lanes, painful for others.

    Emerging markets in supply chains: Nations connected to East Asian or North American value chains might have trade diversion produce winners and losers—some gain from “friendshoring”, some lose as assembly lines relocate.
    World Trade Organization


    Would the world be able to prevent a recession even with increased tariffs?


    Perhaps—buffers count:

    Targeted, temporary, and open measures are less harmful than across-the-board increases.

    Countervailing macro policy (e.g., fiscal relief, clearer monetary direction) can counteract some drag if inflation permits. Recent IMF projections observe that improved financial conditions and policy assistance can buffer trade shocks.

    Resilient supply chains can diversify quicker today than in the past, dampening the effect—but not removing it.     WTO evidence indicates diversion does occur, but at a cost.

    However, if large economies ramp up widely and maintain high tariffs, the chances of synchronized slowdown materialize.

    Upcoming watchlist (applied dashboard)


    Policy announcements → actual legislated text: Are suggested tariffs broad or narrow?     Definitive or temporary?

    Business investment & PMIs: Sudden declines in new orders and capex tend to presage output declines.

    Global trade flows (services and goods): WTO/IMF reports on trade expansion—particularly if they downgrade fast following policy shocks.

    Inflation or rate path: If inflation that is tariff-caused maintains policy rates elevated, the risk for growth increases.

    Scorecard of retaliation: After tit-for-tat sets in, uncertainty compounds.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs are an appropriate tool for targeted, short-term purposes (e.g., anti-dumping, national security). But wide, quick, and persistent tariff wars by giants are a guaranteed method for draining global expansion—and, if coupled with stuck inflation and lost confidence, could induce a world recession. History’s lesson and current modeling both aim in the same direction: the larger and the more prolonged the tariff spiral, the greater the recession probability.
    Encyclopedia Britannica

    See less
Load More Questions