Here's why Trump's tariffs won't work
[SINGAPORE] US President Donald Trump's tariffs have been widely panned as reckless, short-sighted and self-defeating. Economists called them 'taxes on Americans' rather than the rest of the world – penguin-majority islands included. Many blame those tariffs – imposed under the banner of 'America First' – for worsening the global trade slowdown.
But zoom out, and Trump's actions are not so radical.
Throughout history, many leaders have believed that security lies in self-sufficiency. From imperial China to Nazi Germany, ancient Rome to modern-day Brexit Britain, the instinct to turn inward runs deep. The logic: Tighten borders, produce everything at home and cut reliance on other nations to shield against risk.
Two new books argue that this instinct, while understandable, is exactly what has led great powers to fall. It is not narrow self-interest that builds empires – it is exchange. Civilisations rise not by going it alone, but by embracing openness – even when it is messy or uncertain.
The two timely books are Exile Economics: What Happens If Globalisation Fails by Ben Chu, and Peak Human: What We Can Learn From History's Greatest Civilizations by Johan Norberg. Both were published in May 2025 – shortly after Trump waved around a cardboard chart that sent shockwaves through global markets – though their writing predates the latest phase of his trade war.
Chu is the British economics editor at BBC Newsnight; Norberg is a Swedish historian and bestselling author. They have observed the same global trends from very different angles – Chu from the world of policy and supply chains, Norberg through the long arc of history. Yet they arrive at a shared conclusion, which serves as a sobering warning about the deepening divide between China and the US, and the risks it poses to global stability and prosperity.
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Friday, 2 pm Lifestyle
Our picks of the latest dining, travel and leisure options to treat yourself.
Sign Up
Sign Up
When empires close themselves off
If you had to pick just one of the two books, I recommend Norberg's Peak Human. His grasp of history is sweeping, but he also knows how to keep things light and entertaining – which helps when you are sprinting through centuries of civilisation in a single chapter.
The book explores 'golden ages' such as ancient Athens, Song Dynasty China and Renaissance Italy – moments when humanity flourished economically, intellectually and artistically. What these societies had in common, Norberg argues, was openness. They welcomed outsiders, embraced trade and encouraged innovation. But when they turned inward, they stagnated.
Peak Human by Johan Norberg is an entertaining guide through the golden ages of human history. PHOTO: ATLANTIC BOOKS
In Song China, trade and cultural exchange drove technologies that Europe would not see for centuries. But when paranoia and conservatism took hold, progress ground to a halt. Similarly, Abbasid Baghdad was once a hub of Islamic learning and diversity. That golden era ended with religious orthodoxy and invasions.
If Norberg looks to the past to explain why empires thrive or collapse, Chu turns his gaze to the present. He coins the term 'exile economics' to describe a world turning its back on global trade in favour of national self-reliance. The appeal is obvious – who does not want independence, security and control? But the reality, he argues, is that autonomy comes with steep costs.
Want food independence? Expect higher prices and less variety. Want to make your own microchips? That is a decades-long, cross-border supply chain you will need to build from scratch. And good luck finding anyone else eager to handle rare earth metals like China does.
Ben Chu's Exile Economics explores anti-globalisation sentiment across economies. PHOTO: BASIC BOOKS
Chu offers real-world examples to show just how entangled the world is. Global trade is not just about cheap goods, it is about shared resilience and rising living standards. Break that in the name of sovereignty, and you often get more fragility, not less. He even points to history: Nazi Germany's push for self-sufficiency helped fuel its aggressive expansion. Resource nationalism, in other words, is not just inefficient. It is dangerous.
Lessons for today
Both Peak Human and Exile Economics warn that today's anti-globalisation sentiment threatens to undo decades of progress. It is not trade, immigration or openness that causes modern problems – it is poor governance and weak systems. The solution is not retreat, but reform.
Both authors highlight how interdependence, while complex, is more resilient than we give it credit for. Chu notes how supply chains adapted swiftly to pandemic shocks. Norberg reminds us that empires rarely fall because of enemies abroad – they collapse when they close in on themselves.
And the effects are already visible. In response to Trump's tariffs, China did not panic – it pivoted. Supermarkets swapped out US beef for cheaper Australian imports, thanks to the China-Australia free trade agreement. Meanwhile, US consumers are expected to pay more for beef – a tariff own-goal.
In April 2025, research and consulting firm Ipsos released a poll which found that the US' reputation had sharply declined in 26 out of 29 countries over the previous six months. For the first time in the survey's decade-long history, more respondents viewed China as a more positive influence on world affairs than the US.
What these books make clear is that prosperity is fragile. The systems that brought billions out of poverty and spurred innovation did not emerge by accident. They were built on trust, trade and cooperation. Undoing them is easy. Rebuilding them is not.
Exile Economics: What Happens If Globalisation Fails by Ben Chu and Peak Human: What We Can Learn From History's Greatest Civilizations by Johan Norberg are available at Kinokuniya
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
3 hours ago
- Business Times
Taiwan central bank says US debt rising too fast may impact trust in Treasuries
[TAIPEI] Taiwan's central bank governor warned on Saturday (Jun 21) that rapidly rising US debt could be 'unfavourable' to the outlook for US Treasuries and that US President Donald Trump's trade policies have made investors cautious. Taiwan's US$593 billion in foreign exchange reserves are more than 80 per cent made up of US Treasury bonds, according to the central bank, which said earlier this month that Treasuries were 'sound' and still favoured by investors. It added that there were no worries about the US dollar's position as the leading international reserve currency. Governor Yang Chin-long, in a speech posted on the central bank's website, said Trump's repeated criticisms of the US Federal Reserve's monetary policy have caused concerns about its independence. 'In addition, Trump 2.0's trade policy has made investors hesitant about holding US Treasury bonds; Trump's budget, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' may cause US debt to expand too quickly, which is unfavourable to the outlook for US sovereign debt,' he said. 'All of these have had a significant impact on the international monetary system centred on the US dollar and based on US creditworthiness.' Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill is the centrepiece of his domestic agenda. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The bill would lead to a larger-than-expected US$2.8 trillion increase in the federal deficit over the decade, despite a boost to US economic output, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected on Tuesday. Trump, in his first few weeks in office, also announced sweeping tariffs on a broad swathe of countries and trading partners, including Taiwan, only to pause them for 90 days in April to allow for talks to take place. Yang said Trump had been hoping the tariffs could resolve the US trade deficit. 'However, the tariff policy not only fails to solve the structural problems, it will also impact the US economy, and threaten to further affect the outlook for global trade and the economy.' REUTERS
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
An Iran deal in two weeks? Hard to achieve, even if Trump really wants one
President Donald Trump told reporters that he is interested largely in the coercive part of coercive diplomacy at Morristown Airport in New Jersey on June 21. PHOTO: ERIC LEE/NYTIMES News analysis An Iran deal in two weeks? Hard to achieve, even if Trump really wants one WASHINGTON – Ask diplomats who have negotiated with Iran, and they usually describe it with some variant of: Brace yourself, it takes a long time. It took the better part of two years to put together the Obama-era agreement that all but halted Iran's nuclear program. After President Donald Trump scrapped that deal in his first term, it took 15 months for the Biden administration to negotiate a way to piece it back together – at which point Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vetoed the near-final agreement. So what could Mr Trump, dangling the possibility that last-minute diplomacy could provide an alternative to bombing Iran's main uranium enrichment facility, hope to accomplish in the two-week window he has given himself to make a decision? Not much, the veterans of such negotiations warn. But then again, the environment is very different this time. Ayatollah Khamenei is the final word in all foreign policy issues – but he is also most likely in hiding, US intelligence officials say. Iran's foreign minister and lead negotiator Abbas Araghchi says he is open to placing limitations on Iran's nuclear output similar to what he and his colleagues negotiated with the United States a decade ago. But on June 20 , he told his European counterparts in Geneva that Iran would never negotiate as long as Israel was dropping missiles on its military bases and nuclear facilities, and carrying out targeted killings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard officers and nuclear scientists. Mr Trump, for his part, made clear to reporters on June 20 that he is interested largely in the coercive part of coercive diplomacy. Iran, he insisted, had only minutes left on the clock. 'I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum,' he said. And he dismissed the idea that the meeting in Europe would do anything but slow things down. 'Iran didn't want to speak to Europe,' he said. 'They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help.' Whether Mr Trump is serious about negotiations or just buying time to better prepare for a military assault and its aftermath remains unclear. But there was no public evidence yet that the contacts between Mr Araghchi and the president's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff could lead to a meeting, much less a deal that would satisfy Mr Trump. Or even that such a deal would be enough to hold back Israel's determination to wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities. Mr Araghchi knows every inch of the Iranian nuclear complex and was a central player in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump exited three years later. But even today , US officials do not know how much sway he holds with Ayatollah Khamenei . Mr Witkoff is the mirror opposite: He knew virtually nothing about the Iranian programme and has spent the past few months cramming on the details of nuclear enrichment and Iranian negotiating history. But he has a tight relationship with Mr Trump that goes back to their New York real estate days and holds considerable sway over what constitutes an acceptable deal. If the two men were able to come to the kind of agreement that has eluded them through two and a half months of negotiations, they would still have to sell it back home. 'These are not normal times,' said Dr Richard Haass, who oversaw Iran policy for President George H.W. Bush and was a senior State Department official for President George W. Bush. 'The pressure on Iran, since they are losing, is more intense than it has ever been. And the pressure on Trump to use military force if it looks like the Iranians are trying to buy time rather than reach an agreement will be huge.' Success may depend on exactly what Mr Trump demands: the 'unconditional surrender' that he keeps talking about or a narrower, face-saving halt in remaining nuclear enrichment, with the understanding that while Iran may retain what it views as its 'right' to produce nuclear fuel, it will never again exercise that right. 'Two weeks may be enough time for an unconditional capitulation. A day suffices for that,' said Mr Robert Malley, who participated in the negotiations that led to the 2015 agreement and then led the failed Biden-era effort to reconstitute some version of that deal. But, Mr Malley added, 'that may be what President Trump wants, but it is almost certainly not what he will get. As the Islamic Republic sees it, it's tantamount to being offered the choice between committing suicide and taking their chances at being killed. History suggests they will take their chances.' Mr Malley noted that there might be room for a diplomatic off-ramp, one in which 'Iran agrees to 'voluntarily' and 'temporarily' stop enriching uranium, which is much easier now that its enrichment capacity is a shadow of its former self.' That, he added, could 'give space for US -Iranian negotiations and halt the mad dash to a US war'. It is the kind of creative approach that, when missiles were not flying, might be wordsmithed over weeks or months in Vienna, then taken back to Tehran and Washington for formal sign-off . Clearly, no one has time for that process now. As he emerged from the talks in Geneva on June 20, Mr Araghchi did not sound in the mood for even starting down that road, any more than Mr Trump sounded very interested in negotiating. The Iranian foreign minister suggested that, in retrospect, perhaps his talks with Mr Witkoff had been an elaborate US -engineered shadow play, a cover for the Israelis as they prepared for war. 'So they had perhaps this plan in their mind, and they just needed negotiations perhaps to cover it up,' Mr Araghchi told NBC's Andrea Mitchell . 'We don't know how we can trust them anymore. What they did was in fact a betrayal to diplomacy.' Iran, he said, would never entirely stop making nuclear fuel. 'Zero enrichment is impossible,' he said. 'This is an achievement of our own scientists. It is a question of national pride.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
Harvard and Trump restart talks to potentially end bitter dispute
Harvard representatives sought a meeting after other higher education leaders expressed hope that it – on behalf of academia – would reengage with the administration. PHOTO: SOPHIE PARK/NYTIMES WASHINGTON - Harvard University and the Trump administration have restarted talks to potentially settle the acrimonious dispute that led President Donald Trump to wage a far-reaching attack on the school and raised stark questions about the federal government's place in higher education, according to three people briefed on the negotiations. The discussions began again this week at a meeting in the White House. At the meeting, Harvard representatives showed White House officials a PowerPoint presentation that laid out measures the school has taken on anti-Semitism , viewpoint diversity and admissions. In turn, the White House signalled other steps it would like for Harvard to take on those subjects and later sent a letter laying out conditions that could resolve the conflict, according to one of the people. It is unclear how Harvard plans to respond to the letter. A university spokesperson declined to comment on the matter. Harvard representatives sought a meeting after other higher education leaders expressed hope that it – on behalf of academia – would reengage with the administration. And Harvard's outreach came after Education Secretary Linda McMahon publicly raised the prospect of negotiations with a university she routinely criticised . Harvard officials sensed an opening and suggested a briefing on steps the school has taken in recent years, two of the people said. It is unclear how close both sides are to a potential deal and the exact terms any final agreement would entail. In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said it was 'very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so.' Two people briefed on the discussions said it was highly unlikely a deal would be reached in the next week. Harvard has been widely praised by Democrats, academics, its alumni and democracy advocates for fighting the Trump administration. But top Harvard officials, according to two people briefed on the matter, have become increasingly convinced in recent weeks that the school has little choice but to try to strike a deal with the White House. The Harvard officials believe that if the university remains at odds with the administration that it is likely to become far smaller and less ambitious as Trump tries to keep pummelling it with funding cuts, federal investigations and limits on visas for international students. Now, the school may find itself having to explain a deal with Mr Trump. One person close to Harvard said that while the school was back at the negotiating table, it would not compromise its values or its First Amendment rights in any deal with the administration. Others briefed on the discussions laid out a broad framework for a possible pact. Under one approach being discussed, the administration would restore a major portion of the billions in federal research funding that it stripped from Harvard this spring. It would also cease pursuit of a range of legal actions against Harvard, including its quest to bar international students who make up about a quarter of the university's enrolment , according to one of the people. In exchange, Harvard would agree to take even more aggressive action than it already has to address issues such as anti-Semitism , race and viewpoint diversity. The White House has pushed Harvard to make new commitments to change its admissions and hiring practices, one of the people close to the negotiations said. Whatever the outcome, the White House's direct involvement, one of the people said, signalled the seriousness of the talks. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing negotiations that were supposed to remain private. Harvard's decision to reopen talks with the administration is a sharp departure from how it has handled its battle with Mr Trump since April. That month, the school cut off discussions with the administration after it received a letter – which the administration later claimed was accidentally sent – that made a series of extraordinary demands that the school believed would have compromised its independence. The White House, according to one person briefed on the negotiations, hopes that an agreement with Harvard might serve as a framework for other elite colleges to strike deals with Mr Trump. Other schools have been in discussions with the Trump administration about making deals that would keep their federal funding intact and avoid the president's ire, two of the people said. Word of the negotiations involving Harvard emerged soon after a federal judge in Boston blocked the government's effort to bar international students from the university. In a social media post on June 20 , Mr Trump hyped the prospects of an accord, asserting that 'if a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country'. Although the Trump administration has targeted other elite universities in recent months, its clash with Harvard has been the most bitter. The nation's oldest and wealthiest university, the administration contended, was a mismanaged well of bigotry that did not deserve any of the federal research money that has helped power American academia since around World War II. Although Harvard acknowledged assorted shortcomings, university leaders were stunned April 11 when the Trump administration proposed broad power for the government over the school. Among other conditions, the administration wanted Harvard to establish 'merit based' hiring and admissions policies, and to see the influence of its faculty curbed. It sought a review for 'viewpoint diversity,' the shutdown of any programmes related to diversity, equity and inclusion, and an outside review to examine 'those programmes and departments that most fuel anti-Semitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.' The government also asked for Harvard to adjust its 'recruitment, screening and admissions of international students,' audits of university data and reports 'at least until the end of 2028' about the university's compliance with the Trump administration's conditions. Before the letter, Harvard leaders had been receptive to reaching some kind of truce with the government, which had been sounding warnings about the university's relationship with Washington. But school officials recoiled at the missive, publicly rejected it, lost billions in federal funding and then headed to court. Negotiations collapsed, and the furore between the administration and Harvard only mounted. The government launched a volley of attacks against the university, including repeated efforts to block Harvard from enrolling international students, a threat against its tax-exempt status and a Justice Department investigation that invoked the False Claims Act, a law usually employed to target entities that try to defraud the government. Meanwhile, the government kept cutting off research money and warning Harvard not to bother applying for funds in the future. Harvard officials outwardly projected defiance and depicted their fight against the government as a righteous confrontation over academic independence. But inside the university, top leaders were surveying the landscape and seeing few optimal outcomes. Even if the university prevailed in court, some came to believe, it could still be dogged by fights with an administration not scheduled to leave office until 2029. And the university's $53 billion endowment was loaded with restrictions, leaving Harvard more financially vulnerable than a cursory glance at its books perhaps suggested. Harvard leaders were keenly aware of perceptions of the government's talks with Columbia University, which agreed to a range of Trump administration demands in its continuing quest for the resumption of $400 million in cancelled grants and contracts. Columbia's approach had been derided as capitulation. But some inside Harvard have weighed whether a settlement now – after a furious fight with the government that included some interim legal victories for the university – would leave the school less exposed to criticism than it would have if it had cut a deal months ago. Trump administration officials had been open to talks for weeks, even as the White House taunted and threatened the school with new actions. Until recently, though, Harvard's top board resisted talks. The members directed the school's battalion of lawyers, many of them fixtures of conservative legal circles, not to engage with the government. The calculus has since shifted, in parallel with a handful of courtroom successes for Harvard and Mr Trump's public venting that the university had drawn a favourable judge. Any deal, though, is certain to be closely scrutinised by the university's students, faculty members, donors and alumni. In an interview in May, Dr Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president, was reluctant to assess any potential agreement before its terms were known. He said, though, that 'it would be a tragedy if Harvard resolved this in a way that gave support and encouragement to the idea of extralegal extortion.' Until June 20 , there had been no public signal of active discussions between Harvard and the government. The judge in Boston, Ms Allison D. Burroughs, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has scheduled a hearing for July 21 to hear more extensive arguments in Harvard's case about cuts to its research funding. Mr Trump himself has routinely bashed Harvard in public and in private. As he concluded lunch in the West Wing on April 1, he mused about his government blocking every cent it could from flowing to Harvard. Later on, he would assail Harvard online as 'a JOKE' that 'teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds.' During the spring, he floated a revocation of Harvard's tax-exempt status and an idea to give its research money to trade schools. On June 20 , though, after his government had resumed talks with the university, the president was far more generous in his assessment of Harvard's leaders. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' he wrote. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
