The patriotic spending spree that risks leaving us all poorer

A Tesla smashed in London. Shelves cleared of American booze in Canada. Holidays to the US cancelled en masse.
Donald Trump appears to have succeeded in reordering world trade – just not in the way he hoped.
The US president wanted his trade war to trigger lower imports, boost exports and bolster American manufacturing. Instead, an international 'buyers' strike' is emerging as grass roots groups and politicians pledge to buy local and boycott American goods.
The president seems to have forgotten that it is generally businesses and their customers whose decisions dictate large shares of world trade flows, not government diktats. And those customers are distinctly unhappy with claims they and their compatriots are 'pathetic' and have 'looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered' the US.
Trump's threats to annex Greenland and make Canada the 51st state, as well as the insults and bitter complaints about allies, have sparked consumer backlash across the world.
In Canada, stores have cleared shelves of bourbon and wine from south of the border. American brewers and distilleries are poised to lose the best part of C$1bn (£544m) of annual sales in Ontario alone, where the Liquor Control Board has blocked new orders of American booze.
The Salling Group, a Danish supermarket chain, has not removed American goods from its shelves, but has put star-shaped stickers on European-made products to encourage people to buy local. Anders Hagh, its chief executive, said the decision followed 'a number of inquiries from customers who want to buy groceries from European brands'.
More than 70pc of British shoppers plan to spend more on products from UK businesses amid the trade war, according to a survey by Barclays.
Just over a third of Germans say they will reject American products, with almost two thirds pledging to avoid specific brands such as Tesla, according to research group ECC Köln.
China has taken a more direct route and simply blocked the import of Boeing aeroplanes.
Economists at Goldman Sachs are taking the threat seriously. They have downgraded their forecasts for US growth in part because foreign customers are turning their backs on America.
Joseph Briggs at the investment bank said the 'tariff announcements and a more aggressive stance toward historical allies have hurt global opinions about the US', with boycotts set to hold back the economy's growth.
The most critical impact might come via travel – or the lack thereof.
Flights to the US from almost every region have plunged, with particularly big drops in visits from Canada, Mexico and Denmark, but also the UK.
James Knightley, the chief international economist at ING, says: 'We are seeing airline fare prices fall quite substantially in America, and hotel prices are coming down as well.
'You've got a 30pc drop in tourism coming through potentially, that means less hotels, less flights, less eating out, less shopping, all of which can have an impact on the US.'
The most high-profile victim of this buyers boycott has been Tesla, whose image has become toxic as a result of chief Elon Musk's proximity to Trump.
Sales in the EU so far this year have been cut in half compared with the opening months of 2024, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association. Shares in Tesla are down almost 50pc from December's peak in response.
Despite the car-smashing stunt in the UK, sales in Britain appear relatively unaffected: so far this year they are up 6pc, almost matching the 6.4pc growth in the overall car market.
A rise in patriotic spending is political – consumers want to boost their home economies and punish the US. But there is a risk that it could backfire. Tesla has a giant factory in Germany, so European manufacturing that will bear some of the hit from lower sales on the Continent.
A sustained rejection of American goods could also hurt Britain.
'It is about consumer choice,' says Neil Shearing, at Capital Economics. 'Think about the UK in the 1970s. The car industry was notorious for poor quality cars produced by UK firms. Then you got an influx of Japanese cars in the 1980s. Suddenly, not only does the relative price come down because of competition, but the quality goes up.'
Rachel Reeves made exactly this point when rejecting calls for a 'buy British' campaign.
'If every country in the world decided that they wanted only to buy things produced in their country, that would not be a good way forward,' the Chancellor said. 'Our country has benefited hugely from access to global markets, and we will continue to want to be able to do that, because that is in our national interest.'
Some US products are also difficult to avoid. Britain imported £15bn of fuels from the US last year, for instance. Nobody at the petrol pump questions the source of the fuel being poured into their tank.
Similarly liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America was a lifeline in the energy crisis, and the UK bought £2.5bn of gas from the States last year. Not many people are turning down their radiators or buying a heat pump to prevent some slice of their bills going to the US energy industry.
Avoiding foreign goods is tough, says Shearing, noting that almost all advanced semiconductors are made in Taiwan, for example. There is little prospect of Britain ever developing a cutting-edge chip industry. iPhones are not going to be made in Britain, nor are mass-market trainers.
Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, has launched a 'buy Canadian' campaign intended to boost patriotic spending. But elsewhere, there is little political enthusiasm for such campaigns.
Britain's equivalent is limited to the Liberal Democrats. Daisy Cooper, the party's Treasury spokesman, said Britain must support hard-pressed businesses in the face of the trade war.
'We have to speak the only language that Trump understands – the language of strength – and help them save thousands of jobs,' she says, calling on the Government to launch a full campaign to 'buy local, back Britain'.
'Buying British is just one of the ways we can all show our support whilst also sending a message that we won't take Trump's tariffs lying down.'
Ironically for a president who wants to reduce trade deficits, Trump could instead pump them up by driving away tourists in the US and prompting consumer boycotts across the globe.
'The trade balance could actually deteriorate significantly this year,' says Knightley. 'In the first half of the year it is because imports are surging because US companies are trying to get ahead of the tariffs. And from now on we could see a decline in US export demand.
'It is not just tariffs, but his antagonism to other countries, be it Canada as the 51st state, taking over Greenland, berating Europe in terms of being weak, perceived support for Russia – all of these factors are culminating in potentially an 'avoid America' narrative.'
In turn, that risks enraging Trump and pushing him to launch more tariffs. Brace for backlash after backlash, which risk leaving us all poorer.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

San Francisco Chronicle​

9 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.

Washington Post

12 minutes ago

• Washington Post

NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target , while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies.

Bloomberg

15 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

What's Next After the Initial Fallout from US Strikes on Iran

What's next? The unprecedented US airstrikes on Iran have set traders and governments worldwide on edge, as the Islamic Republic warns of retaliation and Israel shows no sign of letting up in its assault. Asian currencies and stocks fell, European stock futures declined while oil advanced, then erased gains, after Washington struck Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend. China and Pakistan were quick to condemn — even though China hasn't yet offered substantial assistance to Tehran besides rhetorical support and Pakistan is at the same time taking steps to build stronger ties with the White House. The US State Department issued a ' Worldwide Caution ' alert for Americans. More critically, President Donald Trump's decision to deploy bunker-busting bombs — in Washington's first direct military action against Iran after decades of hostility — has pushed the Middle East into uncharted territory. Did the end justify the means? While the US attacks have set back Iran's nuclear ambitions and dealt its clerical regime a humiliating blow, the program hasn't been completely destroyed. The move may ultimately lead Tehran to end international monitoring of its nuclear program and consider going ahead to develop a bomb. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't been seen in public in 11 days but remains in control. Even as diplomatic allies Russia and China have stayed on the sidelines and its network of armed proxies in the region remains weakened, Tehran still has ways to inflict pain on the US as it plans its retaliation. Two supertankers, each capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude, U-turned in the Strait of Hormuz after the US airstrikes on Iran raised the risk of a response that would ensnare commercial shipping in the region, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The two empty freighters then sailed south, away from the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The turning oil carriers offer the first signs of re-routing, something that oil traders will scrutinize. Any disruption to traffic through the strait, a major artery for global crude and natural gas, raises the specter of a spike in energy prices. That's bad news for Asia, which buys more than four-fifths of all the crude produced in the Middle East, 90% of which goes through the Strait of Hormuz.