Yes, Trump’s tariffs are worse than expected — but should you sell your stocks?

New York Post - Apr 21st, 2025

President Trump's unexpected tariff implementation, referred to as 'Liberation Day,' has sparked significant volatility in stock and bond markets. The tariffs, more extensive than initially projected, have led to rapid declines in stocks, with investors grappling with the market's unpredictability. Although there was a momentary pause for deal negotiations on April 9, concerns persist over the erratic trade policy. The article argues that these tariffs, if sustained, could severely impact the global economy, including the US. The piece emphasizes that tariffs tend to harm the imposing nation more than the targeted ones, drawing on historical economic thought to illustrate the hidden costs of such policies.

The context of the story is rooted in President Trump's belief that trade deficits equate to losses, a notion critiqued as outdated mercantilist thinking. The article highlights the potential for legal challenges against Trump's tariffs, questioning their constitutionality due to the lack of congressional action. It also predicts that many tariffs will not be fully enforced, leading to a burgeoning black market and creative circumvention strategies. Despite the chaotic policy environment, the article advises against attempting to time the market, as such strategies are deemed perilous. The broader implication is a critique of command-and-control economic strategies, advocating for free markets and innovation as the paths to economic success.

Trump Tariffs Us Economy Trade Policy Legal Challenges Global Economy Stock Market Volatility Ken Fisher

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.4

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a detailed and critical analysis of President Trump's tariffs, highlighting their potential negative impacts on the global and US economies. The author's expertise in economics lends credibility to the analysis, though the lack of diverse perspectives and reliance on opinion may limit the article's impact and engagement with a broader audience.

While the article is timely and addresses a topic of significant public interest, its strong critical stance and informal tone may detract from its perceived objectivity. The piece could benefit from a more balanced exploration of potential benefits and alternative perspectives to enhance its credibility and impact.

Overall, the article is informative and engaging for its target audience, though it could improve by incorporating a wider range of authoritative voices and perspectives to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the tariffs and their implications.

Accuracy

The article presents a largely accurate depiction of the situation surrounding President Trump's tariffs. Key factual claims, such as the implementation of tariffs on April 2, 2025, and the subsequent market reactions, are well-supported by official announcements and economic principles. For instance, the article correctly notes the broad scope of the tariffs and their potential impact on both the global and US economies.

However, some elements, like the exact formula for 'reciprocal' tariffs, are not fully verified within the text, suggesting a need for further confirmation. The piece also includes personal opinions, particularly regarding the effectiveness and intelligence of the tariffs, which, while informed, are subjective and not strictly factual.

Overall, the article aligns well with known facts and economic theories, though it should be noted that some claims, particularly those involving predictions about market behavior and legal outcomes, inherently involve a degree of speculation.

Balance

The article predominantly reflects a critical perspective on President Trump's tariff policies, emphasizing their negative impacts and potential inefficiencies. While this viewpoint is supported by economic theory, the article lacks a balanced exploration of potential benefits or the administration's rationale for implementing such tariffs.

The author's personal political affiliation and financial contributions to the GOP are disclosed, which provides some transparency but also highlights a potential bias. The piece could benefit from including perspectives from economic experts who support the tariffs or from policymakers involved in their creation to provide a more rounded view.

Overall, while the article is informative, it leans heavily towards a critical stance without adequately exploring counterarguments or alternative perspectives.

Clarity

The article is well-written and generally easy to follow, with a clear structure that guides the reader through the author's arguments. The use of economic principles and historical references is effective in illustrating the potential impacts of the tariffs.

The language is straightforward, though at times it includes jargon that might be challenging for readers without a background in economics or finance. Additionally, the article's tone is somewhat informal and opinionated, which, while engaging, may detract from its perceived objectivity.

Overall, the article is clear and accessible, though it could be improved by simplifying some of the economic concepts and maintaining a more neutral tone.

Source quality

The article is written by Ken Fisher, a well-known financial expert, which lends credibility to the economic analysis presented. Fisher's background as a bestselling author and his position in the investment community suggest a strong understanding of economic principles and market behavior.

However, the article does not cite any specific studies, reports, or direct statements from government officials or economists who might provide additional authority to the claims made. The reliance on Fisher's expertise, while valuable, limits the diversity of sources and perspectives.

Overall, the source quality is good, but the article would benefit from incorporating a wider range of authoritative voices to enhance its credibility.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the author's background and potential biases, explicitly mentioning Fisher's long-standing Republican affiliation and his financial contributions to GOP campaigns. This disclosure helps readers understand the context and potential influences on the analysis presented.

The piece clearly outlines the basis for its claims, referencing economic theories and historical precedents, which enhances the transparency of the argumentation. However, the methodology behind certain predictions, such as the expected creation of a black market or the likelihood of legal challenges succeeding, is not fully detailed, leaving some room for speculation.

Overall, the article does a commendable job of disclosing relevant information and providing context, though it could improve by explaining the basis for more speculative claims more thoroughly.