There are at least three things Joe Biden’s new tariffs on Chinese goods are intended to achieve.
Interestingly enough, preventing Chinese goods from entering the United States (typically the main purpose of tariffs) is arguably the least important of them.
That’s because the most eye-watering of all the new tariffs – a 100% rate on electric vehicles – is being imposed on a category where China doesn’t really compete all that much. Consider: last year the US imported nearly $19bn worth of electric cars. Of those imports, a mere $370m came from China – less than 2% of the total.
That’s not to say that China is not already a world leader when it comes to making electric cars.
Right now a large chunk of electric cars being bought in Europe and elsewhere besides are Chinese. You might even be driving one today, because most of the Chinese cars being sold on these shores don’t actually have Chinese badges – like BYD. If you have a Tesla Model 3, a Tesla Model Y, an MGs or a Polestar… you’re driving a Chinese car.
Back when cars were all about their internal combustion engines, China never used to be a motoring manufacturing powerhouse. But thanks in large part to enormous support packages, China has achieved dominance of electric car manufacture.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:34
How China dominates Western business
It has done so in part because it has invested so much not just in making those cars but, even more importantly, in making the batteries inside them – not to mention the chemicals and minerals that go inside those batteries. Look at the global electric vehicle business and China has dominance all the way down the supply chain.
It’s a similar story in much of the green technology sector. China makes the vast majority of the world’s solar panels. It’s staking out a leading position in making wind turbines, not to mention green hydrogen electrolysers and carbon capture technology.
Advertisement
This helps explain why the tariffs announced by the White House today are not just focused on electric cars.
There will also be a doubling of tariffs on solar panels to 50%, as well as further tariffs on steel and aluminium. The justification for the latter two is that Chinese steel and aluminium is produced with more carbon emissions than elsewhere.
Image: Joe Biden has maintained US pressure on China’s sprawling manufacturing sector that began under Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters
They are part of a broader Biden strategy. Many assumed there would be a big shift in economic diplomacy when Mr Biden took over from Donald Trump, and that he would rescind the tariffs and rules the Trump White House imposed on Beijing.
However in reality, the Biden White House has, if anything, doubled down. They have introduced a host of new subsidies on the production of green technology (the Inflation Reduction Act) and semiconductors (the CHIPS Act), fighting China at its game.
The back story here is that the world is on the brink of a new industrial revolution. As countries around the globe push towards net zero, it necessitates a panoply of new industries – to provide the green energy and cleaner products necessary to hit that goal. And the US is determined not to allow China to win the race to build out these new industries. Hence why the White House is now going one step further with tariffs.
Image: The Biden tariff regime also targets Chinese-made solar panels. File pic
Economists dislike tariffs. They fret about what happened in the 1930s, when the global economy slid into depression as countries around the world followed “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies of ever-increasing tariffs. They fear this might happen again, and, frankly today’s tariffs from the White House probably make such an outcome more likely.
So why is this administration, whose Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is hardly what you’d call a radical economist, going to such lengths? That brings us back to the other two things these new tariffs are intended to achieve.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The first is to do whatever it takes to give the US a fighting chance at competing with China at producing electric cars and solar panels. Today’s measures might be construed as a tacit admission that the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act aren’t helping enough in and of themselves. Whether these tariffs help anymore is an open question. China’s lead is extensive. But we’re about to find out what happens when the world’s two economic superpowers pull out all the stops to compete with each other.
The final reason for these tariffs is more prosaic – but it might actually be the most important of all (at least for Mr Biden himself). They are intended as a political message to show how tough he is on China, and to outdo Donald Trump himself. These tariffs are aimed as much at appealing to the American electorate ahead of the election as they are to affect trade with China.
Nonetheless, they will doubtless provoke some tit-for-tat tariffs from China. Trade – and industrial strategy – have never been so dramatic, or interesting.
COVID-19 fraud and error cost the taxpayer nearly £11bn, a government watchdog has found.
Pandemic support programmes such as furlough, bounce-back loans, support grants and Eat Out to Help Out led to £10.9bn in fraud and error, COVID Counter-Fraud Commissioner Tom Hayhoe’s final report has concluded.
Lack of government data to target economic support made it “easy” for fraudsters to claim under more than one scheme and secure dual funding, the report said.
Weak accountability, bad quality data and poor contracting were identified as the primary causes of the loss.
The government has said the sum is enough to fund daily free school meals for the UK’s 2.7 million eligible children for eight years.
An earlier report from Mr Hayhoe for the Treasury in June found that failed personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts during the pandemic cost the British taxpayer £1.4 billion, with £762 million spent on unused protective equipment unlikely ever to be recovered.
Factors behind the lost money had included government over-ordering of PPE, and delays in checking it.
More on Covid-19
Related Topics:
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
More from Money
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Image: Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:18
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
Image: File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”