There’s fear in some quarters of another Donald Trump presidency but will the economics be that bad?
Not a single vote has been counted but the policies of a possible second Trump presidency have already influenced financial markets.
The cost of US and UK borrowing – measured through 10-year revenue-raising instruments called bonds – has been upped as traders eyed the price-rising impact a Trump presidency could have on the world’s biggest economy.
If Trump clinches victory could we see global economic repercussions?
A signature policy of his – tariffs – could make things worse for US consumers, in turn hurting the world economy of which the UK is a part.
Precise detail on what tariffs Trump would apply on what goods and from where remains to be seen. He’s said all goods coming into the country could be slapped with a 10% tax.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Goods from China are going to be particularly hit with an anticipated 60% levy.
Why tariffs?
Advertisement
The hope is that by making imports more expensive goods made in the US will be more competitive and comparatively cheaper. More people would buy those things and life would be better for US producers, the thinking goes.
If US producers are doing well, they’ll hire more people, Trump expects. He’s calculating that more people working for US companies doing well will make for a strong economy and happy voters.
Parts of America have been severely impacted by factory closures as companies move to parts of the world with cheaper wages and operating costs.
This accelerated since the 1990s when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) made it easier and cheaper to export to the US, reducing the incentive to produce in the country.
Image: Donald Trump campaigns in North Carolina. Pic: Reuters
Blue-collar workers, traditionally not college-educated, lost and continue to lose out majorly from plant closures. These are the voters Trump is targeting and who form his base of support.
It’s worth noting Trump isn’t the only fan of tariffs with the Biden administration implementing them on Chinese electric cars, solar panels, steel and aluminium as it sought to protect the investment it had made in such industries from cheap and heavily subsidised goods.
What will the effect be?
China, unsurprisingly, will be levied the highest and experience the greatest direct strike.
The hit will be “notably negative”, according to analysis from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), a leading thinktank.
It will face short-term pressures on manufacturing and trade with its gross domestic product (GDP) – the measure of everything produced in the country – to fall about 1% a year for two years, NIESR says.
Economists at Capital Economics quantify the cost at about a 0.5% to 0.7% reduction in GDP.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:56
UK should ‘expect’ Trump tarrifs
The US
That said the effects will be felt most keenly by those living in the US who will pay more.
If usually cheap imported goods get pricier that probably will cause the overall rate of inflation to rise.
Here the knock-on influences emerge. Higher inflation will just mean more expensive borrowing through upped interest rates as the US central bank, known as the Fed, will act to reduce inflation.
There’s no mystery around how high interest rates can weigh on an economy, the literal goal of hiked rates is to suppress buying power and to take money out of the economy.
Fears of the US ending up in recession spooked stock markets and triggered a global sell-off just three months ago.
Stock prices can seem nebulous but they impact the value of most people’s pensions.
A recession isn’t predicted but the US economy will falter, NIESR says.
Economic growth in America, as measured by GDP, would decrease by around 1.3 to 1.8 percentage points over the next two years, depending on whether the countries it trades with retaliate, upping their own duties on US goods.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
As tariffs make exporting less favourable exporters will simply export less, meaning less is produced and the worldwide economy slows.
The blow to the global economic output could be a 2% GDP drop after five years of Trump being in office, according to NIESR.
The consequences of Trump tariffs won’t just be short-term, NIESR forecasts, with global GDP still lower than it would have been without the imposition even in 15 years’ time.
Specific countries will be hit worse than others: Mexico and Canada for whom the US makes up roughly 80% and 50 % of trade, respectively will experience the greatest pain.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
It doesn’t look too bad for the European Union (EU) by comparison and could even be good for the bloc, some say.
NIESR reckons the euro area will be less badly affected than the UK over five years but the immediate impact will be worse.
The good news first: if Trump doesn’t lean too heavily into tariffs and focuses more on cutting taxes to grow the economy that bump could lead to stronger demand for European goods, notwithstanding import levies, suggests research from economic advisory firm Oxford Economics.
The bad news: it won’t look so good if the US economy turns bad through more aggressive policies like high tariffs on more goods, the firm says. That would mean a “large” fall in European exports, it adds.
And finally, some neutral news: not even high tariffs would be inflationary for the continent, Oxford Economics expects. Reduced demand and lower goods prices would just offset the higher import costs, it says.
Another firm, Capital Economics, also isn’t too concerned about the European economy under Trump.
“Smaller than many fear”, is how it described the suspected short-term macroeconomic consequences.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:22
How does the US election work?
What about the UK?
It’s got to be bad for the UK, right? The US is the country’s biggest trading partner after all, making up just under 20% of our trade
Again, not so. The UK doesn’t even make it into the top 10 worst-affected countries under NIESR’s research.
Capital Economics anticipates the knock would be small and maybe even positive, though inflation may be higher than if there were no second Trump administration.
But there’s no consensus on this point with NIESR forecasting GDP will be lower because of fewer exports and higher global interest rates.
This downturn would slow UK exports to other countries, NIESR says.
NIESR estimates UK GDP could be between 2.5% and 3% lower over five years and 0.7% lower in 2025. So instead of the 1.5% rate of GDP predicted by the IMF for next year, the economy would grow by 0.5%.
The rate of inflation hit a much lower than expected 3.2% last month, according to official figures which should lock in an interest rate cut by the Bank of England on Thursday.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported an easing in the pace of the main consumer prices index measure from the 3.6% annual rate seen in October.
The main downwards pressure came from food costs amid a supermarket price war to secure custom ahead of the core Christmas season.
ONS chief economist Grant Fitzner noted decreases in the prices paid for cakes, biscuits and breakfast cereals in particular.
“Tobacco prices also helped pull the rate down, with prices easing slightly this month after a large rise a year ago”, he wrote.
“The fall in the price of women’s clothing was another downward driver.
More from Money
“The increase in the cost of goods leaving factories slowed, driven by lower food inflation, while the annual cost of raw materials for businesses continued to rise.”
The great chocolate price rise explained
The data marked further downwards progress for the headline rate after a spike this year which economists have partly attributed to higher employment costs, imposed after the government’s first budget, being passed on to consumers.
This price wave has muddied the waters over the pace of interest rate reductions by the Bank, which has wanted to see more evidence that inflation is not being further stoked by factors including strong wage growth.
It will be encouraged by better than expected slowdowns in other closely-watched inflation measures which strip out volatile elements, such as food and energy, as well as services inflation.
Recent data has also shown intensifying weakness in the labour market, with the unemployment rate surging by a percentage point to 5.1% since Labour took office.
UK economy shrinks again – was budget build-up to blame?
Separate ONS figures have also found that the economy contracted for two consecutive months in the run-up to Rachel Reeves’s second budget.
London Stock Exchange Group Data shows more than 90% of financial market participants are expecting the Bank to agree a rate cut to 3.75% – the lowest level in almost three years – from 4%.
The inflation data will come as a relief to the chancellor after a tough few months for her politically given the wider economic data and backlash over the Treasury’s handling of the lead up to the budget.
Ms Reeves said: “I know families across Britain who are worried about bills will welcome this fall in inflation.
“Getting bills down is my top priority. That is why I froze rail fares and prescription fees and cut £150 off average energy bills at the budget this year.
“The Bank of England agree this will help cut prices and expect inflation to fall faster next year as a result.”
You’ve doubtless heard of the National Grid, the network of pylons and electricity infrastructure ensuring the country is supplied with power. You’re probably aware that there is a similar national network of gas pipelines sending methane into millions of our boilers.
But far fewer people, even among the infrastructure cognoscenti, are even faintly familiar with the UK Ethylene Pipeline System. Yet this pipeline network, obscure as it might be, is one of the critical parts of Britain’s industrial infrastructure. And it’s also a useful clue to help explain why the government has just announced it’s spending more than £120m to bail out the chemical plant at Grangemouth in Scotland.
Ethylene is one of those precursor chemicals essential for the manufacture of all sorts of everyday products. React it with terephthalic acid and you end up with polyester. Combine it with chlorine and you end up with PVC. And when you polymerise ethylene itself you end up with polyethylene – the most important plastic in the world.
Why Grangemouth matters
Ethylene is, in short, a very big deal. Hence, why, many years ago, a pipeline was built to ensure Britain’s various chemical plants would have a reliable supply of the stuff. The pipes connected the key nodes in Britain’s chemicals infrastructure: the plants in the north of Cheshire, which derived chemicals from salt, the vast Wilton petrochemical plant in Teesside and, up in Scotland, the most important point in the network – Grangemouth.
The refinery would suck in oil and gas from the North Sea and turn it into ethane, which it would then “crack”, an energy-hungry process that involves heating it up to phenomenally high temperatures. Some of that ethylene would be used on site, but large volumes would also be sent down the pipeline. It would be pumped down to Runcorn, where the old ICI chlor-alkali plant, now owned by INEOS, would use it to make PVC. It would be sent to Wilton, where it would be turned into polyethylene and polyester.
That’s the first important thing to grasp about this network – it is essential for the operation of a whole series of plants, many of them run by entirely different companies.
The second key thing to note is that, after the closure of the cracker at Wilton (now owned by Saudi company Sabic) and the ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran in Fife, Grangemouth is the last plant standing. While the refinery no longer uses North Sea oil and gas, instead shipping in ethane from the US, it still makes its own ethylene.
So when INEOS began consulting on plans to close that ethylene cracker, officials down south in Westminster began to panic. The problem wasn’t just the 500 or so jobs that might have been lost in Grangemouth. It was the domino effect that would feed throughout the sector. All of a sudden, all those plants at the other ends of the pipeline would be affected too. In practice, the closure might have eventuated in more than a thousand job losses – maybe more.
What’s happening now?
All of which helps explain the news today – that the Department for Business and Trade is putting more than £120m of taxpayer money into the site. The bailout (it’s hard to see it as anything but) is not the first. The government has also put hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money into British Steel, which it quasi-nationalised earlier this year, not to mention extra cash into Tata Steel at Port Talbot and loan guarantees to help Jaguar Land Rover after it faced an unprecedented cyber attack.
Image: Work ground to a halt at JLR’s Wolverhampton factory after a cyber attack. Pic: PA
But while this package will undoubtedly provide Christmas cheer here in Grangemouth today, the government is left facing two distinct problems.
Reactive rather than strategic
The first is that for all that the chancellor and business secretary (who are themselves planning to visit Grangemouth today) are keen to pitch this latest move as a coherent part of their industrial strategy, it’s hard not to see it as something else. Far from appearing strategic, instead they seem reactive. To the extent that they have a coherent industrial strategy, it mostly seems to involve forking out public money when a given plant is close to closure. If they weren’t already, Britain’s industrialists will today be wondering to themselves: what would it take to get ourselves some of this money in future?
The crisis continues
The second issue is that the Grangemouth bailout is very unlikely to end the crisis spreading across Britain’s chemicals sector. A series of plants – some prominent, others less so – have closed in the past few years. The chemicals sector – once one of the most important in the economy – has seen its economic output drop by more than 20% in the past three years alone.
This is not just a UK-specific story. Something similar is happening across much of Europe. But for many chemicals companies, it simply doesn’t add up to invest and build in the UK any more – a product in part of regulations and in part of high energy costs. In short, this story isn’t over yet. There will be more twists and turns to come.
We’re estimated to consume 8.2kg each every year, a good chunk of it at Christmas, but the cost of that everyday luxury habit has been rising fast.
Whitakers have been making chocolate in Skipton in north Yorkshire for 135 years, but they have never experienced price pressures as extreme as those in the last five.
“We buy liquid chocolate and since 2023, the price of our chocolate has doubled,” explains William Whitaker, the real-life Willy Wonka and the fourth generation of the family to run the business.
Image: William Whitaker, managing director of the company
“It could have been worse. If we hadn’t been contracted [with a supplier], it would have trebled.
“That represents a £5,000 per-tonne increase, and we use a thousand tonnes a year. And we only sell £12-£13m of product, so it’s a massive effect.”
Whitakers makes 10 million pieces of chocolate a week in a factory on the much-expanded site of the original bakery where the business began.
Automated production lines snake through the site moulding, cutting, cooling, coating and wrapping a relentless procession of fondants, cremes, crisps and pure chocolate products for customers, including own-brand retail, supermarkets, and the catering trade.
Image: Mmmmm….
Steepest inflation in the business
All of them have faced price increases as Whitakers has grappled with some of the steepest inflation in the food business.
Cocoa prices have soared in the last two years, largely because of a succession of poor cocoa harvests in West Africa, where Ghana and the Ivory Coast produce around two-thirds of global supply.
A combination of drought and crop disease cut global output by around 14% last year, pushing consumer prices in the other direction, with chocolate inflation passing 17% in the UK in October.
Image: …chocolate….
Skimpflation and shrinkflation
Some major brands have responded by cutting the chocolate content of products – “skimpflation” – or charging more for less – “shrinkflation”.
Household-name brands including Penguin and Club have cut the cocoa and milk solid content so far they can no longer be classified as chocolate, and are marketed instead as “chocolate-flavour”.
Whitakers have stuck to their recipes and product sizes, choosing to pass price increases on to customers while adapting products to the new market conditions.
“Not only are major brands putting up prices over 20%, sometimes 40%, they’ve also reduced the size of their pieces and sometimes the ingredients,” says William Whitaker.
“We haven’t done any of that. We knew that long-term, the market will fall again, and that happier days will return.
“We’ve introduced new products where we’ve used chocolate as a coating rather than a solid chocolate because the centre, which is sugar-based, is cheaper than the chocolate.
“We’ve got a big product range of fondant creams, and others like gingers and Brazil nuts, where we’re using that chocolate as a coating.”
Image: The costs are adding up
A deluge of price rises
Brazil nuts have enjoyed their own spike in price, more than doubling to £15,000 a tonne at one stage.
On top of commodity prices determined by markets beyond their control, Whitakers face the same inflationary pressures as other UK businesses.
“We’ve had the minimum wage increasing every year, we had the national insurance rise last year, and sort of hidden a little bit in this budget is a business rate increase.
“This is a small business, we turn over £12m, but our rates will go up nearly £100,000 next year before any other costs.
“If you add up all the cocoa and all the other cost increases in 2024 and 2025, it’s nearly £3m of cost increases we’ve had to bear. Some of that is returning to a little normality. It does test the relevance of what you do.”