Why the device you’re reading this on shows how Trump’s tariffs could herald one of the most painful episodes in modern times
Of course this is dramatic. Of course markets are slumping.
Because if you take Donald Trump at his word (something investors are now finally beginning to do), he is attempting single-handedly to reverse and uproot decades worth of economic history in the space of a few months.
Because if this really is “the end of globalisation”, as a few politicians, including Keir Starmer, are now calling it, it constitutes one of the most wrenching, painful episodes in modern times.
Money: Petrol prices could tumble within 10 days
To see what I mean, the best place to begin is by pondering the hidden life of the device you’re reading this on. I’m assuming it’s a smartphone, specifically the latest iPhone, but most of the following applies for other smartphones and, indeed, many laptops or desktop computers.
The display was made in South Korea or Japan. The camera module was made by Sony in Japan (who have a particular expertise in this type of specialised silicon that few other companies have been able to match). The batteries (for the latest iPhone at least) are made in India, though these days, the vast majority of the world’s cells are made in China.
On it goes – the memory chips from South Korea, which has a near monopoly on solid state storage silicon. The logic chips – the ones that help the device “think”- made in Taiwan, albeit with intellectual property (IP) from all over the world, including America and even Britain. Some of the chips do indeed come from the US – in particular the modem, though the company behind them (Qualcomm) sometimes manufactures in Taiwan. But there are some from Europe too – most notably the spatial sensor chips that come from Bosch in Germany.
Globalisation is in your hands
If you are looking for an example of “globalisation”, you couldn’t do much better than the smartphone. But even this potted geography lesson understates it because those fabrication plants in Taiwan and South Korea, turning out those silicon chips that help the phone think and remember stuff, are totally dependent on machines made by a company called ASML, based in the Netherlands. Those Dutch machines, in turn, contain components from hundreds of other companies around the world, including in Germany and the US. On it goes.
Nor is this degree of interconnectedness solely to be found in high-tech equipment. The other day, I was up in Scunthorpe at the blast furnaces of British Steel. It turns out the iron they smelt there doesn’t just go into the rails that striate this country. They also make the steel that go into the tracks of Caterpillar trucks.
Trump tariffs latest: UK stock market suffers
Politics latest: Trump tariffs ‘bad news’ for global economy, cabinet minister
That’s right: the iconic tracked diggers – for many people the most American of all things – are all mounted on steel “track shoes” made in the North East of England (the plant is a little further north of Scunthorpe, in Skinningrove).
The further you look around the world of manufactured products, the more you realise that nearly everything you touch on a daily basis has, in the months before it arrived in your life, been on a long trip from factory to factory, taking it all around the world. That device you’re reading this on may say “made in China” on the back, but that’s an enormous over-simplification. It was made more or less everywhere.
This is the way the world works today – like it or not. In a sense it’s the ultimate extension of what Adam Smith discussed back in the earliest days of economics, when he described a “pin factory” where the work of making a simple pin was divided up between different people, with each worker specialising in a particular task rather than trying to make the whole pin themselves.
The swings and roundabouts of globalisation
Today, we have a sort of international division of labour. Today, nearly everyone goes to China to get their batteries. They go to South Korea to get their memory chips. The upshot is these factories have become ever more efficient at making their products. And – here’s where it matters for the rest of us – the price of making and buying this stuff goes down.
Today, the reason one can buy what would once have been classified as a supercomputer for a few hundred pounds is because of this division of labour. Globalisation made everything, from computers to Caterpillar trucks to T-Shirts, that bit cheaper than they would have been had we attempted to manufacture them all in a single country.
Trader Christopher Lagana. Pic: AP
But the ugly side of this economic shift is that those regions that used to do the manufacturing – be it the “rust belt” of America or the Midlands and North East of England – have seen much of their traditional work disappear. And while economists have insisted that cheaper products make everyone better off in net terms, the reality is that these parts of our countries haven’t got better off. They have been hollowed out. And in time, resentment about globalisation has built up – for good reason.
Trump’s aspiration
This is the world we inhabit today. Unpicking it will be phenomenally difficult and phenomenally expensive. Trying to relocate all those functions – factories and labour markets with expertise that has built up over decades – would be incredibly difficult and would take a long time. But that seems, as far as anyone can tell, to be the aspiration of Donald Trump. That appears to be the objective of his tariff policy.
Up until now, most investors had assumed that the president wasn’t entirely serious about this – that he merely intended to scare a few Asian companies into opening factories in key swing states. And who knows – that may well turn out to be the case. But he certainly seems more serious this time around – and less phased by the negative market reaction.
In the meantime, we are left with those tariffs.
Costs will go up
Think back to that iPhone. Think back to those Caterpillar tracks. All those components now face swinging tariffs when they arrive in the US. That will push up the cost of buying pretty much anything in the US and will accordingly push down the demand for those goods. And since America is the world’s consumer of last resort – the biggest importer of goods anywhere – that has an enormous bearing on demand around the world.
So, yes, of course, this is dramatic. Of course, markets are slumping. No one knows what the US president will do next. But either way, what happened last week in the Rose Garden will reverberate for a long time to come.
You probably recall the stories about Leicester’s clothing industry in recent years: grim labour conditions, pay below the minimum wage, “dark factories” serving the fast fashion sector. What is less well known is what happened next. In short, the industry has cratered.
In the wake of the recurrent scandals over “sweatshop” conditions in Leicester, the majority of major brands have now abandoned the city, triggering an implosion in production in the place that once boasted that it “clothed the world”.
And now Leicester faces a further existential double-threat: competition from Chinese companies like Shein and Temu, and the impending arrival of cheap imports from India, following the recent trade deal signed with the UK. Many worry it could spell an end for the city’s fashion business altogether.
Gauging the scale of the recent collapse is challenging because many of the textile and apparel factories in Leicester are small operations that can start up and shut down rapidly, but according to data provided to Sky News by SP&KO, a consultancy founded by fashion sector veterans Kathy O’Driscoll and Simon Platts, the number has fallen from 1,500 in 2017 to just 96 this year. This 94% collapse comes amid growing concerns that British clothes-making more broadly is facing an existential crisis.
A trade fair tries to reignite enthusiasm for the local clothing industry
More on this story:
The modern slaves making our clothes in Leicester
How Leicester’s textile workers are being exploited
Boohoo failed in Leicester supply chain malpractice
In an in-depth investigation carried out over recent months, Sky News has visited sites in the city shut down in the face of a collapse of demand. Thousands of fashion workers are understood to have lost their jobs. Many factories lie empty, their machines gathering dust.
The vast majority of high street and fast fashion brands that once sourced their clothes in Leicester have now shifted their supply chains to North Africa and South Asia.
And a new report from UKFT – Britain’s fashion and textiles lobby group – has found that a staggering 95% of clothes companies have either trimmed or completely eliminated clothes manufacturing in the UK. Some 58% of brands, by turnover, now have an explicit policy not to source clothes from the UK.
Seamstresses in one of the city’s former factories
Clothing industry workers in Leicester
Jenny Holloway, chair of the Apparel & Textile Manufacturers Association, said: “We know of factories that were asked to become a potential supplier [to high street brands], got so far down the line, invested on sampling, invested time and money, policies, and then it’s like: ‘oh, sorry, we can’t use you, because Leicester is embargoed.'”
Tejas Shah, a third-generation manufacturer whose family company Shahtex used to make materials for Marks & Spencer, said: “I’ve spoken to brands in the past who, if I moved my factory 15 miles north into Loughborough, would be happy to work with me. But because I have an LE1, LE4 postcode, they don’t want to work for me.”
Shahtex in Leicester used to make materials for Marks & Spencer
Tejas Shah, of Leicester-based firm Shahtex
Threat of Chinese brands Shein and Temu
That pain has been exacerbated by a new phenomenon: the rise of Chinese fast fashion brands Shein and Temu.
They offer consumers ultra-cheap clothes and goods, made in Chinese factories and flown direct to UK households. And, thanks to a customs loophole known as “de minimis”, those goods don’t even incur tariffs when they arrive in the country.
An online advert for Chinese fast fashion company Shein
According to Satvir Singh, who runs Our Fashion, one of the last remaining knitwear producers in the city, this threat could prove the final straw for Leicester’s garments sector.
“It is having an impact on our production – and I think the whole retail sector, at least for clothing, are feeling that pinch.”
Inside one of the city’s remaining clothesmakers
While Donald Trump has threatened to abolish the loophole in the US, the UK has only announced a review with no timeline.
“If we look at what Trump’s done, he’s just thinking more about his local economy because he can see the long-term effects,” said Mr Singh. “I think [abolishing de minimis exceptions] will make a huge difference. I think ultimately it’s about a level playing field.”
A spokesperson for Temu told Sky News: “We welcome UK manufacturers and businesses to explore a low-cost way to grow with us. By the end of 2025, we expect half our UK sales to come from local sellers and local warehouses.”
Thames Water, the UK’s biggest water provider, has been hit by a record fine by regulator Ofwat.
The company has been fined £122.7m following Ofwat’s “biggest and most complex” investigation.
It follows two investigations related to Thames Water’s wastewater operations and dividend payouts.
Of the total fine, £104.5m – 9% of Thames Water‘s turnover – has been levied for breaches of wastewater rules – just below the maximum 10% of turnover that Ofwat could have applied.
Money blog: Inside the booming one-bed flat market
Pic: istock
Another £18.2m penalty will be paid for breaches of dividend payment rules.
It is the first time Ofwat has fined a company for shareholders’ payments which do not “properly reflect” its performance for customers and the environment.
The fine will be paid by Thames Water and its shareholders, Ofwat said, rather than customers.
‘Unacceptable’ environmental impact
The regulator was highly critical of Thames Water’s handling of wastewater, describing it as having an “unacceptable” impact on the environment.
Its investigation of treatment works and the wider wastewater network uncovered failings which “amounted to a significant breach of the company’s legal obligations” and caused that unacceptable environmental impact.
The company announced a 40% spike in sewage spills in December for the period from January to September 2024.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Thames Water boss can ‘save’ company
The fine was so large because Ofwat’s chief executive, David Black, said Thames Water “failed to come up with an acceptable redress package that would have benefited the environment”.
“This is a clear-cut case where Thames Water has let down its customers and failed to protect the environment,” Mr Black said.
“Our investigation has uncovered a series of failures by the company to build, maintain and operate adequate infrastructure to meet its obligations.”
As a result, Thames Water is required to agree to a remediation plan with Ofwat within six months.
Another investigation by the Environment Agency into environmental permits at sewage treatment works is ongoing.
Bad news for Thames Water finances
Thames Water serves 16 million customers across London and the South East and has just about fended off effective nationalisation, having secured an emergency £3bn loan. Its debts now top £19bn.
These fines were not factored into Thames Water’s financial planning for the next five years. The company’s chief executive, Chris Weston, told a recent sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee that Thames Water’s future was dependent on Ofwat being lenient with fines.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
A Thames Water spokesperson said: “We take our responsibility towards the environment very seriously and note that Ofwat acknowledges we have already made progress to address issues raised in the investigation relating to storm overflows.
“The dividends were declared following a consideration of the company’s legal and regulatory obligations. Our lenders continue to support our liquidity position and our equity raise process continues.”
You probably recall the stories about Leicester’s clothing industry in recent years: grim labour conditions, pay below the minimum wage, “dark factories” serving the fast fashion sector. What is less well known is what happened next. In short, the industry has cratered.
In the wake of the recurrent scandals over “sweatshop” conditions in Leicester, the majority of major brands have now abandoned the city, triggering an implosion in production in the place that once boasted that it “clothed the world”.
And now Leicester faces a further existential double-threat: competition from Chinese companies like Shein and Temu, and the impending arrival of cheap imports from India, following the recent trade deal signed with the UK. Many worry it could spell an end for the city’s fashion business altogether.
Gauging the scale of the recent collapse is challenging because many of the textile and apparel factories in Leicester are small operations that can start up and shut down rapidly, but according to data provided to Sky News by SP&KO, a consultancy founded by fashion sector veterans Kathy O’Driscoll and Simon Platts, the number has fallen from 1,500 in 2017 to just 96 this year. This 94% collapse comes amid growing concerns that British clothes-making more broadly is facing an existential crisis.
More on this story:
The modern slaves making our clothes in Leicester
How Leicester’s textile workers are being exploited
Boohoo failed in Leicester supply chain malpractice
In an in-depth investigation carried out over recent months, Sky News has visited sites in the city shut down in the face of a collapse of demand. Thousands of fashion workers are understood to have lost their jobs. Many factories lie empty, their machines gathering dust.
The vast majority of high street and fast fashion brands that once sourced their clothes in Leicester have now shifted their supply chains to North Africa and South Asia.
And a new report from UKFT – Britain’s fashion and textiles lobby group – has found that a staggering 95% of clothes companies have either trimmed or completely eliminated clothes manufacturing in the UK. Some 58% of brands, by turnover, now have an explicit policy not to source clothes from the UK.
Seamstresses in one of the city’s former factories
Clothing industry workers in Leicester
Jenny Holloway, chair of the Apparel & Textile Manufacturers Association, said: “We know of factories that were asked to become a potential supplier [to high street brands], got so far down the line, invested on sampling, invested time and money, policies, and then it’s like: ‘oh, sorry, we can’t use you, because Leicester is embargoed.'”
A trade fair tries to reignite enthusiasm for the local clothing industry
Tejas Shah, a third-generation manufacturer whose family company Shahtex used to make materials for Marks & Spencer, said: “I’ve spoken to brands in the past who, if I moved my factory 15 miles north into Loughborough, would be happy to work with me. But because I have an LE1, LE4 postcode, they don’t want to work for me.”
Shahtex in Leicester used to make materials for Marks & Spencer
Tejas Shah, of Leicester-based firm Shahtex
Threat of Chinese brands Shein and Temu
That pain has been exacerbated by a new phenomenon: the rise of Chinese fast fashion brands Shein and Temu.
They offer consumers ultra-cheap clothes and goods, made in Chinese factories and flown direct to UK households. And, thanks to a customs loophole known as “de minimis”, those goods don’t even incur tariffs when they arrive in the country.
An online advert for Chinese fast fashion company Shein
According to Satvir Singh, who runs Our Fashion, one of the last remaining knitwear producers in the city, this threat could prove the final straw for Leicester’s garments sector.
“It is having an impact on our production – and I think the whole retail sector, at least for clothing, are feeling that pinch.”
Inside one of the city’s remaining clothesmakers
While Donald Trump has threatened to abolish the loophole in the US, the UK has only announced a review with no timeline.
“If we look at what Trump’s done, he’s just thinking more about his local economy because he can see the long-term effects,” said Mr Singh. “I think [abolishing de minimis exceptions] will make a huge difference. I think ultimately it’s about a level playing field.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway