Top economist who previously sounded the alarm on tariffs sees a possible scenario where Trump ‘outsmarted all of us’
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/t...170622258.html
- Torsten Sløk, chief economist at Apollo Global Management,   laid out a potential scenario where President Donald Trump’s tariffs   are extended long enough to ease economic uncertainty while also   providing a significant bump to federal revenue. That comes as the   90-day pause on Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” is nearing an end.
 
Businesses  and consumers remain in limbo over what will  happen next with President  Donald Trump’s tariffs, but a top economist  sees a way to leave them in  place and still deliver a “victory for the  world.”
In a 
note on Saturday   titled “Has Trump Outsmarted Everyone on Tariffs?”, Apollo Global   Management Chief Economist Torsten Sløk laid out a scenario that keeps   tariffs well below Trump’s most aggressive rates long enough to ease   uncertainty and avoid the economic harm that comes with it.
“Maybe the strategy is  to maintain 30% tariffs on China and 10% tariffs  on all other countries  and then give all countries 12 months to lower  non-tariff barriers and  open up their economies to trade,” he  speculated.
That  comes as the 90-day pause on Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs,” which   triggered a massive selloff on global markets in April, is nearing an   end early next month.
The  temporary reprieve was meant to give the U.S. and its trade  partners  time to negotiate deals. But aside from an agreement with the  U.K. and  another short-term deal with China to step back from  prohibitively high  tariffs, few others have been announced.
Meanwhile,  negotiations are ongoing with other top trading partners.  Trump  administration officials have been saying for weeks that the U.S.  is  close to reaching deals.
On Saturday, Sløk said  extending the deadline one year would give other  countries and U.S.  businesses more time to adjust to a “new world with  permanently higher  tariffs.” An extension would also immediately  reduce uncertainty, giving  a boost to business planning, employment,  and financial markets.
“This  would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce  $400  billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers,” he added. “Trade  partners  will be happy with only 10% tariffs and US tax revenue will go  up. Maybe  the administration has outsmarted all of us.”
Sløk’s  speculation is notable as he previously sounded the alarm on  Trump’s  tariffs. In April, he warned tariffs have the potential to  trigger a 
recession by this summer.
Also  in April, before the U.S. and China reached a deal to temporarily  halt  triple-digit tariffs, he said the trade war between the two  countries  would 
pummel American small businesses.
More certainty on  tariffs would give the Federal Reserve a clearer view  on inflation as  well. For now, most policymakers are in wait-and-see  mode, as tariffs  are expected to have stagflationary effects. But a  split has emerged.
Fed Governor Christopher Waller said Friday that economic data could justify 
lower interest rates   as early as next month, expecting only a one-off impact from tariffs.   But San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly also said Friday a 
rate cut in the fall looks more appropriate, rather than a cut in July.
Still, Sløk isn’t alone  in wondering whether Trump’s tariffs may not be  as harmful to the  economy and financial markets as feared.
Chris Harvey, 
Wells Fargo Securities’ head of equity strategy, 
expects tariffs to settle in the 10%-12% range, low enough to have a minimal impact, and sees the S&P 500 soaring to 7,007, making him 
Wall Street’s biggest bull.
He added that it’s  still necessary to make progress on trade and reach  deals with big  economies like India, Japan and the EU. That way,  markets can focus on  next year, rather near-term tariff impacts.
“Then you can start to extrapolate out,” 
he told CNBC   last month. “Then the market starts looking through things. They start   looking through any sort of economic slowdown or weakness, and then we   start looking to ’26 not at ’25.”
This story was originally featured on 
Fortune.com