Connect with us

Coin Market

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

Published

on

What are tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.

Four main categories of tariffs are:

Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.

The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.

In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.

Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.

Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.

Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025. 

Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.

Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world. 

The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.

Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.

The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict

The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.

The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China. 

Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.

While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.

As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.

Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching. 

Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.

How do tariffs work?

When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.

For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.

Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.

Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.

Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.

Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.

Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks. 

Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.

Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.

Why do tariffs matter for global markets?

Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.

For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices. 

When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders. 

Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term. 

Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.

As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy. 

Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.

Who sets tariff policy in the US?

In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.

Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.

The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade. 

Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.

Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.

Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.

Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.

Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses. 

While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Coin Market

Warren Buffett to step down as Berkshire Hathaway CEO by year's end

Published

on

By

Warren Buffett, the CEO of publicly traded investment company Berkshire Hathaway, announced at the company’s annual shareholder meeting that he will step down by the end of 2025, and his chosen successor will take over as CEO, pending approval from Berkshire’s board of directors.

According to CNBC, Buffett reiterated that Greg Abel, the company’s vice chairman of non-insurance operations, who was previously named by Buffett as his successor, will take over. The Berkshire founder announced:

“The time has arrived when Greg should become the Chief executive officer of the company at year-end, and I want to spring that on the directors effectively and give that as my recommendation.”

Buffett added that he would stay at the company in an advisory role “but the final word would be what Greg decided,” the CEO said. Buffett’s decision to step down as CEO comes at a time when Berkshire Hathaway is sitting on cash reserves of roughly $348 billion.

Buffett speaking at the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder conference. Source: CNBC

The legendary stock investor has repeatedly called the growing US national debt unsustainable and issued warnings on the increasingly unstable macroeconomic environment that has taken a toll on the stock market.

Related: Galaxy Digital plans Nasdaq listing as crypto stocks post strong rebound

Berkshire Hathaway outperforms S&P but is outclassed by Bitcoin

Despite being renowned for consistently returning roughly double the average performance of the S&P 500 to investors throughout his career, Buffet has failed to outperform Bitcoin (BTC) and gold.

Although Berkshire Hathaway’s class A common stock carries a price tag of over $809,000, and a market cap of over $1 trillion at the time of this writing, shares of the company have massively underperformed against Bitcoin in percentage terms since 2015.

Bitcoin has returned gains of over 781% to investors since 2020, while Berkshire Hathaway only returned approximately 150% over the same period.

Bitcoin’s price performance appears in magenta and has outperformed Berkshire Hathaway’s stock in percentage gains. Source: TradingView

Buffett has long been critical of BTC, arguing that the decentralized, supply-capped, digital currency has no value and likened it to a scam on several occasions.

The Berkshire founder and his business partner Charlie Munger have repeatedly said that Bitcoin does not even qualify as an investment and should be avoided by traders.

Magazine: Bitcoin in Senegal: Why is this African country using BTC?

Continue Reading

Coin Market

Bitcoin miners should pay costs in depreciating currency — Ledn exec

Published

on

By

Bitcoin (BTC) mining firms should hold their mined Bitcoin and use it as collateral for fiat-denominated loans to pay operating expenses instead of selling BTC and losing the upside of an asset that miners expect to surge in price, according to John Glover, chief investment officer at Bitcoin lending firm Ledn.

In an interview with Cointelegraph, Glover said that holding onto the BTC carries several benefits including, price appreciation, tax deferment, and the potential to make extra revenue by lending out BTC held in corporate treasuries. The executive added:

“If you are mining, you are generating all this Bitcoin. You understand the thesis behind Bitcoin and why it is likely going to continue to appreciate in the future. You do not want to sell any of your Bitcoin.”

This debt-based approach is similar to companies like Strategy, which issue corporate debt and equity to finance Bitcoin acquisition and profit from the diverging fundamentals of BTC and the fiat currencies the corporate capital raises are denominated in.

BTC mining hashprice, a metric used to gauge miner profitability, has collapsed as ever-increasing computing resources are deployed to secure the network. Source: Hashrate Index

Bitcoin-backed loans could be a valuable lifeline for miners struggling in the highly competitive industry, which is facing increased pressure due to the ongoing trade tensions brought on by the Trump administration’s protectionist trade policies and macroeconomic uncertainty.

Related: Riot Platforms secures $100M ‘Bitcoin-backed’ loan from Coinbase

Trade war places even more pressure on beleaguered mining industry

The Bitcoin mining industry is characterized by high competition and capital costs that increase over time as more powerful computing resources are used to mine blocks and secure the network.

US President Trump’s sweeping trade tariffs have cast a cloud over the already competitive sector, raising fears that import duties will raise the cost of mining equipment, like application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), to unsustainable levels.

Mining firms collectively sold over 40% of their mined supply produced in March 2025 amid the heightened macroeconomic uncertainty and fears that the ongoing trade tensions will cause price increases across the board.

According to TheMinerMag, this 40% sell-off marked the reversal of a trend that began post-halving, in April 2024, and represented the highest monthly BTC liquidation among miners since October 2024.

Magazine: Korea to lift corporate crypto ban, beware crypto mining HDs: Asia Express

Continue Reading

Coin Market

Ethereum nears key Bitcoin price level that last time sparked 450% gains

Published

on

By

Ethereum’s Ether (ETH) token is approaching a critical price zone against Bitcoin (BTC), which historically marked the beginning of a massive rebound.

ETH price fractal from 2019 hints at bottom

The ETH/BTC pair, currently trading near 0.019 BTC, is edging closer to 0.016 BTC — the exact level it reached in September 2019 before rallying nearly 450% over the following year.

ETH/BTC weekly performance chart. Source: TradingView

The current ETH/BTC setup resembles 2019, with both periods marked by oversold relative strength index (RSI), long stretches below key moving averages, and multiyear declines.

In 2019, ETH/BTC fell over 90% in the prior two years, driven by the ICO collapse.

As of 2025, the pair is down over 80% from its 2021 peak, weighed by skepticism over Ethereum’s switch to proof-of-stake (PoS), rising competition, and Bitcoin’s growing dominance as an institutional asset.

In response to the growing concerns, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has proposed new architecture and protocol-wide standards to make Ethereum simpler, faster, and as maintainable as Bitcoin within five years.

Related: Ethereum to simplify crosschain transactions with new token standards

One analyst called Buterin’s proposal “the most bullish thing for ETH.”

The bullish hopes come as ETH/BTC attempts to break free from its multi-year “bearish parabola.” This resistance curve has been instrumental in limiting the pair’s upside attempts since December 2021 but showed signs of exhaustion as of May 3.

Edit the caption here or remove the text

“We might see an end of this bearish parabola,” wrote chartist Jimie.

He noted that if the curved resistance holds, ETH/BTC could drop toward 0.016 BTC — the same level where it bottomed in September 2019 before rallying by roughly 450%.

Flush ETH and buy Bitcoin, says Adam Back

Skeptics like Bitcoin’s proof-of-work pioneer, Adam Back, argue that Buterin is overlooking deeper design flaws while proposing to simplify Ethereum in the coming years.

Back criticizes Ethereum’s account-based system, saying it adds unnecessary complexity compared to Bitcoin’s simpler UTXO (unspent transaction output) model. He argues this growing complexity increases technical risks and makes Ethereum harder to scale and secure.

Source: X/Adam Back

He also warns that Ethereum’s shift to PoS has concentrated power among insiders by redirecting miner rewards to large tokenholders.

“At this point, just flush ETH before it hits zero and buy Bitcoin,” he wrote, suggesting no upgrade can fix what he views as Ethereum’s flawed foundation.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

Continue Reading

Trending