“There is nothing to celebrate,” says analysts.
Bitcoin has had a slight fall due to the entry into force of tariffs.
The commercial agreements recently signed by the United States government with the European Union and Japan, which include 15% tariffs on most exports to the North American country, were presented as a victory for the foreign policy of the White House.
However, according to a analysis Editorial published by the Bloomberg agency, “there is nothing to celebrate.” For the authors of the text, Clive Crook and Nisid Hajari, these are pacts that will generate negative consequences on all fronts, particularly within the US territory itself.
The editorial argues that “in strict economic terms, the statement that the United States has won both negotiation sets is simply false.”
Although the US government has announced that these agreements reinforce their leadership and move away the risk of prolonged trade war, reality – according to analysts – is that American consumers will assume the burden of new taxes.
“Tariffs are taxes. Soon, US consumers will pay most, if not all, cost rise,” they warn from Bloomberg.
The effect is not limited to the increase in imported products. It will also affect the behavior of local companies. “American producers of rival goods will face less pressure to compete and innovate, and they will also raise their prices,” says the report.
That combination of factors – less competition and more costs – will directly impact the quality of life of citizens. “Over time, these forces will depress the standard of living in the United States,” says the text.
Due to US tariffs, the price of Bitcoin (BTC) reacted. Between July 31 and August 1, BTC fell 3.14%, from $ 118,800 to $ 114,400. At the close of this report, the currency went back even more, until the USD 113,800, After Trump ordered the deployment of nuclear submarines For tensions with Russia.
Although the medium -term expectation for BTC is still positive, the immediate impact shows the sensitivity of the market before the new commercial policy, as well as the political decisions that cause panic in the markets.
The new White House tariff plan establishes a “universal tariff” of 10% to imported products from countries with which the United States has a commercial surplus. For the nations with which there is deficit, a rate of 15%will be applied. In total, they are around 40 affected countries.
Some will face even greater rates: Syria will have a 41%tariff; Laos and Myanmar, 40%; Switzerland, 39%; while Iraq and Serbia will receive 35%. Algeria, Bosnia and South Africa will be in 30%, Cryptonoths reported.
A firm that avoids greater tensions
The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, justified the decision to sign the agreement with Washington for the need to avoid more tensions. The European official said the pact It would help “restore stability and predictability for consumers and producers.”
However, Bloomberg analysts believe that this statement is premature. “I wish it were like that,” replies the editorial. For the authors, the agreement is full of ambiguities that have not yet been resolved.
One of the most cited examples in the analysis is the pact with Japan. The document includes a financing commitment of an American fund, by Japan, presented as a “signature bonus” of 550,000 million dollars.
But the analysis clarifies: “What really implies Japan’s commitment to finance an investment fund administered by the White House? Difficult to say.” And he adds: “Japanese officials probably don’t see it that way.”
The same lack of clarity affects the pact with the European Union. Although it was announced that certain European goods will have free access to tariffs to the US market, the document does not specify which. “Which goods? No one knows,” says the report. According to specialists These agreements should not be understood as complete treatiesbut as initial frameworks with numerous aspects still pending definition.
They also warn about a greater risk: that these pacts reinforce perception within the government that it can continue to negotiate from a unilateral position.
“The supposed success of the administration can now confirm its belief that the United States is powerful enough to demand submission, instead of genuine association,” they warn. This attitude could affect not only commercial policy, but also international cooperation in areas such as security, investment and global governance.
For analysts, the repeated use of tariffs as a central instrument of foreign policy can erode the credibility of the United States as a strategic partner. “If in the future the White House seeks to solve all these disputes reviving the threat of punitive tariffs, the vision of stability and predictability will only a mirage,” warn Crook and Hajari.
The analysis concludes with a clear warning: The approach of generating force through disruption could be counterproductive. “Force through disruption is a self -destructive strategy. Sooner or later, that will become painfully obvious,” they write.
Despite success ads by the government, markets already show signs of tension. Bitcoin’s fall reflects how even decentralized assets react to the uncertainty caused by protectionist measures. For the authors of the publishing house, The new agreements do not strengthen the global position of the United States, but could weaken it. The country, they say, will end up being the one that loses the most in this strategy.
