Trump's Tariffs

[Sparty]

What I put to Perplexity:
"Reducing dependency on China for critical resources like electronic chips and rare earth metals, which is seen as a national security concern but the US has relatively none of the substrates from silver REEs et al"

Response:
The article does present reducing dependency on China for critical resources like electronic chips and rare earth metals as a national security rationale for the tariffs, but doesn't address the fundamental challenge: the United States has very limited domestic supplies of many of these critical materials.

This creates a significant complication to the "decoupling" argument. While tariffs might encourage shifting supply chains away from China, they don't solve the underlying problem that the US lacks sufficient domestic sources of rare earth elements (REEs), silver, and other critical minerals needed for electronics, renewable energy technologies, and defense applications.
Even if manufacturing shifts to other countries, those alternative producers would still likely depend on Chinese raw materials or processing capabilities, as China controls a substantial portion of the global supply chain for these resources. Without developing alternative sources or investing heavily in domestic extraction and processing (which comes with its own environmental and economic challenges), the tariffs alone don't address this fundamental vulnerability.
This highlights a key weakness in the national security justification for broad tariffs - they may create economic pressure without solving the actual strategic resource dependencies that matter most.

Query: For the US to match the mining (it can't) etc would take years around 10 - 15 to convert resources to reserves and then to mine and metalize?

You're absolutely right about the timeline. Even if the US were to aggressively pursue development of domestic rare earth elements and other critical minerals (which, as you note, is challenging given the limited domestic resources), the process would be measured in decades, not months or even a few years.
The full cycle would involve:

Extensive geological surveys to locate viable deposits
Converting identified resources into proven reserves through detailed testing
Obtaining permits (environmental, land use, etc.)
Developing mining infrastructure
Building processing and metallurgical facilities
Training specialized workforce
Establishing supply chains

A 10-15 year timeline is actually quite realistic, and possibly optimistic in some cases. The Mountain Pass mine in California?the only major rare earth elements mine in the US?took years to restart after previous closures, and still doesn't process all materials domestically.
This highlights a critical disconnect in the trade policy approach. Imposing sudden, high tariffs creates immediate economic disruption but doesn't address the fundamental long-term challenge of establishing alternative supply chains for these critical materials. The abrupt decoupling strategy doesn't align with the practical timeline required to develop viable alternatives.
Meanwhile, the US would still need to source these materials from somewhere during that lengthy development period, likely from other countries that themselves rely on Chinese raw materials or processing capacity.

Query: The US would be left naked if it weren't for China?

In terms of critical minerals and materials like rare earth elements, there is significant dependency on China that can't be quickly eliminated. This doesn't mean the US would be completely "naked" without China, but it does face serious vulnerabilities and limitations.
The reality is more nuanced:

China dominates the global supply chain for rare earth elements and certain critical minerals, controlling approximately 60% of rare earth mining and around 90% of processing capacity.
Alternative sources do exist - Australia, Canada, Vietnam, Brazil, and others have deposits - but these supply chains are underdeveloped and would take years to scale up.
The US maintains strategic reserves of some materials, though not enough for long-term independence.
Japan and European countries have been working on reducing their own dependencies since China's 2010 rare earth export restrictions, providing potential partnership opportunities.
Recycling technologies for recovering these materials are improving but remain insufficient to meet demand.

The sudden decoupling implied by high tariffs creates an immediate vulnerability without addressing the underlying supply issue. While not completely "naked," the US would face serious constraints in high-tech manufacturing, defense systems, and renewable energy development if completely cut off from Chinese materials, with few immediate alternatives ready to fill the gap.

A more realistic approach would involve gradual supply chain diversification while maintaining some level of trade with China during the transition period.

Query:
Alternative sources do exist - Australia, Canada, Vietnam, Brazil, and others have deposits - but these supply chains are underdeveloped and would take years to scale up. Australia is the most advanced and has near term mine - metalizers coming on stream. REEs LYC, ASM, NTU, ARR


Response: You're right to highlight Australia as the most advanced alternative source for rare earth elements outside of China. Australia has made significant strides in developing its rare earth mining and processing capabilities, with several companies making important progress:

Lynas Rare Earths (LYC) - Currently the largest non-Chinese producer of separated rare earths, with mining operations at Mt. Weld in Western Australia and processing in Malaysia. They're also developing processing capacity in the US through their partnership with Blue Line Corporation in Texas.

Australian Strategic Materials (ASM) - Developing the Dubbo Project in NSW, which aims to provide zirconium, rare earths, niobium, and hafnium.

Northern Minerals (NTU) - Focused on heavy rare earths production through their Browns Range project in Western Australia.
Arafura Resources (ARR) - Working on the Nolans Project in the Northern Territory, which is positioned to supply neodymium and praseodymium (NdPr) for permanent magnets.

These Australian projects are indeed among the most advanced outside of China and could provide important supply diversification for the US and other countries. However, even with Australia's progress, the overall capacity still falls far short of China's dominant position, and full supply chain development (from mining to separated oxides to metals and alloys) remains a work in progress.

The critical challenge remains the transition period - even with Australian production ramping up, there would still be a significant gap between current demand and non-Chinese supply for years to come, which makes abrupt decoupling through high tariffs particularly problematic without a coordinated strategy for securing interim supplies.

[Sparty]

You've hit on a key contradiction in the trade policy approach. It's not economically rational to impose steep tariffs on your primary supplier of critical materials when:

You lack domestic alternatives
Other international sources aren't sufficiently developed
The materials in question are essential for high-tech manufacturing and national security

The tariff approach seems to prioritize political messaging and leverage over practical economic considerations. In a standard business relationship, you wouldn't typically alienate your sole supplier of critical components before securing alternative sources.
This highlights the tension between economic logic and geopolitical positioning. While reducing strategic dependency on China may be a legitimate long-term goal, the abrupt application of high tariffs creates immediate economic pain without solving the underlying supply challenges.
A more balanced approach would likely involve:

Gradual reduction in dependencies
Strategic investments in alternative sources (like the Australian companies you mentioned)
International partnerships to develop diverse supply chains
Continued engagement with China during the transition period

Without this measured approach, the tariffs risk harming US manufacturing capabilities and increasing costs while doing little to address the fundamental resource constraints.

You're right to call attention to this dynamic. The combination of high tariffs on Chinese goods while simultaneously remaining dependent on China for critical materials creates a particularly challenging situation.
Tariffs function as a tax that ultimately falls on domestic consumers and manufacturers. When applied to goods containing critical materials for which there are few alternatives, they create a double bind:

Higher costs for US manufacturers who need these materials
Limited ability to shift to alternative suppliers in the short term
Potential retaliatory measures from China affecting access to these materials
Price increases passed on to US consumers

This approach doesn't align with supply chain realities. While diversification makes strategic sense, the process requires time, investment, and international coordination.

The more rational sequence would be:

First, secure and develop alternative supply sources
Then, gradually shift dependencies as these alternatives come online
Finally, adjust trade policies to reflect the new supply chain landscape

Imposing significant tariffs before alternatives are viable puts pressure on the wrong side of the equation - punishing domestic users of these materials rather than creating viable alternatives.

[Sparty]

Shortages +tariffs makes no sense?
You've distilled the issue to its essence. When you combine existing material shortages with high tariffs, you create a perfect storm of economic disruption:

Shortages already create upward price pressure and supply constraints
Tariffs then artificially inflate those already elevated prices
Manufacturers face both limited availability AND higher costs
No quick alternatives exist to alleviate either problem

It's akin to imposing a drought tax on water during an actual drought - it exacerbates the existing problem without solving the underlying shortage.

This approach particularly hurts domestic manufacturing and technology sectors that depend on these materials. Rather than strengthening national security or economic resilience, it risks weakening both by making critical industries less competitive and more vulnerable to supply disruptions.

A more coherent policy would prioritize addressing the shortages first through investments in alternative sources, recycling technologies, and strategic partnerships before applying trade pressures that further constrain already limited supplies.

The current approach seems to prioritize political positioning over practical economic and security considerations.

[Sparty]

The end result of the US Tariffs will aid Australia to become richer because as discussed we have the critical minerals, and know how to mine them and of late metalize them?

You've made a very astute observation. The unintended consequence of US tariffs on China could indeed be a significant economic windfall for Australia. This creates an interesting geopolitical and economic dynamic:

As Chinese materials become more expensive due to tariffs, Australian mining companies gain a competitive advantage for their rare earth elements and critical minerals.

Investment will likely accelerate toward Australian projects like those you mentioned (Lynas, ASM, Northern Minerals, Arafura) as companies seek secure, tariff-free supply chains.

Australia benefits not just from raw material extraction but also from the higher-value processing and metallization capabilities they're developing.

The US essentially subsidizes Australian resource development through its trade policy toward China.

Australia can leverage its position as a democratic ally with critical resources to strengthen both economic and security partnerships with the US.

This shift could reorient a portion of the critical minerals supply chain from China to Australia over time, although Australia will need continued investment to scale up to the necessary capacity levels.

The irony is that US tariff policy intended to pressure China may end up being more beneficial to Australia's resource sector than to US domestic production, given Australia's more advanced position in developing these resources and processing capabilities.

[Sparty]

Summary of the Situation:

The Trump administration's recent tariffs on Chinese goods were intended to reduce U.S. reliance on China, especially for critical minerals. However, China's swift response restricting exports of seven key rare earth elements (REEs) vital to the electron economy has backfired on the U.S. by exposing its supply chain vulnerabilities. This move has caused immediate disruptions and price spikes in sectors like electric vehicles, semiconductors, and defense.

Opportunity for ASM and Other Non-Chinese Suppliers:

While these restrictions hurt U.S. industry in the short term, they create a significant opportunity for companies like Australian Strategic Materials (ASX: ASM). ASM?s Dubbo Project in New South Wales contains nearly all of the REEs now under Chinese export controls, and its integrated supply chain (including the Korean Metals Plant) allows it to deliver these materials outside of China's influence. As a result, ASM and similar companies are now positioned to benefit from increased Western investment and demand as the U.S. and its allies seek to diversify their supply chains.

Further Reading and Sources (all in http format):

China's Ministry of Commerce announcement:
http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/

Reuters coverage of China's rare earth export restrictions:
http://www.reuters.com/business/ener...ts-2025-04-04/

Nikkei Asia analysis on the impact of China's move:
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Mark...war-escalation

U.S. Geological Survey on rare earths:
http://www.usgs.gov/centers/national...nd-information

Australian Strategic Materials (ASM) official site:
http://www.asm-au.com/

Australian rare earths industry news:
http://www.australianmining.com.au/n...hs-production/

Background on rare earth elements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element

[Sparty]

Summary: "How China Plans to Cripple the US in Trade War" (AFR, April 15, 2025)
China's response to the escalating US-China trade war is a multi-layered, long-term strategy designed to inflict economic pain on the US while bolstering its own resilience and global standing. The article outlines how Beijing is shifting from short-term retaliation to a broader campaign aimed at enduring and outmaneuvering American pressure.

Read the article: How China Plans to Cripple the US in Trade War" (AFR, April 15, 2025)

[Sparty]

I asked Perplexity: How are Trump's Tariffs Playing out?

Response: Trump's tariffs in 2025 have dramatically increased the cost of imports, raised consumer prices, and caused economic uncertainty.

The average effective US tariff rate has jumped from 2.5% to about 27%, the highest in over a century. There is now a 10% minimum tariff on all imports, with much higher rates-up to 145%-on Chinese goods. Additional 25% tariffs target steel, aluminium, automobiles, and many products from Canada and Mexico. These policies have led to a sharp decline in trade with China and other countries, as well as significant retaliation from major trading partners like China, the EU, and Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff...administration
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/econo...ffs/index.html

For American consumers, the tariffs have resulted in higher prices across a wide range of goods. Businesses have started adding
"tariff surcharges" at checkout, and price increases are especially steep for products like apparel (up to 64% higher), cars (new vehicles up $5,000 to $15,000), and electronics. The average household is losing about $4,700 per year due to these price hikes, with the burden falling hardest on lower-income families. Some companies, such as Apple, are facing up to 40% price increases on flagship products. Even domestically produced goods are affected, since many rely on imported parts that are now more expensive.
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/consu...R0a_o_15wcGNwg
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...RKK0DnRTivBZiQ

The tariffs have also hurt US manufacturing and jobs. Studies show a net loss in manufacturing employment, with the Federal Reserve Board finding a 1.4% decrease in manufacturing jobs. Oxford Economics estimated the tariffs and trade war have cost 245,000 jobs and reduced real household incomes by $675 on average. Many businesses are facing higher costs, supply chain disruptions, and have paused hiring or investment due to the uncertainty.
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...SvSmjqLfjvAJ_g
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...QMWhpnsmcfDlDw

On the macroeconomic level, the tariffs are projected to lower US GDP growth by at least 1.1 percentage points and keep the economy 0.6% smaller in the long term. The Federal Reserve and OECD have downgraded US growth forecasts, and the risk of recession has increased. The Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has hit record highs, reflecting widespread concern among businesses and investors.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/consu...R0a_o_15wcGNwg
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...SvSmjqLfjvAJ_g

While the tariffs are generating significant federal revenue-estimates range from $2.1 trillion to over $5 trillion over a decade-this is offset by slower growth, job losses, and lower real wages. If trading partners retaliate, the net revenue gain drops sharply. Sectors most affected include agriculture, manufacturing, and mining, which are highly dependent on exports.
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...trumps-tariffs
https://www.piie.com/publications/pi...s-2025-tariffs

In summary, Trump's tariffs have raised government revenue but at the cost of higher consumer prices, job losses, slower economic growth, and increased global trade tensions. The overall economic consensus is that the tariffs are imposing broad costs on the US economy and households, with little evidence so far of a revival in domestic manufacturing or significant benefits to workers.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...ffs-trade-war/
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...SvSmjqLfjvAJ_g

Citations:
[1] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...SvSmjqLfjvAJ_g
[2] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...RKK0DnRTivBZiQ
[3] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...QMWhpnsmcfDlDw
[4] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/consu...R0a_o_15wcGNwg
[5] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/auto-...Qp.W4Ppg7F7UWw
[6] https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/econo...ffs/index.html
[7] https://www.piie.com/publications/pi...s-2025-tariffs
[8] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...trumps-tariffs
[9] https://taxfoundation.org/research/a...ffs-trade-war/
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff...administration
[11] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...RUG_1ZZmGSXPPQ
[12] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/germa...QumXaImyBGRp4Q
[13] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...R02uAJlAgFoukg
[14] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...TCi37gl2HxbC8w
[15] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...RpmTsydaJxUfLQ
[16] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...SBmDJ2UvSilb1g
[17] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...Q4.XK3KS5HXqag
[18] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...SryyAHQZXfWvuw
[19] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...Q5Sa5icyIzbn6g
[20] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...QHGURuMMiYw5gQ
[21] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...TfCJmAhldGhszA
[22] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...Qzuom5iO3GC15Q
[23] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...QNKN9xd65aaGUw
[24] https://www.perplexity.ai/discover/t...Rcq6..uqA2snQA
[25] https://www.perplexity.ai/page/trump...Rv.5DBVVMu9GYw
[26] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/10/chin...e-updates.html
[27] https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/20...trumps-tariffs
[28] https://theconversation.com/in-trade...ng-hand-254173
[29] https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2...iffs-explained
[30] https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/04/23...lobal-economy/
[31] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...es-2025-04-24/
[32] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-shee...omic-security/
[33] https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/23/busin...eks/index.html
[34] https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/23/econo...ntl/index.html
[35] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn93e12rypgo
[36] https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/busin...cap/index.html
[37] http://secnewgate.au/trumps-tariffs-...an-businesses/
[38] https://crawford.anu.edu.au/cama/con...s-2025-tariffs

[Sparty]

Nature's article 'Will US science survive Trump 2.0?' examines concerns within the US scientific community about the potential impacts of a second Trump presidency. It outlines how, during Donald Trump's first term, science agencies faced budget cuts, political interference, and a side-lining of scientific expertise, particularly around issues like climate change and public health. Many scientists worry that a return to such policies could further erode trust in science, disrupt funding, and undermine the United States' global leadership in research and innovation.

The article highlights specific fears, such as the rollback of climate initiatives, increased restrictions on immigration that affect international researchers, and the politicisation of public health agencies. It also notes that some scientists are preparing to defend their work and institutions, while others are considering leaving the US or shifting their research focus. The piece concludes that the outcome of the 2024 election will have significant consequences for the direction of US science, with the broader scientific community watching closely and hoping for policies that support evidence-based decision-making and continued investment in research.

Read the full article at:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01295-6

[Sparty]

The main policies that Americans disapprove of regarding President Trump are:

Tariffs and trade policy
Most Americans disapprove of President Trump's increased tariffs on imports. Polls show that between 59 percent and 64 percent of Americans are unhappy with these tariffs, mainly because they believe tariffs have raised the cost of living and contributed to economic instability. Many people see these policies as making everyday goods more expensive and hurting both consumers and businesses.

Cuts to federal government and public services
Trump's significant cuts to federal departments and agencies are viewed negatively by a majority of Americans. Around 55 percent disapprove of these reductions, and 59 percent believe the administration is being too careless in how it makes these cuts. There is widespread concern that these actions will reduce essential public programs and services, making government less effective and potentially costing Americans more in the long run.

Use of executive orders and centralised power
A majority of Americans believe Trump is setting too much policy through executive orders and bypassing Congress. About 51 percent say this approach gives too much power to the executive branch, which is seen as excessive by many, including independents and moderate Republicans.

Economic management and inflation
Trump's handling of the economy, especially regarding inflation and the cost of living, is a major source of disapproval. More than half of Americans, between 53 percent and 56 percent, disapprove of his economic management. Many blame his policies for rising prices and increased financial pressure on households. Confidence in Trump's economic decision-making has dropped to its lowest point in years.

Immigration policy
Trump's stricter immigration policies are divisive and broadly unpopular with the general public. Actions such as increasing deportations, sending more military to the border, cutting funding for sanctuary cities, suspending asylum applications, and attempts to redefine birthright citizenship all receive majority disapproval among Democrats and significant opposition from independents. For example, 56 percent of Americans disapprove of his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship.

Foreign policy decisions
A majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's decisions to withdraw from the World Health Organization, end USAID programs, and exit the Paris Agreement. There is also broad opposition to proposals such as relocating Palestinians from Gaza and perceived favouritism toward Russia in foreign affairs.

Perceived extremism and priorities
A growing share of Americans, around 59 percent, believe Trump's views and policies are too extreme. Many feel he is not addressing the nation's most pressing issues, and there is widespread concern that his administration's changes are more about advancing his own agenda than improving government effectiveness.

In summary, Americans' main disapproval centres on Trump's tariffs and economic policies, government cuts, use of executive orders, divisive immigration measures, controversial foreign policy moves, and a general sense that his approach is too extreme and not focused on the country's real needs.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...ears-100-days/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...poll-approval/
https://navigatorresearch.org/most-a...f-the-economy/
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/12/polit...-trump-economy
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-re...sses-congress/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7vejvjwp0o

---
Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share