Travel To Wealth: Tariffs, Taxes, and Tightening: Navigating Recession Risks and Asset Price Impacts in 2025

Sunday, May 4, 2025

Trump’s Tariffs Just Buried the Silver Squeeze—Now the Real Shortage Begins | Lyn Alden (YouTube link)

Summary of Video: Economic Impacts of Tariffs, Tax Policy, and Monetary Dynamics on Recession Risks and Asset Prices

The video analyzes the economic implications of large-scale tariffs, counter-tariffs, and their interaction with tax policies, focusing on potential recession risks, business planning challenges, and inflationary pressures. It also discusses monetary policy, liquidity, and asset price correlations, with additional insights into Bitcoin and precious metals markets.

Large tariffs, especially if met with counter-tariffs, act as a significant global tax increase, raising costs for consumers and businesses.
Without substantial tax reductions (e.g., income or corporate tax cuts proposed by the Trump administration), tariffs could dominate, increasing recession risks by reducing economic activity.
Current uncertainty stems from tariffs being implemented before clarity on tax legislation, leaving businesses in limbo.

Tariffs create frictions and inefficiencies by complicating international contracts and supply chain planning, countering the administration’s goal of reducing regulatory burdens.
A broad 20%+ tariff on all imports would be a “meaningful tax increase,” significantly disrupting economic activity and increasing planning complexity.

Reshoring production (e.g., electronics from China) due to tariffs involves moving to higher-cost jurisdictions like the U.S., where healthcare and other costs (e.g., for manufacturing workers) are among the highest globally.
Many industries (e.g., rare earth metals, energy-intensive or toxic production) are offshore due to cost advantages, and relocating them incurs significant time, cost, and complexity, potentially raising prices.

Tariffs and reshoring conflict with the goal of reducing inflation, as they either tax foreign goods (raising prices) or shift production to higher-cost areas (also raising prices).
Other anti-inflation measures (e.g., reducing regulations, ensuring energy supply) may help, but their effectiveness is limited by tariff-driven cost increases.
Small, targeted tariffs are less inflationary, but large-scale tariffs (e.g., affecting trillions in industrial base) could have significant inflationary effects if implemented broadly.

The past 30 years of globalization (post-NAFTA, China’s opening, Soviet Union collapse) connected cheap labor with Western capital, creating a structural disinflationary force by producing goods in low-cost regions.
This benefited consumers, Wall Street, and governments but hurt U.S. industrial workers. Unwinding globalization through tariffs reverses this, introducing frictions and higher costs.

Globalization increased corporate margins while suppressing wages due to global labor competition.
Tariffs and reshoring could boost wages (a positive for workers), but costs are borne by consumers (higher prices) or companies (lower margins), depending on tariff specifics and substitution options.

Broad money supply (M2) growth correlates with asset prices in the current environment. In 2022, both Fed quantitative tightening (QT) and Treasury actions drained liquidity, causing a poor year for assets.
Post-2022, Treasury actions offset some Fed tightening, but ongoing QT suppresses M2 growth. Other factors (e.g., bank lending, fiscal deficits, buyer types) also influence M2.
The 2010s saw steady M2 growth with market bumps (e.g., 2017 rate hikes), while the 1990s had low M2 growth but strong equities due to high monetary velocity and demographics.

The Fed has slowed QT (reduced Treasury runoff rates) and may pause or stop it by late 2025, as the $2 trillion reverse repo facility (down to $100 billion) can no longer offset tightening.
Aggressive QT could strain the Treasury market, impacting other assets, likely prompting Fed backpedaling.

Loose fiscal policy (high deficits) is stimulatory, but tight Fed policy (QT, rate hikes) counters it. Their relative shifts significantly affect liquidity and asset prices.
Without new liquidity sources, tighter policy would likely be negative for assets.

Regulatory certainty (e.g., spot Bitcoin ETF approval, Trump victory) has boosted corporate confidence in holding Bitcoin, reducing tail risks and supporting price increases.
Liquidity hasn’t improved significantly post-election, but a better regulatory outlook drives rational price gains.
A large U.S. Bitcoin purchase (or other central banks/sovereign funds accumulating) could significantly boost prices, while corporate adoption trends also matter.
On-chain metrics (e.g., market cap vs. cost basis) are “middling,” not signaling euphoria or major tops, suggesting confidence for the next 18 months.

Gold buying has shifted from foreign central banks and Chinese buyers to North American investors, supporting prices.
Gold is the low-volatility precious metal for large entities (e.g., central banks), while silver, platinum, and miners attract high-volatility hard-money enthusiasts.
Bitcoin competes more with silver and gold miners (high-volatility assets) than gold, as their buyer bases differ.

Large-scale tariffs without significant tax cuts increase recession odds by acting as a global tax hike, raising costs, and disrupting planning.
Reshoring at scale introduces frictions and higher costs, potentially offsetting anti-inflation measures and challenging corporate margins or consumer prices.
Monetary tightening (QT) and limited liquidity sources could pressure asset prices, though Fed easing (e.g., pausing QT) may mitigate this.
The economy faces a delicate balance: tariffs aim to boost domestic wages and industry but risk inflation and inefficiency, while monetary and fiscal dynamics will shape asset market outcomes.

Travel To Wealth