World's Economic Expansion Remains Unabated Despite Trump's Tariffs... For Now

World's Economic Expansion Remains Unabated Despite Trump's Tariffs... For Now

In the midst of Trump's aggressive trade confrontations with long-time allies and antagonistic posturing, one thing remains clear: globalization keeps powering ahead, propelling economic growth across the globe. It's a testament to its robustness, proving time and again why it's been instrumental in lifting nearly every nation's economy and living standards.

The pseudo-protectionist: Trump and his trade tactics

With blunt rhetoric, Trump has used the initial stages of his second term to lash out at allies like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, accusing the United States of being short-changed. His trade strategy has leaned more toward confrontation than cooperation, imposing or threatening hefty tariffs, claiming they're alleviating trade deficits and fattening foreign coffers on the backs of the American people.

However, it's difficult to justify globalization as a zero-sum game based on Trump's claims. While U.S. manufacturing jobs have decline since the turn of the century, eviscerating industrial cities across the American heartland, it's far from clear that globalization is entirely to blame.

The Global 2000 List: A testament to globalization's success

Over the previous 23 years, Forbes has published the Global 2000 list — an annual roster of the world's 2,000 largest companies, ranked by sales, profit, assets, and market value, with equal weighting for each metric. In the year 2000, the selection represented $21.9 trillion in annual sales, $1.3 trillion in profit, $80.7 trillion in assets, and $26.6 trillion in market value. Fast forward to the present, and those staggering figures jumped to $52.9 trillion in revenue, $4.9 trillion in profit, $242.2 trillion in assets, and $91.3 trillion in market cap. More than half this astounding growth can be traced back to the U.S. — home to Walmart, the company with the highest 12-month sales, Alphabet (Google), the world's most profitable corporation, and Apple, the most valuable company at the time the data was compiled on April 25.

The unease of CEOs: A looming shadow of doubt

Leaders of many of the largest U.S. corporations, as well as their global counterparts, are expressing concern about the potential economic repercussions of a trade war. Walmart CEO Doug McMillon noted that higher tariffs would, in turn, raise prices, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon devoted the bulk of his annual letter to macroeconomic and geopolitical concerns before even bringing up his own firm. In a reference to Trump's "America First" slogan, Dimon stated, "Shame on the administration" for antagonizing McMillon's comment about prices.

The imbalance tilt: America's dominance under threat

Though the U.S. retains a healthy margin over China and the rest of the world with the most companies on the Global 2000, Dimon's cautionary tone cannot be overlooked. JPMorgan, which has held the No. 1 spot on the Global 2000 for three years, has seen a stock increase of 30% in the last year. However, the top 100 American companies on the list, on average, gained just 10.5% in market value, whereas their overseas counterparts outperformed them by three percentage points. In fact, since Trump took office, the S&P 500, which has shown volatility, has yielded a scant 0.59% gain, when compared to nearly 20% gains for European and Chinese stocks. Over the past ten years, the top 100 U.S. companies on the list have generated an average cumulative return of 488%, while their overseas counterparts have fetched a 143% average return.

The world's podium shift: Foreign companies are now on top

After years of underperformance, foreign companies outpaced U.S. corporations in the market last year. Berkshire Hathaway, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Saudi Aramco, and Amazon hold the top four spots on this year's overall Global 2000.

The financial sector's dominance: Banks call the shots

Five of the top eight companies on the list hail from the financial sector. Although technology giants reign supreme in terms of market capitalization, they are relatively underrepresented on the list, with only 186 entrants divided among the software and services, hardware and semiconductors categories. The overwhelming majority belong to the banking, insurance, or other financial sectors, granting them a built-in advantage.

The Washington-Wall Street connection: Rebuilding the American economy

Despite limited movement at the top of the Global 2000, shifts deeper in the list occurred. AI chipmaker extraordinaire Nvidia leaped into the top 100 for the first time, surging 63 spots to 47th. Disney and Pfizer also re-entered the top 100 due to a profit resurgence, although Pfizer's stock value remains 60% below its pandemic-era peak.

On the flip side, BP plummeted 374 spots to 421 due to a fall in profit from $9.2 billion to $399 million, impacted by falling oil prices and refinery outages. Intel similarly descended 488 slots after posting a net loss of $19 billion in the last twelve months. The struggling Santa Clara, California-based chipmaker has lagged behind in the AI race and has reported five consecutive quarters of unprofitability.

In conclusion: A race against time

Though the United States still maintains a sizeable lead with 612 companies on the list headquartered there, China follows closely with 317 — including firms based in Hong Kong. The slow year for IPOs leaves few newcomers to the list, but notable new additions include Smithfield Foods, AI cloud computing firm CoreWeave, and SiriusXM Holdings. The highest new entrant, Irish firm Smurfit Westrock, ranks 855th, having formed via a merger between Smurfit Kappa and Westrock in July last year.

Bankers are anxiously awaiting Trump's promises of deregulation to drive mergers and IPOs, which could stir up movement on next year's Global 2000. Although tariffs and protectionist policies may engender temporary government revenue, their long-term economic impacts and the potential risks to perpetual prosperity are up for debate. It's up to Trump, Congress, and the global community to decide if the increased revenue — effectively a tax on international trade — is worth sacrificing the benefits derived from globalization.

This story was originally published on Forbes.com, with all figures in USD.

Enrichment Data

Overall:

Major U.S. and global company CEOs, though not quoted directly in the available sources, generally express concerns about the economic impacts of trade wars that are consistent with the findings of leading economists and analysts:

1. Rising Costs and Inflation: Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, raising prices for consumers and businesses that rely on global supply chains. This can fuel inflation and reduce purchasing power for American households[1].
2. Supply Chain Disruptions: Industries dependent on imported components face delays and higher production costs, which can lead to reduced output and layoffs, especially in manufacturing sectors sensitive to international trade[1].
3. Decreased Competitiveness: U.S. exporters may see reduced access to foreign markets as trading partners retaliate with their own tariffs, making American goods more expensive abroad and reducing export volumes[1].
4. Investment Uncertainty: The unpredictability of trade policy can discourage domestic and foreign investment, as businesses face greater risks when making long-term decisions.
5. Job Market Impact: While some policymakers argue that tariffs protect domestic jobs, most recent research — including analysis of the 2018-2019 US-China trade war — shows that trade wars do not typically create net employment gains in the U.S.; instead, they can lead to job losses in export-dependent industries[2].

Potential Economic Impacts on the United States

• Rising Costs and Inflation: Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, raising prices for consumers and businesses that rely on global supply chains. This can fuel inflation and reduce purchasing power for American households[1].
• Supply Chain Disruptions: Industries dependent on imported components face delays and higher production costs, which can lead to reduced output and layoffs, especially in manufacturing sectors sensitive to international trade[1].
• Decreased Competitiveness: U.S. exporters may see reduced access to foreign markets as trading partners retaliate with their own tariffs, making American goods more expensive abroad and reducing export volumes[1].
• Investment Uncertainty: The unpredictability of trade policy can discourage domestic and foreign investment, as businesses face greater risks when making long-term decisions.
• Job Market Impact: While some policymakers argue that tariffs protect domestic jobs, most recent research — including analysis of the 2018-2019 US-China trade war — shows that trade wars do not typically create net employment gains in the U.S.; instead, they can lead to job losses in export-dependent industries[2].

Potential Economic Impacts on the World

• Global Recession Risk: Major trade wars can slow global economic growth by reducing trade volumes and disrupting supply chains. The resulting uncertainty may decrease investment and consumption worldwide[1].
• Trade Deflection: Countries not directly involved in the dispute, such as Brazil, may experience job growth as trade flows shift due to tariff barriers between major powers. For example, Brazilian regions specializing in industries targeted by Chinese tariffs against the U.S. saw job gains as China sourced goods from elsewhere[2].
• Relocation of Supply Chains: Companies may accelerate plans to relocate production outside of high-tariff zones, leading to job losses in some countries and gains in others, but overall increasing inefficiency and costs in global trade networks.
• Increased Unemployment in Export-Oriented Economies: Countries heavily reliant on exports to the U.S., such as China, risk significant job losses. For instance, private-sector analysts estimate that China could lose up to 16 million jobs, primarily in manufacturing and export sectors, if access to the U.S. market is severely restricted[3].

Summary Table: Key Potential Impacts

| Impact Area | United States | World (especially China and exporters) ||-----------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|| Inflation | Likely to rise | Import costs increase || Supply Chains | Disrupted, higher costs | Disrupted, relocation || Export Growth | Likely to decrease | Decreases for targeted countries || Jobs | Mixed, but net gains unlikely | Job losses in export hubs, gains elsewhere (e.g., Brazil)[2][3] || Investment | Reduced due to uncertainty | Global uncertainty and reduced flows || Global Growth | Negative impact | Risk of global slowdown/recession[1] |

CEO Sentiment and Industry Outlook

While official CEO statements are not directly cited here, broad industry sentiment is reflected in economic analyses: CEOs of major corporations typically warn against escalating trade tensions, fearing increased costs, supply chain volatility, and reduced global market access. They advocate for free trade and stable international rules to support long-term growth and investment[1][3].

1. In spite of Trump's trade strategies and tariffs, the financial sector maintains a significant influence, as five of the top eight companies on the Global 2000 list belong to the banking, insurance, or other financial sectors.
2. Meanwhile, CEOs from major U.S. corporations, along with their global counterparts, are expressing concern about the potential economic repercussions of a trade war, highlighting issues such as rising costs and inflation, supply chain disruptions, decreased competitiveness, investment uncertainty, and job market impact.

Read also: