“Tariffs generally are bad for world trade, especially for the weakest trading countries,” says letter writer TIM WALSHAW, of Watson.

With the impost of tariffs, Australia will bear most of the costs, while the effect on the US will be minimal. Australia must do everything in its power to avoid the effect of US tariffs.

There is a lot of opposition to the US instituting 25 per cent tariffs, and one of the many arguments is that they will harm the US economy by increasing the price of imports. 

But economists familiar with trade theory know this is untrue; as well as, no doubt, do Donald Trump’s economic advisers.

So, what happens if the US increases tariffs by 25 per cent? It all depends on the economic strength of their particular trading partner. 

It is what is called the incidence effect. 

For an economically strong country such as the US, the incidence effect can pass most of the tariff back on to its trading partner, the seller. So for instance, in a trade between the US and a weak trading partner, imposing a 25 per cent tariff could mean that the US price could rise only 5 per cent and the selling country would reduce its selling price by 20 per cent, for example. Hardly an inflationary effect for the US.

The US would benefit further since it is such a large market, because manufacturing would be moved to the US behind the tariff wall. This would increase employment in the US.

However, there would be an even greater gain through the multiplier effect. For every factory commenced in the US, there would be increased employment through increased demand for goods of its suppliers and the supplies for building the factories. This increase of employment could be up to six times the number employed at the original factory.

Is China currently a weak economy? A good question. But Australia certainly is. For instance, the domestic price of Australia’s exports of aluminium from Australia to the US would fall by nearly 25 per cent, while the US price would rise hardly at all, as the tariff is passed back on to Australia.

Tariffs generally are bad for world trade, especially for the weakest trading countries. I have not mentioned flow-on effects including on floating exchange rates. The $A will certainly fall, which may not be a bad thing for exports, but will be for imports.

Tim Walshaw, Watson

Dutton couldn’t have saved us from tariffs

When is Peter Dutton and his sycophantic cheer squad going to realise that he is not an alternative to Albanese?

Dutton has one policy only – criticise, oppose and politicise everything the government has done or is about to do.

Look at the unnecessary fear mongering about the alleged caravan terrorist plot – concocting his own highly fictitious version of events.

And recently, this delusional statement, how he would have got tariff  exemptions across the line, if he were PM. Trump was never, ever going to concede these tariffs to anyone.

Tariffs are intrinsic to his MAGA statement, and he has too big an ego to back down, however damaging they are going to be for economies worldwide, including the US.

Much of the media gave Dutton’s empty rhetoric credibility, selling the story as, “Albo failed on tariff negotiations”, some suggesting that had he (Albo) faced up to Trump personally, instead of making a phone call, then the tariffs outcome for Australia would have been different.

Whoever did or did not make personal representation to Trump, the intended outcome still stands, with Canada, Mexico, China and the EU copping Tariffs, as much as 25 per cent, and now Australia.

Declan Mcgrath, via email

Perhaps all life depends on being a ‘leftie’

Ian Pilsner (Letters, CN March 20) asserts that “lefties like (Michael) Moore like to portray anything right of the far left as hard right”.

From Mr Pilsner’s perspective, anyone who is concerned about the state of the precious planet on which all human life, and perhaps all life, depends, is a “leftie”.

Mr Pilsner also wrote: “The push towards unproven climate change and the cultish morality that goes with it”. It is apparent that the writer is unaware that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has reached record levels, and is approaching the point of no return.

Earth is now warming at a pace 100 times greater than in recorded history. Heatwaves, such as that recently experienced by central and south-eastern Australia, are becoming more severe and longer, leading to drought and rampant wildfires. Warming ocean waters are supercharging cyclones, such as Tropical Cyclone Alfred, whose torrential rain and widespread flooding, are still lingering.

Such scenarios are being endured in regions such as the Mediterranean states, western Europe, southern Asia and even parts of China. Even melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps (Earth’s cooling system) is accelerating.

All nations must unite to reduce CO2 emissions and fight against potentially catastrophic human-induced global heating

Dr Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

How do you compare Sam with that fellow?

Bronwyn Halbisch (letters, CN March 13), “doesn’t want to see Sam Kerr’s face again” after “she disgraced herself, her position and Australian sport in general”. 

Okay, but what does Bronwyn think about the former deputy prime minister, who “disgraced himself, his current position and Australia’s reputation” in Braddon on a certain evening in February, 2024? 

How does Bronyn compare the former leader of the Nationals and his many instances of public missteps, political and social, with a young woman who helped raise the image of Australian female sport to new heights. 

And how does Bronwyn compare Sam, who has apologised sincerely for her behaviour, with a man who, no matter how egregious his actions on so many occasions, has always found a way to sidestep his responsibility to act honestly and, as a national representative, to admit his mistakes?

Eric Hunter, Cook

Silence is deafening over prison problems

Pray tell, Chief Minister Barr, when is the ACT government going to take the concerns of Canberra’s prison (the AMC) seriously?

There have been endless articles highlighting the poor conduct of senior management and custodial staff employed at the AMC, along with civil claims popping up on a regular basis, not to mention the increase of deaths in custody.

As a prison reform advocate, I have met with several MLAs to discuss concerns regarding the treatment of detainees housed at the AMC; however, thus far, the silence is deafening.

Being incarcerated is the loss of liberty; a consequence for breaking the law. It should not provide licence for (some, not all) AMC staff to assault detainees, nor treat them like putrid animals, stripping them of their dignity and self-worth. This is not conducive in supporting people to return to the community to lead a law-abiding life.

For those who stand by “do the crime, do the time”, allow me to state that we don’t know the life stories of people who become embroiled in the criminal justice system. Many have experienced trauma, been exposed to inter-generational criminal activity, have cognitive and/or mental health issues, substance use, co-occurring conditions, and the list goes on. 

The AMC was purpose-built on a human rights and rehabilitation philosophy. It is anything but that.

Rehabilitation is the intrinsic tool to reduce recidivism. Clearly, it is not working at the AMC as we maintain the highest rates of recidivism, along with the highest representation of First Nation’s people in Australia. And it’s costing the ACT taxpayers a motza for this major under achievement; we are hardly getting a bang for our buck.

The Barr government should hang its head in shame and, once and for all, lift their game.

Janine Haskins, prison reform advocate, Cook

Only one election loser, the environment

The Albanese government’s “climate policy” is to approve four coal mine extensions, allegedly expected to produce 900 million tonnes of CO2, during their lifetime. 

As this is totally incompatible with reducing global warming, it is the height of hypocrisy for the government to be pointing the finger at the opposition, when it is doing the same by prioritising increased coal production. 

What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Regrettably, it would now appear as though no matter who wins the upcoming election, there will only be one loser, the environment.

Mario Stivala Belconnen

When renewables will outlive their usefulness 

I read how the ubiquitous writers of letters to editors, Douglas Mackenzie  and Fiona Colin, are again at their sanctimonious best, arguing against the future and cost of nuclear power generation (letters, CN March 13), with incorrect facts.

They both should have a good look at the report “What would be required for nuclear energy plants to be operating in Australia from the 2030s”, June 2021, Stephen Wilson, University of Queensland. In particular, Figure 1 of the report makes it clear that renewable sources (wind and solar) will have outlived their usefulness by the mid-2040s, with nuclear taking over progressively from the mid-2030s.

 Max Flint, principal, Australian Logistics Study Centre