Just in case you're looking for an opportunity to read some more about tariffs, Howard Marks has a new memo out titled "Nobody Knows (Yet Again)." In it, he talks about comparative advantage, how global trade has benefited Americans, and what this could mean for the future.

Here's an excerpt that I found interesting specifically because I've also been thinking about the parallels with Brexit:

I consider the tariff developments thus far to be what soccer fans call an “own goal” – a goal scored for the other side when a player accidentally puts the ball into his own team’s net. In this way, they’re highly analogous to Brexit, and we know how that turned out. Brexit cost the British mightily in terms of GDP, morale, and alliances, and it harmed their reputation for governance and stability. All of this damage was self-inflicted.

In the memo, he also provides an important history lesson:

To cite one more factor that has made the world a better place, I describe the behavior of the U.S. in the post-World War II period as “generosity toward the rest of the world stemming from enlightened self-interest.” Under the Marshall Plan, we gave (not loaned) billions of dollars with which Western Europe rebuilt. Likewise, between 1945 and 1952, General Douglas MacArthur oversaw the reconstruction of Japan and the strengthening of its economy. Since then, the U.S. has (a) distributed extensive foreign aid, (b) invested heavily in healthcare in developing nations, (c) created programs that bring foreign students to the U.S. and vice versa, and (d) beamed positive messages to people throughout the world. These are all instances of generosity. In each “transaction,” we gave more than we directly got, and a cynic might say we acted like suckers.

Yes, these things can be described as largesse, but as the National Archive puts it, the Marshall Plan “provided markets for American goods, created reliable trading partners, and supported the development of stable democratic governments in Western Europe.” That’s a pretty good payoff. People in other countries received lots of freebies, but certainly these programs helped the U.S. by restraining communism, bringing nations into defensive alignment with the U.S., and contributing to the U.S.’s position as the world’s most prosperous nation. I have no interest in seeing the U.S. turn isolationist.

Unfortunately, greater isolation will almost certainly be one of the consequences of Trump's tariffs. It doesn't matter that many of them have now been paused; the damage has been done. We've seen this spastic movie before. In fact, they could all go to zero tomorrow, and there would still be damage.

This is an enormous change to the world order.

Cover photo by taro ohtani on Unsplash

We all know what happened this week:

Donald Trump’s decision on April 2 2025 to enact sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on US trade partners will go down as one of the greatest acts of self-harm in American economic history. They will wreak untold damage on households, businesses and financial markets across the world, upending a global economic order that America benefited from and helped to create.

We also know it was based on highly questionable math:

His “reciprocal” levies amount to a back-of-the-envelope calculation. They take trade partners’ US trade deficit in goods as a share of imports from that country, and then divide it by two. This is not a calibrated attempt to equalise tariff and non-tariff barriers facing US exporters, perceived or otherwise. It is, however, a reckless repudiation of all trade agreements the US has signed, as well as a deeply flawed plan to attract foreign manufacturing investment.

So what happens next?

Assuming this behavior persists, the US will continue to isolate itself from global trade, and the rest of the world will pivot and quickly move to trade more freely among themselves. This maybe isn't as problematic as some might think. Today, the US represents about 13.5% of global goods imports, which is down from almost 20% in 2000. And the biggest drivers of global growth are now China and the Euro area.

To that end, here's a fascinating study from IMD Business School that looked at how long it will take for various trading partners to completely wean themselves off of the US. And to do this, they looked at non-US import growth for the 10-year period from 2012 to 2022, and then extrapolated. This is what they learned:

What this chart says is that by the end of this year, some 70 US trading partners could, in theory, replace the loss of the US export market so long as non-US growth continues as it did in the past. And by 2039, the number jumps to over 140 trading parties. 2039 is obviously a long ways away, but I think it's noteworthy that year one in this specific chart already starts with 70.

Importantly, Canada does not fall within this initial bucket. Based on the study, we are in the danger zone. That is, exports to the US make up more than 10% of our GDP and it will take more than 10 years for full export recovery. But again, this is based on historic non-US growth. So all this means is that the status quo cannot continue; we need to dramatically increase this growth rate and do it as quickly as possible.

I hope our leaders recognize the urgency of this, because nothing can be taken for granted when it comes to the US right now. We need to be hyper focused on full trade recovery as soon as possible. Canada needs to be open for business to the world.

Cover photo by Ben Wicks on Unsplash

New York City was supposed to terminate its congestion pricing program last Friday because, well, Trump told them to. But they didn't do it and so harsh words were exchanged and then the deadline was extended for another 30 days. (This sounds oddly familiar.) Who knows what happens next month, but we are able to accurately quantify the benefits of nearly 3 months of congestion pricing.

Firstly, it's generating a lot of money. In the first two months of operation, congestion pricing has already brought in over $100 million in new revenue for the city. This is important because it's money that can be used for transit and other infrastructure improvements.

Equally important is the fact that this money was generated by creating measurable value for drivers. For all of the river crossings that lead into the CBD, average weekday travel times this past January are lower compared to January 2024. And in some cases, they're lower by a lot. The Holland Tunnel, for example, saw travel times drop by 48%.

Lastly, it's encouraging more people to take public transit. Here's a chart from Sam Deutsch over at Better Cities showing the increases in ridership since the program was implemented:

The MTA as a whole is now averaging about 448,000 more public transit riders per day. And to put this number into perspective, Sam reminds us that Washington DC has the second most-used public transit system in the US and that it sees an average of about 304,000 total riders per day (January 2024 figure). So in other words, New York's congestion pricing bump alone was nearly 1.5x DC's entire ridership base.

Some critics will argue that NYC's subway is dangerous and that this program unfairly pushes people toward it. But crime data suggests otherwise. New York's subway also saw over a billion rides in 2024! So I don't know how you argue that less people should be taking it. It's pretty clear that this is what moves the city. Imagine if the above went the opposite way and 448,000 more people started driving to work.

Some people may not like it, but the reality is that congestion pricing is doing exactly what it's intended to do: reduce traffic congestion, make money, and encourage more sustainable forms of urban mobility.

Cover photo by Wells Baum on Unsplash

Just in case you're looking for an opportunity to read some more about tariffs, Howard Marks has a new memo out titled "Nobody Knows (Yet Again)." In it, he talks about comparative advantage, how global trade has benefited Americans, and what this could mean for the future.

Here's an excerpt that I found interesting specifically because I've also been thinking about the parallels with Brexit:

I consider the tariff developments thus far to be what soccer fans call an “own goal” – a goal scored for the other side when a player accidentally puts the ball into his own team’s net. In this way, they’re highly analogous to Brexit, and we know how that turned out. Brexit cost the British mightily in terms of GDP, morale, and alliances, and it harmed their reputation for governance and stability. All of this damage was self-inflicted.

In the memo, he also provides an important history lesson:

To cite one more factor that has made the world a better place, I describe the behavior of the U.S. in the post-World War II period as “generosity toward the rest of the world stemming from enlightened self-interest.” Under the Marshall Plan, we gave (not loaned) billions of dollars with which Western Europe rebuilt. Likewise, between 1945 and 1952, General Douglas MacArthur oversaw the reconstruction of Japan and the strengthening of its economy. Since then, the U.S. has (a) distributed extensive foreign aid, (b) invested heavily in healthcare in developing nations, (c) created programs that bring foreign students to the U.S. and vice versa, and (d) beamed positive messages to people throughout the world. These are all instances of generosity. In each “transaction,” we gave more than we directly got, and a cynic might say we acted like suckers.

Yes, these things can be described as largesse, but as the National Archive puts it, the Marshall Plan “provided markets for American goods, created reliable trading partners, and supported the development of stable democratic governments in Western Europe.” That’s a pretty good payoff. People in other countries received lots of freebies, but certainly these programs helped the U.S. by restraining communism, bringing nations into defensive alignment with the U.S., and contributing to the U.S.’s position as the world’s most prosperous nation. I have no interest in seeing the U.S. turn isolationist.

Unfortunately, greater isolation will almost certainly be one of the consequences of Trump's tariffs. It doesn't matter that many of them have now been paused; the damage has been done. We've seen this spastic movie before. In fact, they could all go to zero tomorrow, and there would still be damage.

This is an enormous change to the world order.

Cover photo by taro ohtani on Unsplash

We all know what happened this week:

Donald Trump’s decision on April 2 2025 to enact sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on US trade partners will go down as one of the greatest acts of self-harm in American economic history. They will wreak untold damage on households, businesses and financial markets across the world, upending a global economic order that America benefited from and helped to create.

We also know it was based on highly questionable math:

His “reciprocal” levies amount to a back-of-the-envelope calculation. They take trade partners’ US trade deficit in goods as a share of imports from that country, and then divide it by two. This is not a calibrated attempt to equalise tariff and non-tariff barriers facing US exporters, perceived or otherwise. It is, however, a reckless repudiation of all trade agreements the US has signed, as well as a deeply flawed plan to attract foreign manufacturing investment.

So what happens next?

Assuming this behavior persists, the US will continue to isolate itself from global trade, and the rest of the world will pivot and quickly move to trade more freely among themselves. This maybe isn't as problematic as some might think. Today, the US represents about 13.5% of global goods imports, which is down from almost 20% in 2000. And the biggest drivers of global growth are now China and the Euro area.

To that end, here's a fascinating study from IMD Business School that looked at how long it will take for various trading partners to completely wean themselves off of the US. And to do this, they looked at non-US import growth for the 10-year period from 2012 to 2022, and then extrapolated. This is what they learned:

What this chart says is that by the end of this year, some 70 US trading partners could, in theory, replace the loss of the US export market so long as non-US growth continues as it did in the past. And by 2039, the number jumps to over 140 trading parties. 2039 is obviously a long ways away, but I think it's noteworthy that year one in this specific chart already starts with 70.

Importantly, Canada does not fall within this initial bucket. Based on the study, we are in the danger zone. That is, exports to the US make up more than 10% of our GDP and it will take more than 10 years for full export recovery. But again, this is based on historic non-US growth. So all this means is that the status quo cannot continue; we need to dramatically increase this growth rate and do it as quickly as possible.

I hope our leaders recognize the urgency of this, because nothing can be taken for granted when it comes to the US right now. We need to be hyper focused on full trade recovery as soon as possible. Canada needs to be open for business to the world.

Cover photo by Ben Wicks on Unsplash

New York City was supposed to terminate its congestion pricing program last Friday because, well, Trump told them to. But they didn't do it and so harsh words were exchanged and then the deadline was extended for another 30 days. (This sounds oddly familiar.) Who knows what happens next month, but we are able to accurately quantify the benefits of nearly 3 months of congestion pricing.

Firstly, it's generating a lot of money. In the first two months of operation, congestion pricing has already brought in over $100 million in new revenue for the city. This is important because it's money that can be used for transit and other infrastructure improvements.

Equally important is the fact that this money was generated by creating measurable value for drivers. For all of the river crossings that lead into the CBD, average weekday travel times this past January are lower compared to January 2024. And in some cases, they're lower by a lot. The Holland Tunnel, for example, saw travel times drop by 48%.

Lastly, it's encouraging more people to take public transit. Here's a chart from Sam Deutsch over at Better Cities showing the increases in ridership since the program was implemented:

The MTA as a whole is now averaging about 448,000 more public transit riders per day. And to put this number into perspective, Sam reminds us that Washington DC has the second most-used public transit system in the US and that it sees an average of about 304,000 total riders per day (January 2024 figure). So in other words, New York's congestion pricing bump alone was nearly 1.5x DC's entire ridership base.

Some critics will argue that NYC's subway is dangerous and that this program unfairly pushes people toward it. But crime data suggests otherwise. New York's subway also saw over a billion rides in 2024! So I don't know how you argue that less people should be taking it. It's pretty clear that this is what moves the city. Imagine if the above went the opposite way and 448,000 more people started driving to work.

Some people may not like it, but the reality is that congestion pricing is doing exactly what it's intended to do: reduce traffic congestion, make money, and encourage more sustainable forms of urban mobility.

Cover photo by Wells Baum on Unsplash