Jason Reed, University of Notre Dame

If U.S. voters reelected Donald Trump hoping for relief from higher prices, his recent threats to impose tariffs on America’s three largest trade partners might make them think again.

On Saturday, Feb. 1, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on China, which he said would take effect on Tuesday, Feb. 4. While markets braced for the news to some degree, they still saw a steep premarket sell-off on Monday, Feb. 3, followed by morning volatility.

While Canada and Mexico negotiated monthlong reprieves on Monday, the new tariffs on China went into effect as expected Tuesday, Feb. 4. And while the ultimate shape of Trump’s tariff policy remains to be seen, the president warned that American consumers could feel “some pain” as a result.

Given my training as an economist and finance professor, I think Trump could be right on that score. In fact, if the tariffs go into effect, they could spell disaster for the Federal Reserve’s inflation reduction efforts.

From grocery stores to homes

U.S. consumers might be surprised to find out that almost every economic sector could be affected by this opening salvo of tariffs, should they go ahead in March. Imports from Mexico and Canada reached close to US$1 trillion in 2024, almost double the amount the U.S. imports from China.

The U.S. is particularly reliant on Mexico for fresh fruits and vegetables, and on Canada for lumber. So if the tariffs go into effect, Americans who have been waiting for home prices to ease may have to continue waiting, as tariffs on lumber and other building materials could worsen the affordable-housing crunch. And let’s not even talk about avocado prices.

Meanwhile, the 10% tariffs on Chinese goods will likely boost the price of electronics, and China has already imposed retaliatory measures. Trump has also proposed 25% tariffs on Taiwan and its semiconductor industry, in an attempt to push Taiwanese companies to invest more in U.S. manufacturing. If that tariff were to go into effect, prices for U.S. consumers would be even higher.

Advertisement

A tax by any other name …

Tariffs are an import tax. They’re passed through the supply chain in the form of higher prices and are eventually paid by consumers. Traditionally, governments have used tariffs as a fiscal tool to encourage businesses and consumers to move away from foreign-made products and support domestic businesses instead.

In theory, new tariffs could encourage foreign businesses to invest in the U.S. and make more stuff on American soil. Unfortunately, domestic manufacturing has seen a systemic decline since the 1980s, resulting in lower prices for consumers but severely limiting U.S.-produced products. In the short term, at least, import taxes on Canadian, Mexican and Chinese products would ultimately be paid by U.S. consumers.

Although this round of tariff threats may seem arbitrary to some, the Trump administration says it considers tariffs deeply intertwined with national security concerns. Stephen Miran, Trump’s pick to chair the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, has laid out a path for Trump’s tariff plan, which he says is aimed at putting American industry on fairer ground against the rest of the world.

In the long term, it’s unclear whether Trump’s threatened trade war will bring domestic manufacturing back to the U.S. and start a new industrial renaissance. In the meantime, American consumers will likely be stuck holding the bag.

Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Astronomy enthusiasts and casual stargazers alike are buzzing with excitement—and a hint of concern—over the recent discovery of a new asteroid, named 2024 YR4. This celestial wanderer has recently caught the attention of both the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA, particularly due to its increasing risk assessment concerning a potential impact with Earth.

What’s the Buzz About 2024 YR4?

Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) telescope in Chile, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now on the radar for its increased chance of impacting Earth. Initially assessed at a 1.2% risk, fresh observations have revised this figure to 2.2% for a possible encounter on December 22, 2032. While the mathematics behind such percentages can be daunting, they essentially mean that we have a somewhat higher—but still relatively unlikely—chance of an impact.

The Evolution of Risk Assessment

What’s fascinating about asteroids like 2024 YR4 is how their risk percentages can change significantly over time. According to ESA, as more observations and data are gathered, these numbers typically fluctuate. This rollercoaster of statistics can be observed in the case of the infamous asteroid Apophis, which went from a high-risk designation to much lower probabilities thanks to more refined measurements of its orbit.

Experts from the CNEOS (Center for Near Earth Object Studies) note that tracking 2024 YR4 for more data is crucial. The more astronomers can observe it and refine its trajectory, the better equipped they will be to predict its path and assess any potential risk.

What If It Hits?

While the current risk of impact is low, concerns remain about what could happen if an asteroid of this size were to strike. Measuring between 131 to 295 feet (40 to 90 meters) wide, 2024 YR4 is comparable to a large building. Dr. Paul Chodas from NASA highlights that, should it be on the larger end of its scale, the damage could be significant, potentially affecting an area up to 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the impact site. Comparatively, past asteroid impacts, such as the one in Tunguska in 1908, resulted in immense devastation over vast areas.

Asteroids of similar dimensions have been known to strike Earth every few millennia—bringing with them the potential for severe regional damage.

Keeping Our Eyes on the Sky

The ongoing monitoring of 2024 YR4 is a collective effort supported by international organizations, including the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN) and the Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG). Together, these groups work to analyze the asteroid’s trajectory, assess potential threats, and formulate response plans if necessary. Already, discussions around mitigation strategies are underway. These could range from deflecting the asteroid through means like NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test to even evacuating potentially impacted regions.

For now, astronomers are racing against time to observe 2024 YR4 as it travels farther away from Earth and becomes more challenging to track. Our best window to study it financially is until early April, after which it will disappear from our view—returning only in 2028.

Advertisement

The Bigger Picture

While asteroid 2024 YR4 is getting a lot of attention, it serves as a reminder of the cosmos we inhabit, full of wonders and occasional threats. The collaborative efforts of international space agencies demonstrate how seriously we take the potential risks associated with near-Earth objects.

As the astronomical community keeps watch over 2024 YR4, we are also reminded of the technological advances that allow us to detect and track these celestial bodies. Thanks to the incredible human ingenuity dedicated to space exploration, we can keep an eye on our cosmic neighbors and stay informed about any future surprises from the universe.

So, while the chance of disaster is currently low, one thing is clear: the dance of celestial bodies continues, and it’s an exhilarating spectacle to behold! Keep looking up; you never know what you might discover next. 🔭✨

Check out the story on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/07/science/asteroid-2024-yr4-earth-risk/index.html

The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/

Please leave this field empty

Want more stories
“Your morning jolt of Inspiring & Interesting Stories!”

Sign up to receive awesome articles directly to your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Advertisement

Please check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Daniel T. Kim, Albany Medical College

I sit on an ethics review committee at the Albany Med Health System in New York state, where doctors and nurses frequently bring us fraught questions.

Consider a typical case: A 6-month-old child has suffered a severe brain injury following cardiac arrest. A tracheostomy, ventilator and feeding tube are the only treatments keeping him alive. These intensive treatments might prolong the child’s life, but he is unlikely to survive. However, the mother – citing her faith in a miracle – wants to keep the child on life support. The clinical team is distressed – they feel they’re only prolonging the child’s dying process.

Often the question the medical team struggles with is this: Are we obligated to continue life-supporting treatments?

Bioethics, a modern academic field that helps resolve such fraught dilemmas, evolved in its early decades through debates over several landmark cases in the 1970s to the 1990s. The early cases helped establish the right of patients and their families to refuse treatments.

But some of the most ethically challenging cases, in both pediatric and adult medicine, now present the opposite dilemma: Doctors want to stop aggressive treatments, but families insist on continuing them. This situation can often lead to moral distress for doctors – especially at a time when trust in providers is falling.

Consequences of lack of trust

For the family, withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatments from a dying loved one, even if doctors advise that the treatment is unlikely to succeed or benefit the patient, can be overwhelming and painful. Studies show that their stress can be at the same level as people who have just survived house fires or similar catastrophes.

While making such high-stakes decisions, families need to be able to trust their doctor’s information; they need to be able to believe that their recommendations come from genuine empathy to serve only the patient’s interests. This is why prominent bioethicists have long emphasized trustworthiness as a central virtue of good clinicians.

Advertisement

However, the public’s trust in medical leaders has been on a precipitous decline in recent decades. Historical polling data and surveys show that trust in physicians is lower in the U.S. than in most industrialized countries. A recent survey from Sanofi, a pharmaceutical company, found that mistrust of the medical system is even worse among low-income and minority Americans, who experience discrimination and persistent barriers to care. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated the public’s lack of trust.

In the clinic, mistrust can create an untenable situation. Families can feel isolated, lacking support or expertise they can trust. For clinicians, the situation can lead to burnout, affecting quality and access to care as well as health care costs. According to the National Academy of Medicine, “The opportunity to attend to and ease suffering is the reason why many clinicians enter the healing professions.” When doctors see their patients suffer for avoidable reasons, such as mistrust, they often suffer as well.

At a time of low trust, families can be especially reluctant to take advice to end aggressive treatment, which makes the situation worse for everyone.

Ethics of the dilemma

Physicians are not ethically obligated to provide treatments that are of no benefit to the patient, or may even be harmful, even if the family requests them. But it can often be very difficult to say definitively what treatments are beneficial or harmful, as each of those can be characterized differently based on the goals of treatment. In other words, many critical decisions depend on judgment calls.

Consider again the typical case of the 6-month-old child mentioned above who had suffered severe brain injury and was not expected to survive. The clinicians told the ethics review committee that even if the child were to miraculously survive, he would never be able to communicate or reach any “normal” milestones. The child’s mother, however, insisted on keeping him alive. So, the committee had to recommend continuing life support to respect the parent’s right to decide.

Physicians inform, recommend and engage in shared decision-making with families to help clarify their values and preferences. But if there’s mistrust, the process can quickly break down, resulting in misunderstandings and conflicts about the patient’s best interests and making a difficult situation more distressing. https://www.youtube.com/embed/MY4e4l-eAFk?wmode=transparent&start=0 Moral distress in health care.

Moral distress

When clinicians feel unable to provide what they believe to be the best care for patients, it can result in what bioethicists call “moral distress.” The term was coined in 1984 in nursing ethics to describe the experience of nurses who were forced to provide treatments that they felt were inappropriate. It is now widely invoked in health care.

Advertisement

Numerous studies have shown that levels of moral distress among clinicians are high, with 58% of pediatric and neonatal intensive care clinicians in a study experiencing significant moral distress. While these studies have identified various sources of moral distress, having to provide aggressive life support despite feeling that it’s not in the patient’s interest is consistently among the most frequent and intense.

Watching a patient suffer feels like a dereliction of duty to many health care workers. But as long as they are appropriately respecting the patient’s right to decide – or a parent’s, in the case of a minor – they are not violating their professional duty, as my colleagues and I argued in a recent paper. Doctors sometimes express their distress as a feeling of guilt, of “having blood on their hands,” but, we argue, they are not guilty of any wrongdoing. In most cases, the distress shows that they’re not indifferent to what the decision may mean for the patient.

Clinicians, however, need more support. Persistent moral distresses that go unaddressed can lead to burnout, which may cause clinicians to leave their practice. In a large American Medical Association survey, 35.7% of physicians in 2022-23 expressed an intent to leave their practice within two years.

But with the right support, we also argued, feelings of moral distress can be an opportunity to reflect on what they can control in the circumstance. It can also be a time to find ways to improve the care doctors provide, including communication and building trust. Institutions can help by strengthening ethics consultation services and providing training and support for managing complex cases.

Difficult and distressing decisions, such as the case of the 6-month-old child, are ubiquitous in health care. Patients, their families and clinicians need to be able to trust each other to sustain high-quality care.

Daniel T. Kim, Assistant Professor of Bioethics, Albany Medical College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement