spanish.china.org.cn
Goldman Sachs raises US recession probability to 35% amid tariff concerns
Goldman Sachs increased its US recession probability to 35% in the next 12 months due to the expected implementation of reciprocal tariffs on April 2nd, leading to higher inflation (3.5% by the end of 2025), weaker consumer spending, and a GDP growth forecast of 1%.
- What is the immediate impact of the increased recession probability on the US economy?
- Goldman Sachs raised its US recession probability to 35% within 12 months, citing weaker-than-expected consumer spending and rising inflation driven by new tariffs. The increase reflects a drop in the base growth rate and a significant decline in consumer and business confidence.
- How will the new tariffs affect consumer prices and the Federal Reserve's ability to cut interest rates?
- The increased recession probability is directly linked to the implementation of reciprocal tariffs, scheduled for April 2nd. These tariffs are expected to increase consumer prices by 0.5 percentage points, reaching 3.5% year-on-year inflation, and decrease GDP growth to 1%.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of these tariffs on the global economy and US competitiveness?
- The long-term economic consequences remain uncertain, but the short-term impacts include higher inflation, weaker consumer spending, disrupted supply chains, and increased unemployment, reaching 4.5% by the end of 2025. Further retaliatory tariffs from other countries could significantly harm US exports.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately establish a negative tone by highlighting Goldman Sachs' increased recession probability. The article then prioritizes negative economic indicators and expert opinions predicting negative consequences. While counterpoints exist within the quotes, the overall framing emphasizes the potential for economic downturn. This prioritization of negative news impacts reader perception by making the outlook appear far more dire than a balanced presentation might suggest.
Language Bias
The language used tends towards negativity. Phrases like "strong deterioration," "weak economic growth," and "grave disruptions" contribute to a pessimistic tone. While using such terms isn't inherently biased, the consistent use of negative phrasing shapes the overall impression. More neutral alternatives could include: 'significant decline' instead of 'strong deterioration', 'moderate economic growth' instead of 'weak economic growth', and 'substantial disruptions' instead of 'grave disruptions'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative economic predictions resulting from the tariffs, but omits discussion of potential benefits or alternative viewpoints on the tariffs' impact. While it mentions consumer and producer losses exceeding tariff revenue, it doesn't explore any potential counterarguments or differing economic analyses. The long-term impacts are mentioned as uncertain, but no further exploration is provided. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a complete understanding of the economic debate surrounding the tariffs.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the economic consequences, largely framing the situation as a potential recession versus continued economic growth. While acknowledging some uncertainty about long-term impacts, it doesn't adequately explore the range of potential outcomes beyond these two extremes. The focus on negative impacts without sufficient counterpoints contributes to this dichotomy.
Sustainable Development Goals
The increased tariffs negatively impact consumers and producers, exacerbating existing inequalities. Higher prices disproportionately affect low-income households, reducing their purchasing power and increasing the gap between rich and poor. The disruption to supply chains also threatens jobs, particularly in sectors reliant on international trade, further widening the inequality gap.