spanish.china.org.cn
Goldman Sachs Raises US Recession Probability to 35% Amidst Tariff Concerns
Goldman Sachs increased its US recession probability to 35% within 12 months due to anticipated reciprocal tariffs, weaker economic growth, and declining consumer confidence; the tariffs, set to take effect April 2nd, are expected to increase inflation and unemployment while decreasing GDP growth.
- How will the anticipated reciprocal tariffs affect consumer prices, GDP growth, and unemployment in the US?
- The increased recession probability is directly linked to the anticipated implementation of reciprocal tariffs on April 2nd. These tariffs are projected to boost consumer prices, reduce GDP growth to 1%, and increase the unemployment rate to 4.5% by the end of 2025. Experts warn of disruptions to global supply chains and negative impacts on US exports.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of these tariffs on US-China trade relations and the global economy?
- The long-term consequences of these tariffs remain uncertain, but short-term impacts on investment and employment are expected. The rise in inflation, fueled by tariffs, could constrain the Federal Reserve's ability to cut interest rates further, potentially prolonging economic slowdown. Consumer confidence is plummeting due to the perceived negative impact of the new economic policies.
- What is the immediate economic impact of Goldman Sachs' revised US recession probability, and how does it affect global markets?
- Goldman Sachs raised its US recession probability to 35% within 12 months, citing weaker-than-expected economic growth, declining consumer and business confidence, and the White House's willingness to accept short-term economic weakness to achieve policy goals. This is a significant increase from their previous estimate of 20%.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately highlight Goldman Sachs' increased recession probability, setting a negative tone. The article then proceeds to primarily focus on negative economic consequences, such as inflation and decreased growth. While it includes quotes from experts, the selection and sequencing emphasize the negative aspects of the potential tariffs.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but the repeated emphasis on negative economic consequences (e.g., "weakness," "deterioation," "loss") contributes to a negative framing. The use of terms like "chaos" and "asustando" (scaring) adds emotional weight. More neutral phrasing could improve objectivity. For example, instead of "chaos," consider "disruption." Instead of "asustando" consider "causing concern among.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the economic consequences of potential tariffs, particularly the impact on inflation, consumer spending, and GDP growth. However, it gives less attention to potential benefits of the tariffs, such as increased domestic production or job creation in certain sectors. Also missing is a discussion of alternative policy solutions to address the underlying trade concerns, beyond simply analyzing the potential negative consequences of tariffs.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the situation by primarily focusing on the negative impacts of potential tariffs. While it acknowledges some uncertainties regarding long-term impacts, it doesn't fully explore the possibility of positive outcomes or alternative approaches to trade policy that could mitigate the negative consequences.
Gender Bias
The article features several male experts (Gao Lingyun, Zhou Mi, Chris Rupkey, James Knightley) but lacks a balance of gender representation. There is no apparent gender bias in the language used, but including more female expert opinions would strengthen the article's objectivity and balance.
Sustainable Development Goals
The increase in tariffs will disproportionately affect low-income consumers, exacerbating existing inequalities. Higher prices on goods will reduce purchasing power for vulnerable populations. The predicted rise in unemployment will further widen the gap between rich and poor.