top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Festive Surge

India’s bazaars have glittered this Diwali with the unmistakable glow of consumer confidence. The country’s festive sales crossed a staggering Rs. 6 lakh crore with goods alone accounting for Rs. 5.4 lakh crore and services contributing Rs. 65,000 crore. More remarkable still, the bulk of this spending flowed through India’s traditional markets rather than e-commerce platforms. After years of economic caution and digital dominance, Indians are once again shopping in person and buying local....

Festive Surge

India’s bazaars have glittered this Diwali with the unmistakable glow of consumer confidence. The country’s festive sales crossed a staggering Rs. 6 lakh crore with goods alone accounting for Rs. 5.4 lakh crore and services contributing Rs. 65,000 crore. More remarkable still, the bulk of this spending flowed through India’s traditional markets rather than e-commerce platforms. After years of economic caution and digital dominance, Indians are once again shopping in person and buying local. This reversal owes much to policy. The recent rationalisation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) which trimmed rates across categories from garments to home furnishings, has given consumption a timely push. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s September rate cuts, combined with income tax relief and easing interest rates, have strengthened household budgets just as inflation softened. The middle class, long squeezed between rising costs and stagnant wages, has found reason to spend again. Retailers report that shoppers filled their bags with everything from lab-grown diamonds and casual wear to consumer durables and décor, blurring the line between necessity and indulgence. The effect has been broad-based. According to Crisil Ratings, 40 organised apparel retailers, who together generate roughly a third of the sector’s revenue, could see growth of 13–14 percent this financial year, aided by a 200-basis-point bump from GST cuts alone. Small traders too have flourished. The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) estimates that 85 percent of total festive trade came from non-corporate and traditional markets, a robust comeback for brick-and-mortar retail that had been under siege from online rivals. This surge signals a subtle but significant cultural shift. The “Vocal for Local” and “Swadeshi Diwali” campaigns struck a patriotic chord, with consumers reportedly preferring Indian-made products to imported ones. Demand for Chinese goods fell sharply, while sales of Indian-manufactured products rose by a quarter over last year. For the first time in years, “buying Indian” has become both an act of economic participation and of national pride. The sectoral spread of this boom underlines its breadth. Groceries and fast-moving consumer goods accounted for 12 percent of the total, gold and jewellery 10 percent, and electronics 8 percent. Even traditionally modest categories like home furnishings, décor and confectionery recorded double-digit growth. In the smaller towns that anchor India’s consumption story, traders say stable prices and improved affordability kept registers ringing late into the festive weekend. Yet, much of this buoyancy rests on a fragile equilibrium. Inflation remains contained, and interest rates have been eased, but both could tighten again. Sustaining this spurt will require continued fiscal prudence and regulatory clarity, especially as digital commerce continues to expand its reach. Yet for now, the signs are auspicious. After years of subdued demand and inflationary unease, India’s shoppers appear to have rediscovered their appetite for consumption and their faith in domestic enterprise. The result is not only a record-breaking Diwali, but a reaffirmation of the local marketplace as the heartbeat of India’s economy.

A Grim Tariff Showdown

Grim

The economic ties between the United States and Mexico, once heralded as a model of intercontinental cooperation, now find themselves under strain as both nations face the threat of escalating tariffs. These tariffs, though often seen as a tool of political leverage, carry deep and far-reaching consequences for both countries, not just in terms of trade deficits but also in terms of jobs, prices, and the overall economic stability of North America.


Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, the U.S. and Mexico have become intricately linked through trade and commerce. The elimination of tariffs under NAFTA opened the floodgates for businesses to invest across the continent, creating one of the world’s most seamless cross-border markets. However, this relationship was never without its tensions. Disagreements over specific sectors, such as agriculture, textiles, and, more recently, the automotive industry, have led to intermittent trade spats, but nothing quite as severe as the widespread tariff threats under the Trump administration. Trump’s unilateral decision to impose 25% tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods was a direct challenge to the status quo, one that sent shockwaves through industries on both sides of the border.


Mexico’s cautious retaliation risks a dangerous trade escalation. President Claudia Sheinbaum’s warning that “one tariff will follow another” highlights the threat to integrated supply chains crucial for industries like automotive, agriculture, and electronics. With Mexican automotive exports to the U.S. totalling $30 billion in 2020, tariffs could raise consumer prices, reduce competitiveness and harm economic growth in both nations.


The escalating tensions stem from trade imbalances, with Donald Trump’s push for higher tariffs aimed at addressing a perceived “one-sided” U.S.-Mexico trade deal. However, this overlooks the mutual benefits of economic integration, where U.S. businesses rely heavily on Mexico’s labour force.


Historical precedents for tariff wars between the U.S. and Mexico offer further insight into the current situation. During the early 20th century, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Mexican agricultural exports, leading to retaliatory measures that sparked tensions between the two nations.


These spats, while damaging, never reached the scale of the contemporary trade wars sparked by Trump’s administration. Yet, the pattern of escalating tariff wars—where one side imposes duties in response to perceived unfairness, only for the other side to retaliate—has long been a feature of the bilateral relationship. Under the Trump administration, the dialogue shifted from negotiations and dispute resolution to an all-out tariff threat, one that put not just trade but political relations at risk.


For Mexico, the stakes are particularly high. The country has relied on the U.S. market for decades as a primary export destination, especially for oil, agricultural products, and manufactured goods. Mexico is the third-largest trading partner of the United States, and trade with the U.S. represents roughly 80% of Mexico’s exports. Disrupting this flow could not only destabilize the Mexican economy but could also erode the political stability that comes with a thriving trade relationship.


Moreover, tariffs would likely lead to broader regional instability. The knock-on effects of such a move would be felt not just in North America but across global markets, where both countries hold considerable sway.


The historical lesson is clear: trade wars rarely end well. While tariffs may offer short-term political victories, the long-term economic damage they cause often outweighs the supposed benefits. Both nations—tied together through decades of investment, trade agreements, and shared economic interests—stand to lose more than they gain from a return to protectionism. The United States and Mexico must look beyond the rhetoric of tariffs and focus on the pragmatic, cooperative approach that has, for the most part, defined their relationship since NAFTA’s inception.

Comments

bottom of page