The Trump administration’s trade insurance policies are more likely to damage the United States financial system and undermine the world’s trade system, the IMF has warned.
The organisation outlined the dangers in its annual evaluation of the United States financial system.
The warning comes because the United States prepares to levy new tariffs on $50bn price of Chinese imports.
New duties on overseas metal and aluminium, introduced in March, have already gone into impact.
The IMF mentioned the White House, which has additionally threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), is responding to rising issues concerning the side-effects of free trade.
“These measures, though, are likely to move the globe further away from an open, fair and rules-based trade system, with adverse effects for both the United States economy and for trading partners,” it mentioned.
Tariffs and limits on imports are more likely to disrupt provide chains, discourage enterprise funding and set off retaliation, the IMF mentioned.
Europe, Mexico, Canada and China are among the many nations which have launched or are planning counter-measures in response to the metal and aluminium tariffs.
Despite the issues about trade, the IMF mentioned the outlook for the United States financial system is shiny within the near-term.
It forecasts development of two.9% this yr, because the Trump administration’s $1.5tn tax reduce bundle and $300bn improve in federal spending quickly increase exercise.
However, it mentioned the insurance policies are additionally fuelling public debt and threat inducing a sudden bout of inflation.
“Despite good near-term prospects, a number of vulnerabilities are being built-up,” the IMF mentioned.
US development is predicted to gradual to 2.7% in 2019 and 1.9% in 2020, trending decrease as the last decade continues.
The IMF referred to as on the United States to focus on tax aid at decrease revenue households and strengthen monetary oversight of non-banks.
It additionally sounded an alarm concerning the dominance of a small however rising quantity “superstar” companies. It mentioned these companies have the potential to depress wage development and funding in analysis and growth as they accrue market energy.