Tariff Tensions: Why Trade Conflicts May Hurt More Than Guns?

    'When we talk about wars and their impact on economies, the immediate image that comes to mind is of tanks rolling through cities, buildings crumbling, and lives lost. But what about trade wars? 

Source: Author's collection

   

The recent tariffs imposed by the U.S., especially on China, are an old topic to discuss. However, it forces us to reconsider which type of conflict is more damaging to the global economy: geographical wars or trade wars. Since 2018, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on over $350 billion worth of Chinese imports, affecting around 18% of all U.S. imports, equivalent to 2.6% of U.S. GDP. China fired back with tariffs on $100 billion of U.S. goods, impacting 11% of its imports, or 3.6% of its GDP. For American households, these tariffs have translated into an average annual cost increase of about $1,300 in 2025, squeezing wallets and raising prices on everything from electronics to clothing. Two-thirds of dutiable products in the U.S. have seen price hikes, hitting consumers and businesses alike

    At first glance, these numbers might seem like just political posturing, but the economic consequences are far from trivial.  U.S. imports from China of tariffed goods dropped by 12.5% between 2017 and 2022, while imports from other countries surged in the same categories, reshaping global supply chains and trade flows. The ripple effect is global: Oxford Economics estimates that tariffs could shave 0.5% off global GDP through 2026, and the U.S. alone could see a 1% GDP contraction.  This isn’t just about numbers on paper — consumers face higher prices, manufacturers grapple with disrupted supply chains, and businesses delay investments due to uncertainty. According to The Wall Street Journal, 'U.S. plans to isolate China, however, the same journal claims that China's economy grew before tariffs kicked in. 

Source: Author's collection

    

Now, compare this to a traditional geographical war. The destruction is visible and immediate: infrastructure is damaged, production halts, and economies shrink sharply. But these wars often have a clear end, followed by reconstruction and recovery efforts. Trade wars, however, are more insidious. They quietly erode economic efficiency, fragment global markets, and can last for years, causing prolonged uncertainty and stagnation. So, which war is more injurious to the economy? While geographical wars bring physical devastation, trade wars inflict a slow-burning economic wound that can be just as harmful, if not more so, over time. The U.S.-China tariff conflict shows us that economic battles fought through tariffs don’t just hurt the targeted country—they ripple across the global economy, raising costs for everyone and stalling growth. 

    In the end, the lesson is clear: economic warfare through tariffs may not topple buildings, but it can destabilize economies in ways that are harder to repair. Perhaps it’s time we rethink how we wage these battles and focus on dialogue over tariffs.'

Thanks for reading

Farhana Yeasmin

Hyperautomation and Self-Determination Theory: A Perfect Match or a Misalignment?

Let’s talk about hyper-automation. It’s no secret that this transformative technology is making waves in banking and beyond, promising effortless, efficient, and even enjoyable experiences. With artificial intelligence (AI), robotic process automation (RPA), and machine learning at its core, hyper-automation feels like the hero we’ve been waiting for to simplify complex systems. But here's where it gets interesting: can hyper-automation truly align with the principles of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), or does it fall short of delivering what humans need most?

If you're unfamiliar, SDT dives into the psychology of motivation, emphasizing three key human needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Let’s dissect whether hyper-automation nurtures these needs—or inadvertently neglects them.

Autonomy: Does It Put Customers in Charge?

Hyperautomation is often lauded for giving customers control. AI chatbots answering your queries 24/7? Instant loan approvals? It’s all about making decisions easier and faster, right? On the surface, it seems to tick the autonomy box by giving you the freedom to handle banking tasks without relying on traditional, rigid systems.

But let’s scratch a little deeper. Is this true autonomy, or are customers simply following paths pre-designed by algorithms? Sure, those intelligent bots extract your data and speed up processes—but how much say do you really have in shaping those experiences? If hyper-automation limits your ability to make unique, unprescribed decisions, it risks creating a facade of autonomy rather than the genuine sense of control SDT champions.

Competence: Building Confidence or Automating It Away?

One of SDT’s pillars is competence—the idea that people thrive when they feel capable and accomplished. Hyperautomation often excels here. By simplifying tedious tasks, like onboarding or fraud detection, it enables customers to complete their goals quickly and efficiently. Who wouldn’t feel a sense of mastery when opening a bank account is as easy as snapping a photo of an ID?

Yet, there’s a flip side. If every process becomes automated to the point where human involvement is minimized, are we losing the opportunity to build financial skills? Over-reliance on automated tools might inadvertently erode confidence in one’s ability to manage finances independently. After all, how competent can someone feel if they don’t truly understand the systems they’re relying on?

Relatedness: The Human Connection in a Machine-Driven World

Here’s where it gets tricky. Relatedness—the need to feel connected and understood—sits at the heart of SDT. Hyperautomation shines in creating personalized recommendations, whether it's suggesting a savings plan tailored to your spending habits or flagging suspicious transactions before you even notice them. It feels like the bank "gets" you.

But does it really? Hyperautomation’s personalization is based on data analysis, not genuine empathy. While the technology might anticipate your needs, it can’t replicate the emotional warmth of interacting with a human. For some customers, the absence of a real human connection might leave them feeling isolated rather than understood. Can machine-driven personalization ever truly satisfy the deep human need for connection?

The Tipping Point: Balance or Dependency?

The promise of hyper-automation is compelling—speed, efficiency, and personalized convenience. But when viewed through the lens of SDT, there’s a clear tension between automation and human motivation. Technology, for all its brilliance, must be wielded carefully to support human needs rather than replace them.

This raises important questions. How can banks ensure hyper-automation nurtures autonomy rather than confining it? How can they balance efficiency with fostering real competence? And most critically, how do we keep the human element alive in a system increasingly run by machines?

The Verdict: A Tool, Not a Solution

Hyperautomation is a remarkable tool, but it’s just that—a tool. Its success depends on how it’s implemented. When aligned thoughtfully with the principles of SDT, it has the potential to enhance customer engagement in profound ways. But if ignored, the same technology risks undermining the very motivation it seeks to inspire.

As we move forward into an age where hyper-automation is everywhere, the challenge lies in crafting systems that empower, educate, and connect people—not just processes. So, while hyper-automation can make banking feel easier, the real question is: will it make us feel more human?

What’s your take? Are we heading toward harmony between hyperautomation and human motivation, or is there still work to be done? Let’s continue the conversation.

Thanks For Readiing

Farhana Yeasmin