Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal Reserve warns of inflation and jobs risks amid Trump’s erratic trade strategy

      by

      The Federal Reserve kept interest rates on hold and called out growing dangers in the US economy amid Donald Trump’s erratic rollout of an aggressive trade strategy.Jerome Powell, the US central bank’s chair, cautioned that the president’s tariffs were likely to raise prices, weaken growth and increase unemployment if maintained.Fed policymakers cautioned that “the risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen” as they opted to maintain the benchmark interest rate for the third time in a row. “Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further,” they said in a statement.With inflation expectations – how consumers think prices will move – rising,Powell, the Fed chair, said the “driving factor” appeared to be Trump’s tariffs.At a press conference, he said: “If the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they are likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment.”The US president has repeatedly demanded in recent months that the Fed cuts rates – and even raised the prospect of firing Powell, before walking back the comments – as Trump’s tariffs plan appeared to knock the US economy.The Fed has been sitting on its hands for months, however, citing heightened uncertainty. It last cut rates in December, to a range of between 4.25% and 4.5%.As Trump pushed ahead last month with sweeping tariffs on imported goods from much of the world, Powell cautioned this would probably raise prices and slow growth – despite the administration’s pledges to revitalize the US economy and reduce the cost of living for millions of Americans.US gross domestic product (GDP) shrank for the first time in three years during the first quarter, raising fears of recession as Trump’s tariffs – and threats of tariffs – cast a shadow over the world’s largest economy.Asked whether he was trying to take responsibility for stronger parts of the economy, while blaming his predecessor, Joe Biden, for any sign of weakness, Trump told NBC’s Meet The Press: “I think the good parts are the Trump economy, and the bad parts are the Biden economy. Because he’s done a terrible job.”After Fed policymakers finished their latest two-day meeting on Wednesday, the central bank reiterated in its statement that they would “carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks” ahead of future meetings.Its callout of greater risks in the US economy amounted to “a thinly veiled critique of the new administration’s import tariffs”, said Samuel Tombs, chief US economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, “and represents an assertion of independence”.Addressing reporters after the meeting, Powell said he could not provide a timeframe for rate cuts. “We are going to need to see how this evolves,” he said. “There are cases in which it would be appropriate for us to cut rates this year. There are cases in which it wouldn’t. And we just don’t know.”While concern over the economic outlook is mounting, Powell stressed there had been no “big economic effects” in the data so far. “People, they are worried now about inflation, they are worried about a shock from the tariffs,” he said. “But they really haven’t – that shock hasn’t hit yet.”Asked how Trump’s demand for rate cuts affected the Fed’s latest decision, and the difficulty of his job, Powell responded bluntly. “Doesn’t affect doing our job at all,” he said.He reserved perhaps his briefest response for when a reporter asked what he thought when Trump said last month he had “no intention” of firing him – days after saying his termination could not come fast enough. “I don’t have anything more for you on that,” said Powell. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Donald Trump’s plan to weaken the dollar is flawed | Kenneth Rogoff

      by

      Now that US President Donald Trump’s tariff war is in full swing, investors around the world are asking: what’s next on his agenda for upending the global economic order? Many are turning their attention to the “Mar-a-Lago Accord” – a plan proposed by Stephen Miran, chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, to coordinate with America’s trading partners to weaken the dollar.At the heart of the plan is the notion that the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is not a privilege but a costly burden that has played a major role in the deindustrialisation of the American economy. The global demand for dollars, the argument goes, drives up its value, making US-made goods more expensive than imports. That, in turn, leads to persistent trade deficits and incentivises US manufacturers to move production overseas, taking jobs with them.Is there any truth to this narrative? The answer is yes and no. It’s certainly plausible that foreign investors eager to hold US stocks, bonds, and real estate could generate a steady flow of capital into the United States, fuelling domestic consumption and boosting demand for tradable goods such as cars and non-tradables such as real estate and restaurants. Higher demand for non-tradable goods, in particular, tends to push up the dollar’s value, making imports more attractive to American consumers, just as Miran suggests.But this logic also overlooks crucial details. While the dollar’s reserve-currency status drives up demand for Treasuries (Treasury bills, Treasury bonds, and Treasury notes), it does not necessarily increase demand for all US assets. Asian central banks, for example, hold trillions of dollars in Treasury bills, to help stabilise their exchange rates and maintain a financial buffer in the event of a crisis. They generally avoid other types of US assets, such as equities and real estate, since these do not serve the same policy objectives.This means that if foreign countries simply need to accumulate Treasury bills, they don’t have to run trade surpluses to obtain them. The necessary funds can also be raised by selling existing foreign assets such as stocks, real estate, and factories.That is precisely what happened in the 1960s through the mid-1970s. By then, the dollar had firmly established itself as the global reserve currency, yet the US was almost always running a current account surplus – not a deficit. Foreign investors were accumulating US Treasuries, while American firms expanded abroad by acquiring foreign production facilities, either through direct purchases or “greenfield” investments, in which they built factories from the ground up.The postwar era was hardly the only time when the country issuing the world’s reserve currency ran a current account surplus. The British pound was the undisputed global reserve currency from the end of the Napoleonic wars in the early 1800s until the outbreak of the first world war in 1914. Throughout that period, the UK generally ran external surpluses, bolstered by high returns on investments across its colonial empire.There is another way to interpret the US current account deficit that helps explain why the relationship between the exchange rate and trade imbalances is more complicated than Miran’s theory suggests. In accounting terms, a country’s current account surplus equals the difference between national savings and investment by the government and the private sector. Importantly, “investment” here refers to physical assets such as factories, housing, infrastructure, and equipment – not financial instruments.When viewed through this lens, it is clear that the current account deficit is influenced not just by the exchange rate but by anything that affects the balance between national saving and investment. In 2024, the US fiscal deficit was 6.4% of GDP, significantly larger than the current account deficit, which was under 4% of GDP.While closing the fiscal deficit would not automatically eliminate the current account deficit – that would depend on how the gap is closed and how the private sector responds – it is a far more straightforward fix than launching a trade war. Reducing the fiscal deficit would, however, involve the difficult political task of convincing Congress to pass more responsible tax and spending bills. And unlike a high-profile trade confrontation, it wouldn’t cause foreign leaders to curry favour with Trump; instead, it would shift media attention back to domestic politics and congressional negotiations.Another key factor behind the current account deficit is the strength of the American economy, which has been by far the most dynamic among the world’s major players in recent years. This has made US businesses particularly attractive to investors. Even manufacturing has grown as a share of GDP. The reason employment has not kept pace is that modern factories are highly automated.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMiran’s plan, clever as it might be, is based on a flawed diagnosis. While the dollar’s role as the world’s leading reserve currency plays a part, it is just one of many factors contributing to America’s persistent trade deficits. And if the trade deficit has many causes, the idea that tariffs can be a cure-all is dubious at best. Kenneth Rogoff is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University. He was the IMF’s chief economist from 2001-03.© Project Syndicate More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s tariffs get one thing right: capitalism is changing | Avram C Alpert

      by

      Trying to understand Donald Trump’s across-the-board tariffs based solely on economic theory won’t work. As the US president himself said: “Chronic trade deficits are no longer merely an economic problem, they’re a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life.” That may be why, as many economists have pointed out, there’s simply no good economic case for his plans.But few commentators have understood that facts and figures aren’t the whole point of the tariffs. As always, economics is part of a broader political vision. The tariffs help Trump make his claim that a way of life is under threat and he alone can protect it.Indeed, the political meaning of Trump’s tariffs is in the idea itself: “protectionism”. He is not just telling people that he’s going to improve the economy. He’s signaling that he’s going to protect a way of life, even – or especially – if it hurts others, by creating, in theory, good-paying factory jobs that could sustain local communities. (Never mind that the key to any industry’s ability to sustain communities are the practices of labor organizing Trump opposes.) On the campaign trail, he said: “Whether the women like it or not, I’m going to protect them.” He’s now saying the same thing to the country as a whole.Such non-economic justifications for economic policy are nothing new. They are part of what the sociologist Max Weber called “the spirit of capitalism”. Weber argued that capitalists had to justify a claim unique in human history: profit is good. For millennia before, philosophers had argued the opposite. Jesus, for example, told his disciples that it was likelier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.But with capitalism, the pursuit of profit became good. How did it justify this? Weber said that’s where “spirit” comes in. He pointed to notions of work as a holy value in Protestantism and Calvinist ideas about how monetary success proved you were among God’s chosen few. These spiritual views engendered a work ethic and made capitalist excess palatable. At least for a time.When capitalist greed becomes unpalatable, new spirits emerge. To understand Trump’s protectionist spirit, we have to understand this preceding history.After the Great Depression, people saw that they might lose everything no matter how hard they worked and so the work ethic spirit lost its power. In its place, social democratic states gave a new collectivist spirit to capitalism. Social democracy limited excess and provided a moral logic by offering stability to all through a linked system of jobs and life-long public services.This collectivist spirit began to break down in the 1960s under the pressures of stagflation, oil shocks, and criticisms of a conformist, consumerist lifestyle. In response, capitalism’s spirit transformed itself again. According to two scholars of this transitional period, Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello, it did so by ingeniously incorporating the criticisms: it became about nomads, connections, flexibility, creativity.It was no longer the staid cubicle office man; it was now the exciting creative entrepreneur who knows no allegiances and is at home in the chaos of disruption. Hence Silicon Valley. Hence the destroyed manufacturing bases where jobs were converted to low-wage poverty traps and where Trump now finds many of his most loyal supporters. Hence his protectionist vision of a new spirit of capitalism.There is some merit in this desire to help those who lost out, but, as Weber noted, the spirits of capitalism can mask more sinister desires. By also pushing massive tax breaks for the wealthy, Trump is hoping that tariffs can provide rhetorical appeal without radically changing the social order.The tariffs say: we will protect your community by hurting those who profited off your pain and became rich through globalization. That’s why Trump blamed “globalists” for the dip in the stock market after the tariffs were announced: “A lot of [those selling stocks] are globalist countries and companies that won’t be doing as well … Because we’re taking back things that have been taken from us many years ago.” But that ignores the real ways in which jobs have been lost and communities upended. What the tariffs leave unsaid is that they won’t address the real issues underlying today’s economic pain: gutting welfare, failing to retrain workers, under-utilizing technology, and letting inequality rise relentlessly.Trump is right that capitalism, in a period of untrammeled greed and injustice, needs a new spirit to show it the way. But the trouble with a protectivist spirit is that it implies that some get protected while others get hurt. That will just create new cycles of dismay – as we are already seeing with the tariff whiplash and draconian immigration policies.What we need is a democratizing spirit, one that isn’t about protecting some and hurting others, but instead guides us to work collectively to ensure that all people can lead decent and meaningful lives even in a chaotic world. There are economic policies for this, such as fair trade, meaningful industrial policy, more worker representation on corporate boards, and more cooperatively owned businesses.But Democrats also need to learn from Trump and emphasize the spirit. They need to show that their democratic vision is not just technocratic, but as powerful and affirming as the feeling of being protected.The desire for this spirit may be why the rallies of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have drawn record crowds. Most attenders say they aren’t there to hear the policies, which they already know. They’re there for the “community”, and to experience the “closest thing to a version of America you actually want to live in”, one that works for all of us. If the Democratic party can catch that spirit, they will not only win elections; they might just bring an end to decades of destruction.

      Avram Alpert is a lecturer in the Princeton Writing Program. His most recent book is The Good-Enough Life More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump’s cartoon-like chaos leaves US economy on unstable course | Heather Stewart

      by

      Ten days reporting from the US – in Pittsburgh, Washington DC, and just across the Potomac River in Arlington, Virginia – gave me a fascinating snapshot of what feels like the slow-motion unravelling of the world’s largest economy.So many conversations featured uncertainty and wariness; and weariness, too, as businesses and consumers weigh up every decision, against the backdrop of the chaos emanating from the White House.Even the president conceded last week that the economy was in a “transition period”, claiming he had warned of this during his campaign. (When challenged, the White House could not come up with any examples of when he had done so.)The problem for Trump and his supporters, many of whom remain staunchly loyal, is that the transition period in question is starting to resemble that felt by the classic Looney Tunes character Wile E Coyote between charging off a cliff into midair and plunging to the ground.So far, the hard data from the US economy is holding up well. Friday’s payrolls report was strong, and the negative first quarter gross domestic product reading, while worrying, was hard to take a clear reading from because of the rise in imports as companies stocked up ahead of tariffs.There is little sign of anything as dramatic as mass job cuts, or a sudden stop in consumer spending – although the recent crop of data mainly relates to the period before “liberation day”.Look at the forward-looking surveys, though, and there are clear signs of anxiety. The long-running Michigan consumer sentiment index just had its steepest quarterly decline since the 1990 recession.Spend any amount of time talking to US consumers and businesses, and it is abundantly clear why: there are so many sources of policy ambiguity as to make the future not just uncertain but completely unknowable.There is a cliche that “markets hate uncertainty”, but in truth the same applies to everyone in the real economy, too: the company wondering what size order to put in and how many people to hire and the family thinking about buying that fridge or booking that holiday.It is not surprising they are uncertain. No one, even inside the administration, can say with any confidence what the tariff rates on imports from specific countries will be in July.Even if the tariff policy was crystal clear, its impact on prices would be hard to gauge – depending, as it does, on how much of the cost companies are willing to bear (or “eat”, as the Americans have it) at the expense of reduced profits, and how much is passed on to consumers.For the moment, as the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has admitted, the tariffs on China, at 145%, are now so high as to amount to an effective trade embargo.Not every company will have the deep pockets and global reach of Apple to be able to bend its supply chain away from China to manufacture products for the US elsewhere (in the iPhone-maker’s case, India). Instead, many will be scrambling to find substitutes, which may be more expensive or not exist at all. Shortages of some products seem a distinct possibility.At the same time, sharp cuts in federal budgets, many of which have an ideological taint, including Robert F Kennedy Jr’s decimation of the National Institutes of Health, are raising short-term questions about unemployment and much longer-term worries about the US’s world-leading science base.Some of the most heartbreaking conversations I had were about aspects of Trump’s immigration policy: the man who said a Guatemalan friend’s six-year-old son had stopped going to school in case his mum was snatched by the authorities while he was there, and the restaurant manager who said it was becoming harder to hire Latinos because even fully documented workers feared they could face deportation anyway.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThese are first and foremost human tragedies, but clearly they also have an economic dimension. The credit rating agency Fitch warned in a report last week: “Risks associated with mass deportations could include potential worker shortages, production delays and increased wage inflation that hinders revenue growth, weakens profitability and lowers return on investment.”Of course, because the US economy’s abrupt gearshift has been driven by deliberate policy actions, it’s tempting to think: “It doesn’t have to be like this.”Much more of the real economy impact so far results from this widely shared uncertainty – or perhaps it is better to call it fear – than from the specifics of Trump’s policies.Business owners told me that if they just knew what the final tariffs on products from the various countries in their supply chain would be, for example, then over time they could adapt.It is not completely out of the question that a more settled policy position could arrive in the coming weeks.Certainly, Bessent appears to be trying to manoeuvre Trump towards striking a series of “deals” (in effect, promises of concessions in exchange for tariff carve-outs) with key economies.Yet the president appears to have such a love of political drama – and such an inability to choose a course and stick to it – that the unknowability of future policy seems to be the very essence of Trump 2.0.It seemed to be the mighty bond markets, driving up the cost of US borrowing, that checked Trump’s initial “liberation day” drive, prompting the “pause”.But if time drags on with no agreements in sight, the next wave of distress signals are likely to come not from Wall Street but from main street – in soaring prices and empty shelves. How Trump responds then is anyone’s guess. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      This hockey town in Michigan has deep ties to Canada. Then came Trump’s tariffs

      by

      There are few entities that embody the close, fraternal ties between the US and Canada quite like the Saginaw Spirit junior ice hockey team.In a place whose fortunes have been more down than up in recent decades, the Dow Event Center hockey arena in Saginaw, Michigan, comes alive with more than 5,000 fans once these young stars take to the ice. A huge banner depicting the players adorns the main street into the city.Nearly all the players, aged 16 to 20, come from Canada, and stay with local Saginaw families during the regular playing season, which runs from September to April.“They are family, almost literally,” says Jimmy Greene, the Spirit’s vice-president of marketing and community relations, “because players come over here and stay with American families. It’s more than just sport.”One of the top prospects of this year’s National Hockey League entry draft is forward Michael Misa, the Spirit’s 18-year-old Canadian captain. Last year, the Saginaw Spirit won the Memorial Cup of the Ontario Hockey League for the first time. In the season that recently finished, the Spirit played 28 times on Canadian soil.So the fallout from Donald Trump’s tariffs regime on Canadian goods has been felt more keenly in Saginaw than most other communities – as has the fight over the Canadian election, with the US president’s jibes over Canada becoming the US’s 51st state looming over the contest amid a fierce backlash against such comments.“We’ve had this relationship for decades and all of a sudden, in the last couple of months, it’s been uprooted,” says Greene.“Of course, you’re going to be concerned because you just don’t know [what will happen next]. At some point, it’s going to end up costing us. I just don’t know what extent and by how much.”As the largest city in the northern half of Michigan located within a short drive of three Canadian border crossings, Saginaw has closer ties to Canada than perhaps any other community of its size. Canadian companies own close to 4,000 acres (1,600 hectares) of farmland in the county, and last year, Saginaw established its first sister-city ties with a Canadian counterpart.What’s more, it is a key political bellwether and manufacturing county that helped push Donald Trump over the line in last November’s presidential election, but today the community faces uncertainty around the trade war with Canada.Michigan, with its vast automotive manufacturing industry, is set to be affected by Trump’s trade battle with Canada more than perhaps any other US state.After Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canadian vehicles and parts – with some exemptions – Ottawa responded with its own 25% tariff on certain US automotive products. Canada says the tariffs are unjustified, but on 23 April Trump warned that the tariff figures could go up.While Trump has claimed the US doesn’t need goods produced by its northern neighbor, Canada buys more American products than any other country, at $356bn worth of purchases. Nearly 40% of Michigan’s exported goods go to Canada. In 2023, $1.7bn worth of goods made in the Saginaw metropolitan area were exported, one of the highest amounts for any Michigan city, with much of that sent to Canada.Nexteer Automotive employs around 5,000 people in Saginaw while Means Industries, an automotive parts company headquartered in the city, also has a base in London, Ontario. Repeated calls and emails sent by the Guardian to Saginaw’s chamber of commerce seeking information on specific local industries potentially affected by the tariffs were not responded to.‘Sport right now triumphs over politics’Saginaw is no stranger to economic ups and downs.On a recent Friday afternoon, the downtown area is almost dead. Despite the recent success of the hockey team, there isn’t a sports bar for blocks in any direction as most of Saginaw’s commercial activity is now concentrated around miles of strip malls north of downtown.For Brad Pyscher, an officer at a correctional facility and former union president who, on a recent Saturday afternoon, is manning the Saginaw county Republican party office in one of these strip malls, the tariffs on Canada were something of a shock.“People are concerned, and they hope this works itself out,” he says. “The shock and awe [of the tariffs] really took everyone by surprise.”The 54-year-old says he had voted independent all his life before backing Democrat Barack Obama, and then Trump for president in 2016.“The thing with Trump, whether you like him or don’t like him, there’s transparency,” he says. “I’m drawn to him because he is not a politician.”But Pyscher concedes that Trump could have negotiated with Canada before “hitting them with that shock and awe. I think it’s on purpose, to let the world know he can do it,” he says.“[With] Canada, it should have been negotiated a bit better, a lot better. I’m expecting the deals with Canada to come soon, and we can all put this behind us.”Trump has said one of his main motivations for issuing tariffs on Canada was to stop the flow of illicit drugs into the US. However, reports indicate the opposite may be happening. Last month, $11m worth of cocaine was seized at the Port Huron border crossing, 80 miles (130km) east of Saginaw – on its way into Canada. In December, around 1,000lb (450kg) of cocaine were also seized in a semi-truck attempting to enter Ontario from the same border crossing.Back in the world of ice hockey, Greene of Saginaw Spirit says he feels most people he interacts with have been able to park their political feelings, starting with the organization’s Canadian players, who have been essential to the team’s recent success.“I think we all made a concerted effort, while not to keep [the players] dumb and naive, we did enough to make them feel comfortable in our environment and away from the political stuff. We kept them in a mindset of sport,” he says.But Greene also realizes the strained ties with Canada fueled by the White House’s policies are a very real dynamic.“I’m not immune to the idea that at some point Canada had some hostile feelings towards us, but people have, until this point, been able to park the politics away from sport. I think sport right now triumphs over politics,” he says.“Because we play in Canada, and [because of] the tariffs. I’m more concerned about how they feel about us. Our feelings towards Canada have been and always will be favorable and friendly. I’m concerned not just because of the economic tariffs, but because of the emotions that come from that. I’d be foolish to pretend otherwise.”Saginaw residents are hoping the kind of fraternal ties that were on display across the city last May, when hundreds of Canadian hockey fans from as far away as Saskatchewan descended on the region for the Memorial Cup, won’t become a thing of the past.“Everybody’s been super friendly. You guys have been incredible hosts,” one Canadian hockey fan who drove 11 hours from Quebec for the tournament told local media. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s promised ‘golden age’ for the US economy is off to a chaotic start

      by

      Donald Trump promised to usher in a new “golden age” for the US economy – one with lower prices, more jobs and greater wealth. This week, his first quarter report card came in, and the new age is off to a chaotic start.Gross domestic product (GDP) shrank for the first time in three years during the first quarter, abruptly turning negative after a spell of robust growth as trade distortions and weaker consumer spending dampened activity.It took the US president all of 43 minutes to distance himself from the dismal reading, released on Wednesday morning.“Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden ‘Overhang’,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform. “This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!”By Trump’s telling, any bad numbers are the fault of Joe Biden – but this attribution does not extend to the good ones.March’s strong jobs report demonstrated how “the private sector is roaring back under President Donald J. Trump”, according to a statement issued by the White House. “IT’S ALREADY WORKING,” the president declared the day it was published.But April’s less buoyant jobs report, released on Friday, prompted a more tepid response. He wrote: “Just like I said, and we’re only in a TRANSITION STAGE, just getting started!!!”So which is it? Is the “golden age” of America well under way? Or will it take a while?Growth in the first three months of the year – no matter how much Trump wants to blame the 19 or so days he was not yet in office – was significantly challenged by the new administration’s plans to overhaul the world economy. US goods imports surged 41% as companies scrambled to pre-empt tariffs, while consumer spending on durable goods fell 3.4% as sentiment came under pressure.And the first quarter figures raised troubling questions about the second. Activity weakened largely as firms braced for the lion’s share of Trump’s tariffs, which he only unveiled in early April. How those firms, and their customers, ultimately respond to those tariffs – and the confusion around them – is widely expected to have a greater impact on growth.Trump’s erratic rollout of 10% tariffs on goods from much of the world, and 145% on China, “have altered the picture dramatically” since the end of the first quarter, Oliver Allen, senior US economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, observed. “Any support to spending from pre-tariff purchases will unwind soon now that substantial new tariffs have been imposed.“Consumers’ spending will also be weighed down by a hit to confidence and real incomes from higher prices, while intense uncertainty will put the freeze on business investment, and exports – especially to China – will suffer.”It is too soon to say whether tariffs, which the administration insists will revitalize the US economy, will, in fact, set the stage for a recession: two consecutive quarters of contraction. On Trump’s watch, the landscape shifts rapidly from one day to the next, let alone during an entire quarter.Trump is right, to a point: most of his tariffs are not to blame for the stunning reversal of growth in the first quarter. The US only hiked duties on China and imposed its blanket 10% levy on many other countries last month, days into the second quarter.The foundations of a potential Trumpcession were not laid in the early months of the year by the tariffs themselves, but by his administration’s execution of them.From repeated jerks and jolts around sweeping duties on Canada and Mexico to announcing “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of nations which were ultimately imposed for less than a day, widespread confusion and uncertainty is now embedded into the world’s largest economy. Businesses inside it and out are not happy.Scott Bessent, Trump’s treasury secretary, has coined an interesting term for this playbook of threats, theatrics and social media broadsides. “President Trump creates what I would call ‘strategic uncertainty’ in the negotiations,” he told a press briefing on Tuesday. “As we start moving forward, announcing deals, then there will be certainty. But certainty is not necessarily a good thing in negotiating.”However useful Trump and his officials find “strategic uncertainty” during trade negotiations, it has different consequences for those paying bills they were repeatedly assured would swiftly fall, trying to grow a business in a market with leaders locked in a war of words with the White House, or planting a crop without knowing what the economic realities will be by the harvest.Trump returned to office after winning the backing of rural and lower-income voters in significant numbers last November. He needs to preserve his base if Republicans are to maintain power in Washington during his second term.Polling suggests these groups are concerned. A PBS News/NPR/Marist survey, published this week, found 48% of rural voters disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy. The same was true for 57% of voters with a household income of less than $50,000.As apprehension grows, the US president has sought to play down the risks. In one of the more peculiar moments in another bizarre week, he appeared to play down the threat of empty store shelves.“Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, y’know,” Trump said during a cabinet meeting on Wednesday. “And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”China has “ships that are loaded up with stuff, much of which – not all of it, but much of which – we don’t need”, he continued.It is typically up to the American consumer, not their president, to decide what they do and don’t need to buy. For a man whose fortune and image are built around conspicuous consumption, the comments seemed very off-brand. “Skimp on the Barbie” read the front page of the often Trump-friendly New York Post. It is still early days for Trump. But already the Biden “overhang” argument is wearing thin. It will be up to US voters, not their president, to deliver a verdict on his handling of the economy. More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      One hundred days in, Donald Trump faces a problem: he can rage, but he can’t govern | Jonathan Freedland

      by

      He says it’s the “best 100-day start of any president in history”, but you can file that along with his boast about crowd sizes and his claim to have won the 2020 election. In truth, the first three months of Donald Trump’s second presidency have been calamitous on almost every measure. The single biggest achievement of those 100 days has been to serve as a warning of the perils of nationalist populism, which is effective in winning votes but disastrous when translated into reality. That warning applies across the democratic world – and is especially timely in Britain.Start with the numbers that matter most to Trump himself. A slew of polls appeared this week, but they all told the same story: that Trump’s approval ratings have collapsed, falling to the lowest level for a newly installed president in the postwar era. He has now edged ahead of his only rival for that title: himself. The previous low watermark for a president three months in was set by one Donald Trump in 2017.Back then, 42% of Americans approved of the way Trump was doing his job. The latest Ipsos survey for the Washington Post/ABC News has Trump at just 39%. This, remember, is meant to be the honeymoon period, yet Trump is 10 points behind where Joe Biden stood at this point, 30 points behind Barack Obama and 44 points behind Ronald Reagan. Remember: US presidents tend to get less, not more, popular as time goes on.Perhaps most significant is that Trump is weak even in those areas where he’s meant to be strong. Confidence in his ability to handle immigration has tumbled and the same is true, even more critically, of his management of the US economy. On the latter, just 37% back Trump, a depth he never plumbed during his first term, even as the economy seized up under Covid. For the first time since 2001, a majority of Americans believe their economic situation is getting worse.With good reason. Because the economic data is almost as troubling for Trump as his poll numbers. This week, official figures showed that the US economy contracted by 0.3% in the first quarter of the year, further fuelling fears of a recession. Trump wasted no time in blaming the shrinkage on Biden, who was in charge for just 20 days of the first three months of 2025, an argument only slightly weakened by the fact that the last quarter with Biden in charge saw growth of 2.4%.It’s a precipitous drop, and the cause of it is hardly mysterious. Economists agree that the culprit is Trump’s tariffs, which prompted a surge in imports, as companies scrambled to buy in goods from abroad before the president’s on-again-off-again levies kicked in. Because those imported goods and services are not produced in the US, they’re subtracted from the headline GDP figure. Hence the contraction. Meanwhile, the chaos and volatility unleashed by Trump’s tariff policy has dented consumer confidence, now down to its lowest level since the recession of 1990, leaving Americans hesitant to spend money amid so much uncertainty. Even though the latest job numbers look healthy, analysts say the underlying picture is alarming. As Bloomberg reports, “corporate investment plans and expectations for growth and jobs have all plummeted – and the key reason is Trump’s trade war.”Trump knows that the warnings from retail giants Walmart and Target, of empty shelves as supplies from heavily tariffed China dry up, have cut through. He addressed that anxiety this week, but in a way that should make even Trump’s admirers, those who usually praise his ability to connect with ordinary folk, worry that he’s losing his touch.Asked about potential shortages of toys at Christmas, Trump said, “Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more.” Bit late in his career for Trump to don the saffron robes and preach a Zen flight from consumerist materialism. His two-toys remark – which strangely did not feature as one of his campaign pledges in 2024 – has already cast him as the Grinch set to ruin Christmas.“BE PATIENT!!!” he urges on his social media platform, as he insists that the vertiginous downward slide of the stock market either doesn’t matter or is all Biden’s fault. But the whiff of desperation is strong as Trump begins to see why the one idea he actually believes in and has believed in for decades – tariffs – is an object of near-universal contempt among economists. Yes, tariffs may have succeeded in persuading Apple to shift manufacturing away from China. But those jobs are not about to move to the US. Apple has announced instead that it will assemble its US-bound iPhones in India. Better restitch those red baseball caps with a revised slogan: make India great again.By now, you’ll recall, Trump was meant to have ended the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, indeed he promised to do that by 21 January. But after a brief ceasefire, Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has resumed, the Trump administration having apparently lost interest. As for Ukraine, Trump got to brag of a breakthrough this week, with an agreement that gives the US a stake in Ukraine’s mineral wealth. But it’s far from the deal he sought.The case he always made was that the US had to be reimbursed for the billions it had given Ukraine in military support under Biden – plucking the entirely bogus figure of $350bn out of the air. But this week’s arrangement includes no such payback. On the contrary, the deal is one Kyiv can look on with quiet satisfaction. It seems the Ukrainians could smell Trump’s need to have something to shout about in time for his 100th day, and they leveraged that eagerness to their advantage.As for his expansionist threats to gobble up Panama, Greenland and Canada, the only concrete result those have brought is defeat in Canada’s general election for the pro-Trump Conservatives and a back-from-the-dead success for the Liberal party that vowed to defy him. Such is Trump’s narcissism that he even boasted about that, citing it as evidence of how much he matters in the world. As he put it, just before Canadians voted: “You know, until I came along, the Conservative was leading by 25 points,” he mused. “I was disliked by enough of the Canadians that I’ve thrown the election into a close call.”The promise was that this second Trump term would be different, that the chaos and churn of Trump 1.0 would be gone. But on Thursday, we were back to the good old days, with the firing of his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, partly for his accidental admission of a journalist into a Signal group chat that discussed attack plans for Yemen, partly for advocating a tougher stance on Vladimir Putin, and partly for earning the hostility of far-right conspiracist Laura Loomer, who has the ear of the president.So it’s fair to say the 100 days have not gone as Trump would have wished. And thanks to those serial failures, you can see the first, small signs that his power to terrify is fading. Witness the handful of senate Republicans who voted with Democrats against his tariff policy. And note how the reliably rightwing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is now a fierce critic, slamming Trump as a “bully” and denouncing tariffs as “the biggest economic policy mistake in decades”. For a few short hours, even Jeff Bezos seemed ready to take a stand, amid reports that Amazon was about to itemise the cost of tariffs to US customers, before the company backed down.Of course, none of this should be a surprise. Trump’s conman promises and delusional dreams of turning the clock back were always bound to fail. This is the nature of nationalist populism, whether it wears a red cap in Michigan or a turquoise rosette in Runcorn. It is expert at turning grievance, division and nostalgia into votes. But when it comes to governing, it will always fail. It offers an outlet for complaint – and has no answers at all.

      Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The case for American reindustrialisation | Dustin Guastella

      by

      A poll from the conservative Cato Institute recently went viral. It found that 80% of Americans think the country would be better off if more people worked in manufacturing. At the same time, only 25% of respondents said they themselves would be better off working in a factory. What should we make of the results?First, there’s nothing contradictory between these figures. It’s easy to see how it would be good for the country to reshore manufacturing jobs, even if it’s not good for you, personally, to work in a factory. Imagine a local pharmacist in an industrial town. He can see how his business would benefit from the expansion of a nearby plant. Yet he could also see that he would personally lose out on a lot of income if he gave up his trade and marched into the factory himself. The same can be said for any number of other workers. The reason so many people find appeals to reindustrialization attractive is because life was undoubtedly better when the old factories in their town were buzzing with activity than it is today, where they sit idle.Second, that 25% figure represents a lot of people. Across the political spectrum, libertarians at Reason Magazine, liberals at the Financial Times, mainstream conservatives, and even some on the far left have misread this figure. They think 25% indicates a woefully low ceiling for appeals to reindustrialization. Yet currently only 8% of Americans are directly employed in manufacturing. If we gave the people what they wanted, we would more than triple the amount of manufacturing jobs in the United States, an increase from about 12.7 million workers to more than 40 million. That is not small, it’s seismic. That a quarter of Americans think they would be personally better off with a factory job – jobs that are often dangerous and difficult – represents a scathing indictment of the so-called “knowledge economy” that promised prosperity but has often delivered devastation instead.Back in 1987, the economists Stephen Cohen and John Zysman warned:“Lose manufacturing and you will lose – not develop – high-wage service jobs.” How prescient they were. Everywhere factories have fled, social rot has followed. Since then, wage growth for most Americans has been stagnant. For those without a college degree it has declined. The promise of a “service economy” was built on the myth that jobs in services could simply replace jobs in manufacturing, without any real trade-off. But, as experience has shown, many service jobs have proved to be stubbornly low-waged. And there is good evidence that, all things being equal, jobs in manufacturing still offer pay advantages over jobs in services. Moreover, as developmental economists have long acknowledged, the health of a nation is tied to the health of its industrial heartlands. Just look at China’s explosive rise to see how important manufacturing is to a nation’s economic strength. Or, alternatively, look at the deindustrialization of the United States, and now Germany, for examples of the equal and opposite effect. A decline, especially a rapid one, in manufacturing is linked to a decline in the social and economic health of the country as a whole.Still, some argue that the only thing special about manufacturing jobs in the US was that the sector was highly unionized and that in a more pro-labor environment, service jobs would make just as much money as factory jobs. For instance, Matt Bruenig notes: “McDonald’s workers in Denmark make more than Honda workers in Alabama.” He’s right. Yet, as he knows, the Danish example doesn’t just show the power of unions, it actually helps make the case for a strong manufacturing sector. For one thing, Danish manufacturing workers make nearly twice the amount that Danish McDonald’s workers do. For another, Denmark employs nearly twice as many (15.7%) workers in manufacturing than does the United States (8%). And, according to the World Bank, manufacturing counts for a significantly larger portion of Denmark’s GDP (about 16%) than it does in the United States (about 10%). Ultimately, a major reason Danish McDonald’s workers can earn high wages is that, thanks to intelligent industrial policy, Denmark has retained its manufacturing sector. It is because blue-collar Danes earn high wages that McDonald’s can afford to pay high wages. The same can’t be said of the United States.While unionized service workers at say, Starbucks, may be able to win significant wage increases through union bargaining, they won’t be able to make anything close to the wages made by union auto workers. And that is not due to a lack of effort or heroism on the part of the baristas. It’s structural. Manufacturing jobs simply have greater wage potential than many jobs in services because they have more room for productivity growth and a higher degree of leverage to win wage demands.Increases in productivity, the amount of work accomplished by each worker in a set period of time, make firms more efficient and more profitable. As productivity increases, so do profits, which can translate to higher wages through bargaining. But service firms and factories have very different productivity curves. A Starbucks store can introduce more efficient espresso machines but ultimately the potential for increased productivity is limited by the nature of the business itself. Starbucks is selling a service, a consumer experience, and it’s hard to increase the per-worker output of an experience. This is a problem across the service sector where the rate of productivity growth remains low. By contrast, manufacturing firms can rapidly increase the output of each worker by introducing new techniques and technologies.As a result, these workers have a regular claim to corresponding wage increases – each year they get more productive, they make the company more money, and therefore the company can afford to pay their wage demands. Still, whether they can win those demands depends on leverage. Here too manufacturing workers have the advantage. A strike in a key auto plant can shut down all downstream operations, resulting in windfall losses quickly. Yet no strike at any given Starbucks store could have the same effect. Productivity and worker-leverage give manufacturing its unique high-wage potential, and for these reasons, a strong manufacturing sector has a salutary effect on the entire economy.Even for union baristas, manufacturing matters.Besides the pay advantages, there are other good reasons for reshoring manufacturing. As John Maynard Keynes argued, national self-sufficiency, the ability of a nation to provide its own industrial necessities, has all sorts of benefits. Including increased leverage in trade negotiations, more sovereignty over economic policy, and greater potential for robust social programs (remember, none of the famously generous Nordic states allowed their major industries to shrivel and die the way that Britain and the United States have). Put simply, if we want more social equality, we need a better economic balance. Consider that in 1960 almost 95% of the clothing worn by Americans was made in the US – today it is 2%. And unionized American garment workers made more then than Bangladeshi garment workers make now.Finally, reindustrialization is great politics. With the left struggling to reach working-class voters, an economic appeal that reaches some 80% of the country is a good way to win back favor. Donald Trump’s chaotic and contradictory policies won’t yield an industrial renaissance, and his fumbling of the economy could make it yet harder to do so, but while we are in the political wilderness the left should figure out the right mix of industrial policies that can bring back manufacturing jobs. We need to figure out an exit path from neoliberal globalization and that involves a wholesale rethinking of trade and industrial policy; immigration and labor market policies; monetary and fiscal policies.The good news is there is hope. As UAW’s president, Shawn Fain, notes, even a modest reorganization of economic policy can result in an instant boost in new manufacturing employment. By the union’s calculations more than 50,000 new jobs could be reshored simply by filling out the capacity of existing plants. That may not sound like a lot, and it’s far short of the 25% figure, but if you’re among those newly employed it could mean the difference between scraping by in a post-industrial town and having a living wage with union rights.Beyond the short term, US deindustrialization, ironically, could be an advantage for its industrial rebirth. After the second world war, Europe saw the most fantastic industrial turnaround ever recorded. Decimated economies such as France and Germany, where industrial towns were bombed to smithereens, suddenly emerged as manufacturing powerhouses. How? The destruction of their old factories gave them a fresh start. Industrial policy-makers didn’t have to deal with stubborn institutional inertia or outmoded infrastructure. While British firms struggled after the war, unwilling to build new plants, French and German manufacturers, with a clean slate upon which to build, surged ahead.Walking through America’s deindustrialized zones is a bit like walking through Dresden after 1945. Maybe then, with a clean slate, we can rebuild better than before.

      Dustin Guastella is a research associate at the Center for Working Class Politics and the director of operations for Teamsters Local 623 More