Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares69 Views

      in US Politics

      How Trump and corporations have hobbled US labor watchdog

      by

      Jennifer Abruzzo, general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under the Biden administration, was one of the first officials to be fired by Donald Trump once he took office in January. She wasn’t the last.Since then, Trump has fired a slew of government officials, including the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) chair, Gwynne Wilcox, the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, and most recently, he has attempted to fire the Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook.Abruzzo served at the agency for nearly 30 years before Trump fired her in January 2025, a move recommended in Project 2025. Now she is warning that the attacks on the US’s top labor watchdog threaten to return workers’ rights to levels unseen since 1935 and empower corporations to run roughshod over the agency.“My fear is that if this continues, where corporations and corporate billionaire donors have an outsized voice and directly influence our democracy, we’re going to find ourselves living in an environment such as what we lived in before 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted,” said Abruzzo. “Working families will be dealing with lower wages, substandard working conditions, and no real channels for them to fight back.”In May, the supreme court declined to reinstate Wilcox while she challenges Trump’s decision to terminate her without cause. A lower court will now have to rule on the issue, with the supreme court likely to follow on appeal. In the meantime, the agency’s powers have been effectively blocked and, Abruzzo worries, worse may be to come.The move was seen by opponents as a challenge to a landmark 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v United States, that ruled Congress can limit the president’s power to remove officials from independent administrative agencies.Abruzzo worries that Wilcox’s firing could pave the way for the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935 to federally protect workers’ rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining, to be repealed entirely.“If the supreme court majority eliminates or limits the reach of Humphrey’s Executor and allows the president to fire decision-making officials in the executive branch, including at the NLRB, at his whim, then I anticipate the next step will be figuring out whether or not, if they are found unconstitutional, those provisions should be severed, or the whole [NLRA] act could conceivably be repealed,” Abruzzo said.In the meantime, Abruzzo argues, the NLRB has been rendered toothless.“It’s going to take years to sort out, the agency’s going to be completely ineffective in enforcing the statute, and working families are going to continue to suffer and not be able to get any redress for the violations of their rights. It’s why I think states need to step in and protect their citizenry.”Major corporations are already making ground against the agency after the ruling. On 19 August, the US court of appeals fifth circuit ruled preliminary injunctions halting unfair labor practice cases against Elon Musk’s SpaceX and two other employers can remain in place as the employers’ challenge the constitutionality of the NLRB.The NLRB declined to comment. SpaceX did not respond to multiple requests for comment.“I think we’re going to see a flood of employers forum shopping and flocking into district courts in the fifth circuit area seeking to get preliminary injunctions preventing the NLRB cases that frankly are seeking to hold corporations accountable for their law breaking from moving forward, and that’s going to put an end to the NLRB being able to enforce the act in any meaningful way,” said Abruzzo. “This is all about elevating corporate interests above workers’ rights.”The firings have also left the NLRB without a quorum throughout most of the Trump administration, rendering it unable to issue decisions on cases.In January 2025, after Trump fired Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve as chair of the NLRB board. Trump nominated two members to the board. They are awaiting a vote in the Senate for confirmation, while the term of one of two remaining board members, Marvin Kaplan, expired on 27 August.The agency has also proposed a 4.7% budget cut of $14m for fiscal year 2026, after noting the agency expects to lose nearly 10% of its staff to voluntary resignation and early retirements.The acting general counsel of the NLRB argued earlier this month that the board “has largely been unaffected” by the lack of quorum. But since Trump took office, the NLRB has only issued six decisions compared with fiscal year 2024, when the board issued 259 decisions.“Unless an employer is willing to go along with what the board says, the employer can stall a case indefinitely right now,” said Lauren McFerran, who served as chair of the NLRB during the Biden administration and as a board member from December 2014 to December 2019 and again in July 2020 to January 2021.“So whether it’s a [union] election case, whether it’s an unfair labor practice case, the minute the employer says that they’re not willing to go along and that they want to raise an objection to the board, you’re stuck for the foreseeable future at this point,” added McFerran.Abruzzo argues the firing of Wilcox by Trump, if allowed to stand by the courts, would eliminate the independence of the NLRB in favor of corporations. It’s up to the public to push back on these trends of stripping away protections for workers at the behest of wealthy, powerful corporations and billionaires like Musk, she said.“There is strength in numbers, and we all need to remember we matter. We make an impact on each other’s lives each and every day, and we can’t let the voice of corporate billionaires drown out our voices or squelch our actions and our spirit,” said Abruzzo.“We’re not powerless, and we have the power to demand changes to the way we’re governed, to the way we live our lives. That includes taking to the streets, frankly, and protesting over inadequate wages and working conditions and over economic, social and racial injustice. We need to do more in amplifying our voices, to make sure we’re heard and that actions are taken that are going to benefit us, because that’s, in my opinion, how the tactic of divide and conquer is going to be vanquished.” More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal, federal court rules

      by

      Donald Trump overstepped his presidential powers with most of his globe-rattling tariff policies, a federal appeals court in Washington DC ruled on Friday.US law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax”, the court said in the 7-4 ruling.Many of Trump’s steep tariffs are “are unbounded in scope, amount and duration”, the ruling added, and “assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations” of the law his administration has leant on.The court’s decision is the biggest blow yet to Trump’s tariff policies and will likely mean the supreme court will have to rule on whether he has the legal right as president to upend US trade policy. The court said the ruling would not take effect until 14 October.“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!” Trump wrote on social media, moments after the ruling came down, after the stock markets closed ahead of a three-day weekend in the US. In a lengthy post, he accused the appeals court of political bias.“If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he continued. “At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”The ruling voided Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs that set a 10% baseline on virtually all of the US’s trading partners and his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on countries he has argued have unfairly treated the US.Trump has claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency.The Trump administration has cited various national emergencies – including US trade deficits with trading partners, fentanyl trafficking, and immigration – as the reasons for the actions.But a group of small businesses has challenged the administration’s arguments, arguing they are “devastating small businesses across the country”.And on Friday, the appellate court ruled: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”The ruling also said the US law “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president’s power to impose tariffs”.Earlier on Friday, Bloomberg reported that the administration, worried the court might invalidate the tariffs immediately, filed statements by Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, warning that such a decision would be a “dangerous diplomatic embarrassment” for the US.In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said that Trump “lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign threats”.He said: “The president’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter.”William Reinsch, a former senior commerce department official now with the Center on Strategic and International Studies, told Reuters that the Trump administration had been bracing for this ruling. He said: “It’s common knowledge the administration has been anticipating this outcome and is preparing a Plan B, presumably to keep the tariffs in place via other statutes.”The US trade court heard the case – VOS Selections Inc v Trump – in May, and ruled that the tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the president”. But the court agreed to a temporary pause in the decision pending an appeal hearing.The US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC heard oral arguments about the case on 31 July. Judges expressed skepticism about the administration’s arguments at the hearing. The IEEPA “doesn’t even say ‘tariffs’”, one of the judges noted. “Doesn’t even mention them.”In its ruling, the appeals court noted there were “numerous statutes” that do delegate the power to impose tariffs, in which “clear and precise terms” are used to this make clear.When Congress wants to delegate such authority, it typically “does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs”, the court added.It said: “The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power.”Trump’s tariffs have triggered economic and political uncertainty across the world and stoked fears of rising inflation. More

    • 200 Shares137 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump and the Fed: independence is no substitute for accountability | Editorial

      by

      Donald Trump’s attempt to sack the Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, is the familiar authoritarian trick of bending institutions to serve the leader’s immediate ends. The widespread condemnation is deserved. This is not some daring experiment in popular control of monetary policy. Yet what should follow censure is reflection. For the furore over Ms Cook has revealed a peculiar reflex: to defend the Fed’s independence as though it were synonymous with democracy itself.But is independence of the Fed, or central banks generally, really that? Eric Levitz at Vox thinks so, or at least that it is close enough. He argues that Congress sets the Fed’s objectives; independence applies only to the means. Without independence, politicians would be free to game rates for votes – as Richard Nixon did in 1972, leaning on the Fed to juice growth before the election. On this view, independence is not anti-democratic but prudent delegation.The historian Adam Tooze says that argument misses the point. The Fed, he says, is not a neutral technocracy: its regional boards give business elites formal seats at the table, while labour and consumers are marginal or absent. Independence is not independence from politics; it is independence from electoral accountability. To defend this arrangement as democracy’s bulwark, Prof Tooze maintains, is to confuse professional consensus with popular legitimacy.The leftwing economist Michael Roberts goes further. In his blog this week he argues that central bank independence was never really about technocratic efficiency at all. It blossomed in the neoliberal era because it suited finance. He notes that the 1980s and 90s saw a sharp rise in central bank independence while inflation fell. The correlation has been taken as proof of causation. Yet Mr Roberts argues that the decline in prices owed more to slowing global growth and the end of one-off supply shocks.Central banks proved no better than anyone else at forecasting crises: the former Fed chair Alan Greenspan admitted the 2008 crash left him in “a state of shocked disbelief”. Turkey’s recent bout of hyperinflation was blamed on presidential meddling – but Mr Roberts suggests the real culprits were trade deficits, political instability and a collapsing lira. Monetary policy is too blunt an instrument, as many commentators concede, to deal with today’s volatile world. So where does this leave informed opinion? Certainly not with Mr Trump. To replace one form of unaccountability with a demagogic strongman is no gain. The real task is to ask what a democratic politics of central banking would look like.The academic Saule Omarova’s People’s Ledger is one radical answer: treat the Fed as a public utility, offering universal bank accounts and explicitly aligning its balance sheet with public priorities. A National Investment Authority could channel long-term finance towards infrastructure and decarbonisation, rather than leaving investment decisions to Wall Street. Efforts could be made to broaden board representation beyond business, require distributional impact assessments and tighten “for cause” clauses so that presidents cannot hound governors from office on flimsy pretexts.Mr Trump’s assault must be denounced – and Ms Cook defended. But if voters stop there, a deeper lesson will be missed. Central bank independence was never democracy incarnate. At best it was a compromise suited to an earlier era. Today’s challenge is to rebuild monetary authority on firmer, more democratic ground.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 200 Shares161 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is out to end the Fed’s autonomy. Here’s how he’s trying to get his way

      by

      When Donald Trump stepped up his campaign to influence the US Federal Reserve, he traveled less than a mile from the White House, to tour the central bank’s headquarters. But as the administration considers how to actually get what it wants, one of the US president’s acolytes looked about 500 miles south.A condominium above the Four Seasons hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, is at the heart of an extraordinary battle over the future of the Fed, and the independence of its power of the world’s largest economy.For a generation, presidents have respected the Fed’s autonomy. They might disagree with its decisions. But they allowed it to make long-term calls in the best interest of the economy, even if they caused short-term political discomfort.Trump has ignored this precedent.Since returning to office in January, he has lambasted the Fed publicly and relentlessly – calling its chairperson, Jerome Powell, a “moron”, a “numbskull” and a “disaster” – and accused the central bank of damaging the US economy by failing to cut interest rates.As the Fed declined to lower rates at five consecutive meetings, Trump escalated his attacks, even suggesting (without evidence) that multi-billion dollar renovations of its Washington headquarters were tantamount to fraud.But policymakers held the line. With most rate-setting officials wanting to wait and see the impact of Trump’s policies – from trade wars to deportations – on the economy, they sat on their hands.While the Fed might be on the cusp of resuming rate cuts, Powell has made clear rates are unlikely to fall as drastically as the president wants.So how does Trump actually get what he wants?Back to that condo in Atlanta. It was allegedly bought by Lisa Cook, a respected economist appointed by Joe Biden to serve on the Fed’s board of governors, in July 2021. Trump’s officials claim she took out a mortgage which listed the property as her primary residence – two weeks after taking out another mortgage, which listed a property in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as her principal residence.The allegations – similar to those that the administration has leveled against other opponents – are unconfirmed. But that didn’t stop Trump from immediately demanding Cook’s resignation.When Cook refused to be “bullied”, he tried to fire her. Cook has insisted Trump has no authority to do so, and her attorney has pledged to sue the administration over its bid to remove her from her post.The Fed’s rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is in Trump’s sights. There are 12 seats around the table, filled by five representatives of local reserve banks and seven governors.Fed governors, once appointed, are hard to replace. A full term lasts 14 years, enabling them – in theory – to take a longer view on the economy than, say, presidential administrations working on four-year cycles.Cook’s term is not due to expire until 2038. It now appears likely that her future at the Fed will be settled in court. But Trump’s bid to exert control over the central bank, and its rate-setting committee, does not end there.He has already nominated one ally to sit on the Fed’s board of governors, following the exit of Adriana Kugler, another Biden appointee, earlier this month. Two other governors have already publicly sided with the president on rate cuts, and reportedly made the administration’s shortlist of potential successors to Powell.Powell’s term as Fed chair is due to end in May. His term as a governor is not due to expire until January 2028, but departing chairs have typically left the board at the same time.The Fed has so far defied Trump’s demands. But each departure enables him to build his influence over its policy committee – with view to obtaining an outright majority. Like the supreme court, these nominations have implications for years to come.The administration is arguing a mortgage on a condo in Atlanta should allow it handpick another official to join the Fed’s board. Who knows what the next purported reason will be, should it have another go.Trump has made no secret of this plan. “We’ll have a majority very shortly,” he claimed to reporters at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “So that’ll be great.”Of course, receiving his backing today does not guarantee his support tomorrow.Eight years ago, when he tapped Powell to lead the Fed, the president delivered a strikingly different verdict to the ones he now routinely publishes on social media. “He’s strong, he’s committed and he’s smart,” said Trump. More

    • 138 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      Who is Lisa Cook, the Fed governor facing removal by Trump?

      by

      Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, is now facing removal by Donald Trump, another obstacle in a long line she has faced and written about during her experiences as one of a small number of Black women in the field of economics.Cook was nominated to the Fed in 2022 by then president Joe Biden after building a career that spanned both government and academia, including work at the treasury department, service in the White House, and a long record of scholarly contributions.But her path to confirmation wasn’t without hostility. Republicans opposed her nomination, forcing Vice-President Kamala Harris to break a 50–50 Senate deadlock. That narrow vote made Cook the first, and so far the only, Black woman to serve as a Fed governor.Her potential dismissal comes just days after federal housing finance agency director Bill Pulte alleged on social media that she falsified records and other documents to obtain favorable mortgage terms prior to her appointment. Cook has not been charged with a crime or found guilty of misconduct.By law, governors on the Fed’s board are appointed to 14-year terms and can only be removed for “cause”, generally understood to mean corruption or serious wrongdoing. Cook has continued to push back. Last week, she declared she had “no intention of being bullied” and promised to gather “accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts”.In a statement on Tuesday, she insisted that “no cause exists under the law, and he [Trump] has no authority” to strip her of the seat she has held since 2022. Her attorney has said they intend to sue.Since joining the board, Cook has consistently voted in line with chair Jerome Powell, supporting last year’s decision to cut interest rates and this year’s decision to hold them steady. She is sometimes described as a “dove”, a label economists use for officials who lean toward lower rates.Cook was born in Georgia, where she was raised by a hospital chaplain and a nursing professor. She and her sisters were among the first Black students to integrate their schools.She went on to study at Spelman College, then Oxford University as a Marshall scholar, before earning her PhD in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1997.Her academic work often linked economics with the realities of race and discrimination. One of her most recognized works, Violence and economic activity: evidence from African American patents, described how lynchings and other acts of racial violence in the late 1800s and early 1900s drastically reduced patent activity among Black inventors.Cook has also written candidly about the challenges she has faced in her profession. In a 2019 opinion piece in the New York Times, she and a co-author argued that “economics is neither a welcoming nor a supportive profession for women”.She added: “But if economics is hostile to women, it is especially antagonistic to Black women.” More

    • 175 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal Reserve set to cut interest rates – but still Trump won’t be happy

      by

      Stocks soared on Friday following the strongest signal yet that US the Federal Reserve is gearing up to start cutting interest rates again this fall. But how long can this celebration last?While Wall Street cheered the biggest headline from the speech by the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, at the annual Jackson Hole symposium in Wyoming, Powell also delivered a reality check on where interest rates could settle in the longer term.“We cannot say for certain where rates will settle out over the longer run, but their neutral level may now be higher than during the 2010s,” said Powell.In other words: even if the Fed does start cutting interest rates again this year, they may not fall back to their pre-pandemic levels. It’s a signal, despite the short-term optimism on potential rate cuts, that the Fed’s long-term outlook is more unstable.“Markets might be ahead of their skis on how aggressive the Fed is going to be in reducing interest rates, because the neutral rate might be higher than some believe,” Ryan Sweet, an economist at Oxford Economics, said.Higher rates means borrowing money for loans, such as mortgages, will be more expensive. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was just under 3% in 2021, when interest rates were near zero.Now the average mortgage rate is closer to 6.7%. Paired with home prices at near-record highs, elevated mortgages mean many Americans will continue to struggle to purchase a home.Although Trump has been pushing the Fed for months to decrease rates to 1%, claiming that Powell is “hurting the housing industry very badly”, it seems unlikely that rates will return to such a level any time soon.The Fed is trying to achieve a Goldilocks balance. Rates that are too high risk unemployment, while rates that are too low could mean higher inflation. Policymakers are searching for a “neutral” level, where everything is just right.Many economists believed the central bank was close to achieving this balance before Trump started his second term. In summer 2022, as inflation scaled its highest levels in a generation, the Fed started raising rates, at the risk of hurting the labor market, in an attempt to get inflation down to 2%.Rates rose to about 5.3% in less than two years, but the jobs market remained strong. Unemployment was still at historically low even as inflation came down. Although some economists had feared rapidly increasing rates would throw the US economy into a recession, instead the Fed appeared to achieve what is known as a “soft landing”.But things were thrown into a tailspin when Trump returned to office, armed with campaign promises to enact a full-blown trade war against the US’s key trading partners.The president has long argued that tariffs would boost American manufacturing and set the stage for better trade deals. “Tariffs don’t cause inflation. They cause success,” Trump declared back in January, acknowledging that there might be “some temporary, short-term disruption”.But so far, success has been limited. Economists doubt the policies will generate a manufacturing renaissance, and Trump’s trade war has inspired new commercial alliances that exclude the US.All the while, US consumers are starting to see higher prices due to Trump’s tariffs.At Jackson Hole on Friday, Powell said tariffs had started to push some prices up. In June and July, inflation was 2.7% – up 0.4 percentage points since April, when Trump first announced the bulk of his tariffs.This is still only a modest increase in price growth, but the bulk of the White House’s highest tariffs only went into effect in early August. Fed policymakers are waiting to see whether Trump’s aggressive trade strategy will cause a one-time shift in price levels – or if the effects will continue.The once strong labor market has grown sluggish. Though there are fewer job openings, there are also fewer people looking for jobs. Powell called it “a curious kind of balance” where “both the supply of and demand for workers” have slowed. He noted that the balance was unstable and could eventually tip over, prompting more layoffs and a rise in unemployment.This instability in the labor market has made Fed officials more open to a rate cut. Powell pointed to a slacking in consumer spending and weaker gross domestic product (GDP), which suggests an overall slowdown in economic activity.Although it set the stage for a rate cut as soon as next month, Powell’s speech was far from optimistic.“In this environment, distinguishing cyclical developments from trends, or structural developments is difficult,” he said. “Monetary policy can work to stabilise cyclical fluctuations but can do little to alter structural changes.”From Powell, who is typically diplomatic and reserved in his public statements, this seemed to be a careful warning: when executive policies destabilise the economy, the Fed can only do so much to limit the damage. More

    • 150 Shares177 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s promise of a US manufacturing renaissance leaves experts scratching their heads

      by

      Donald Trump’s hugely disruptive trade war is setting the stage for a manufacturing renaissance in the US, administration officials say. Outside the White House, many economists are skeptical.Global trade experts point to many reasons they believe the president’s tariffs will fail to bring about a major resurgence of manufacturing, among them: Trump’s erratic, constantly changing policies, his unfocused, across-the-board tariffs, and his replacing Joe Biden’s carrot-and-sticks approach to brandish sticks at the world.“I think [Trump’s tariffs] will reduce the competitiveness of US manufacturing, and will reduce manufacturing employment,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). “They’re raising the costs of production to US manufacturing companies, and that makes manufacturers less competitive. There will be some winners and some losers, but the losers will outnumber the winners.”‘Trump keeps changing his mind’The president and his aides insist that higher tariffs on more than 100 countries – making goods imported from overseas more expensive – will spur domestic manufacturing. “The ‘Made in USA’ label is set to resume its global dominance under President Trump,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai claimed recently.But few economists see that happening. Ann E Harrison, an economics professor and former dean of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, said the erratic, on-again-off-again rollout of Trump’s tariffs has already gone far to doom the president’s hopes of inspiring a huge wave of manufacturing investment.“For the policy to be successful, it has to be consistent over a long period,” she told the Guardian. “People need to believe it’s going to last. Some factories take five years to plan and build. You’re talking a long-term play. But Trump keeps changing his mind. Even over the last six months, we’ve had very little consistency.“The other problem is that he’s old, and no one is sure he’s going to be around that long. These policies need to be consistent, and that’s not happening.”Economists point to another question mark that is causing corporate executives to think twice about building factories in the US. In May, the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s blanket tariffs are illegal – a decision that is under appeal.Strain, at the AEI, said: “When you add into the equation the erratic nature of president Trump’s tariff regime, when you add the question of its questionable illegality, when you add that none of this is going through Congress, when you add that even when the US secures a ‘deal’ with another country, it’s not really a deal, there are major outstanding questions.”France doesn’t think its alcohol exports will be hit by tariffs as part of the European Union’s agreement to pay 15% tariffs, noted Strain. “That’s a big question mark that would never go unresolved in any regular, traditional trade deal,” he said. “That’s all part of the massive uncertainty we’re seeing.”The Biden administration used deliberate industrial policies to boost several strategic industries, most notably semiconductors and electric vehicles, including a 100% tariff on EVs from China and 25% on lithium-ion EV batteries, as well as subsidies to buy EVs and build EV-related factories. The policies resulted in a surge in new factories to build semiconductors, electric vehicles and EV components.Biden “said we care about semiconductors and national security, and what he’d try to do is get actual investors to invest in it”, said Dani Rodrik, an economist specializing in trade and industrial policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, who predicted Trump’s blanket tariffs will prove less successful in inspiring investment. “If you really want to increase manufacturing and employment in the US, you’d go about it in a very different way, through industrial policies that first identify specific segments you care about.”When China, Japan and South Korea adopted policies to build their electronics and auto industries, they insisted that the corporations that benefited from those policies compete with foreign companies to help make them globally competitive. “For industrial policy to succeed, it has to work to promote more competition,” said Harrison, at the Haas School of Business. “The problem with tariffs is they do just the opposite. They restrict competition.”Susan Helper, an economist at Case Western Reserve University who worked on industrial policy in the Biden and Obama administrations, said Trump’s tariff rates on some countries and markets – like 15% on the EU, Japan and South Korea – are too low to spur much investment, questioning why a company would build a major factory to circumvent such a duty.“A [semiconductor fabrication] plant, that’s a billion dollars. You need to get a payback and that takes several years,” Helper said. “If the tariffs are 145% [as Trump once imposed on China], that’s attractive for building a plant. But if they fall back to 15%, then it’s really hard to get a return on your investment.”The administration boasts that several of its trade deals have specific commitments to spur huge manufacturing investment. It says its deal with the EU includes a $600bn investment pledge; with Japan, a $550bn investment pledge; and with South Korea, $350bn. Jamieson Greer, US trade representative, wrote in the New York Times: “These investments – 10 times larger than the inflation-adjusted value of the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II – will accelerate US reindustrialization.”But these supposed pledges have attracted skepticism. After all, this president claimed during his first term that “the eighth wonder of the world” was being built in Wisconsin after FoxConn pledged to invest $10bn and create 13,000 jobs at an electronics plant. But that promise fell embarrassingly short.Many economists question whether the EU, Japan or South Korea can force corporations to make a specific investment in the US. Indeed, an EU Commission spokesperson said the bloc had expressed “aggregate intentions” that are “in no way” binding. “These large numbers really sound like window dressing, some round numbers they’re throwing around,” said Harvard’s Rodrik.“Some include investments you were already going to make, and some are aspirational,” said Todd Tucker, a trade and industrial policy expert at the Roosevelt Institute. “Once we’ve had time to evaluate whether the investment happens or not, Trump will be on to the next press cycle.”In recent years, manufacturing employment has been trending downward – not just in advanced industrial countries, but also in China, as new technologies enable factories to churn out goods more efficiently, with fewer workers. That trend raises questions whether Trump’s trade policies can increase factory jobs in the US.‘An island of backwardness’The US is past its manufacturing peak, Berkeley’s Harrison noted. “That was actually during World War Two, and it has been declining ever since,” she said. “I don’t see manufacturing’s share of the economy or manufacturing employment reversing.”She added: “If the question is, are you going to bring about a major resurgence in manufacturing employment, it’s not just unlikely, the answer is no. More and more manufacturing is robot-driven and not done by people.”Auto industry officials in the US complain that Trump’s 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum have increased their costs and injured their competitiveness. “In manufacturing, for every one job in steel production, there are 80 jobs that use steel,” the AEI’s Strain said. “So putting tariffs on imported steel might help that one guy, but you’re hurting the other 80 people.”A study by Federal Reserve economists found that the tariffs Trump imposed in his first term were actually associated with a reduction in factory jobs nationwide, because increased input costs and retaliatory tariffs outweighed import protection from tariffs.Helper, at Case Western Reserve University, warned that the US auto industry will be hurt badly by Trump’s mishmash of tariffs coupled with his slashing subsidies for EVs. “Trump’s policies are setting the auto industry up to be an island of backwardness,” she said. “The rest of the world is going to be making EVs, but we’re going to be focused on making really high profits on pickup trucks that will be bad for the climate and won’t sell in the rest of the world.“We’ll have a great, competitive position in large, gas-guzzling pickups, but we’ll fall further behind in EVs. That’s a very risky and dangerous path.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump revokes Biden order promoting competition in the US economy

      by

      Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked a 2021 executive order on promoting competition in the US economy issued by Joe Biden, the White House said.The move by the Republican US president further unwinds a signature initiative by his predecessor, a Democrat, to crack down on anti-competitive practices in sectors from agriculture to drugs and labor.The justice department welcomed Trump’s revocation of the order, saying it was pursuing an “America first antitrust” approach focused on free markets instead of what it called the “overly prescriptive and burdensome approach” of the Biden administration.It said it was also making progress on streamlining the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) review process of mergers and reinstating more frequent use of targeted and well-crafted consent decrees.Biden signed a sweeping executive order in July 2021 to promote more competition in the US economy as part of a broad push to rein in what his administration described as a pattern of corporate abuses, ranging from excessive airline fees to large mergers that raised costs for consumers.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe initiative, which was very popular with Americans, was championed by top Biden economic officials, many of whom had previously worked for or with the senator Elizabeth Warren, who played a key role in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Barack Obama.Trump has attacked that agency since taking office, announcing plans to shrink its workforce by 90%.Those moves have cost Americans at least $18bn in higher fees and lost compensation for consumers allegedly cheated by major companies, according to an analysis released in June by the Student Borrower Protection Center and the Consumer Federation of America.Biden’s order said it aimed to “enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony”, focused on areas such as labor and healthcare. More