Economics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Trump’s firing of the US jobs chief has economists worried

      by

      As it has for over a hundred years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release its latest monthly jobs report on Friday.But the routine monthly update on the health of the US jobs market has been overshadowed by Donald Trump’s firing of the agency’s commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, hours after July’s statistics were released last month.The BLS’s data is parsed by Wall Street, Federal Reserve officials and company bosses across the US. It is also widely watched – and admired – internationally as a barometer of the US economy.Both liberal and conservative economists have criticized Trump’s nominated replacement at the BLS and have raised concerns over what will happen to the agency after the dramatic shake-up. Here’s what we know about what’s happening to the bureau.What does the Bureau of Labor Statistics do?The bureau reports key economic statistics through surveys of employers and prices. Every month, it releases data on the labor market, including the current unemployment rate, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the cost of a basket of goods and services. This data is an important monthly snapshot of the US economy and how it changes over time.Why did Trump fire the bureau’s commissioner?Last month, the bureau announced the US had added just 73,000 jobs in July – far lower than expected – and made big revisions to previously released stats on the labor market in May and June. The number of jobs added to the economy across those two months was dramatically cut by over 250,000.Trump, who spent months boasting about the strength of the economy amid fears about the impact of his trade wars, was furious. “Today’s Job Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,” he declared on social media.Hours after the numbers were released, Trump announced he was firing McEntarfer and that she would “be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified”.Has Trump firing of the bureau’s commissioner changed its operations?Economists say that Trump’s firing hasn’t changed the bureau, yet. Although the White House has made other job cuts at the BLS, as it did throughout the federal workforce. Since Trump took office, the bureau has seen a hiring freeze and has lost 15% of its workforce.While the bureau said it was downsizing its data collection for CPI, it did not say it was making any significant changes to its survey to employers.Economists say that, for now, the bureau’s operations have largely remained the same. William Watrowski, a longtime leader within the bureau, is currently its acting commissioner. But there are still many questions about the future of the bureau, especially after Trump announced his nomination for McEntarfer’s replacement.Who does Trump want to appoint as the bureau’s new commissioner?Trump has nominated EJ Antoni, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, as the bureau’s commissioner.Antoni was a contributor to Project 2025 – the Heritage Foundation’s rightwing blueprint for reshaping the US government – and was a vocal critic of the bureau last year, claiming that it manipulated numbers to make them more favorable to Joe Biden and Democrats. Last November, Antoni said on Twitter that Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency needed to “take a chainsaw” to the bureau.“Month after month, the government bean-counters under former-president Biden published overly optimistic estimates for everything from job growth to the size of the economy, only to have those numbers routinely – and quietly – revised down later,” Antoni wrote in May.When announcing his appointment, Trump said Antoni “will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST AND ACCURATE”.Antoni has yet to be confirmed by Congress, and a confirmation date has not been set.Why did the bureau revise its job figures for May and June?Revisions are standard to the bureau’s reporting of the labor market, which is based on surveys to employers throughout the country.Large revisions often happen when employers take more time to complete the bureau’s surveys or revise their own figures due to changing circumstances. Economists have pointed out that uncertainty can lead to larger revisions. The pandemic, for example, saw jobs figures in flux as employers were handling different shutdown laws and the spread of the virus.The impact of Trump’s tariffs on data collection could be a major factor in the revisions seen earlier this year. Businesses have been reporting rollercoaster levels of uncertainty over tariff policy, with sentiment among US small businesses dipping down in the spring before going up again in the summer.“We’ve gone through periods where there were larger revisions before,” said Michael Madowitz, principal economist at the Roosevelt Institute who served on the bureau’s data users advisory committee before it was dissolved by the Trump administration. “This is like so standard, and the idea that it’s what actually set off this big political kerfuffle – this is a really unprecedented political situation.”Has the bureau gone through any political fights before?This isn’t the first time the bureau has been accused of manipulating numbers for politics. In the mid-90s, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chair at the time, criticized the way the bureau was calculating the CPI. Greenspan argued that the bureau was overestimating CPI, making inflation look higher than it actually was.Thomas Stapleford, a historian at the University of Notre Dame and author of The Cost of Living in America: A Political History of Economic Statistics, pointed out that Greenspan’s criticism led to a series of hearings where the bureau’s methodology came under question and debate. There were congressional hearings and a committee of economists was formed to investigate the methodology.“There’s all this detailed look at digging into the methodology by these outside experts and also testimony from [the bureau],” Stapleford said. “In my mind, if you have questions about the methodology, that’s the way to approach it.”But Trump has pushed the bureau into uncharted waters. Stapleford noted McEntarfer’s firing was the first time the president fired a bureau commissioner.“What the administration, in the eyes of critics, is doing is pushing the numbers in a particular direction. Not for reasons that it can justify publicly in terms of methodology, but simply because it would like a different outcome,” Stapleford said. “That’s a really big deviation from how the bureau has operated in the past.”What does this all mean for the future of the bureau?The commissioner isn’t involved in much of the day-to-day operations of the bureau. A new leader could have major sway over how the bureau collects and reports data in the long term, but there are protections in place, and any significant changes would be subject to public scrutiny.“The commissioner isn’t directly involved in the data calculation. Most of the BLS staff are long-term civil servants. They’ve been there a long time, they have various protections around them,” Stapleford said. “If the new commissioner started to force major methodological changes, I think that would raise a lot of red flags if those changes were controversial.”But even if major changes aren’t made immediately, the fact that Trump has called the bureau’s data into question could risk confusing Americans over whether the data can be trusted.“It takes a whole lot longer to build credibility than to lose. I don’t think any of the experts involved at this point are at all worried about the credibility of BLS’s work, but I know a whole lot less about what’s filtering down to the average person right now,” Madowitz said.As an example, Madowitz pointed out how the science around climate change has been clear.“But having a one-side, other-side public position on what the science says has left the public really confused,” Madowitz said. “It would be really bad if that’s how we decided to understand the economy.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump asks US supreme court to overturn trade tariffs ruling

      by

      Donald Trump has asked the US supreme court to overturn a lower court decision that most of his sweeping trade tariffs were illegal.The US president filed a petition late on Wednesday to ask for a review of last week’s federal appeals court ruling in Washington DC, which centred on his “liberation day” border taxes introduced on 2 April, which imposed levies of between 10% and 50% on most US imports, sending shock waves through global trade and markets.The court found in a 7-4 ruling last Friday that Trump had overstepped his presidential powers when he invoked a 1977 law designed to address national emergencies to justify his “reciprocal” tariffs.The decision was the biggest blow yet to Trump’s tariff policies, but the levies were left in place until 14 October – giving the administration time to ask the supreme court to review the decision.Trump has now appealed and the supreme court is expected to review the case, although the justices must still agree to do so. The administration asked for that decision to be made by 10 September.The appeal calls for an accelerated schedule with arguments being heard by 10 November, according to filings seen by Bloomberg. Justices could then rule by the end of the year.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe ruling that the tariffs were unlawful upheld a previous decision by the US Court of International Trade.The federal appeals court said last Friday that 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”.It said many of Trump’s steep tariffs were “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 leaned on.A defeat for Trump’s levies would at least halve the current average US effective tariff rate of 16.3%, and could force the country to pay back tens of billions of dollars, according to Chris Kennedy, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics. It could also derail the preliminary trade deals the president has struck with some countries, including the UK and the European Union.Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress, but Trump claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency.Earlier this week, the US clothing brand Levi’s said that “rising anti-Americanism as a consequence of the Trump tariffs and governmental policies” could drive British shoppers away from its denim. Other brands, such as Tesla, have also suffered in Europe and in Canada, while protests against US goods have led to a slump in sales of Jack Daniel’s whiskey. More

    • 200 Shares179 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

    • 175 Shares199 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 Shares179 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

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Despite Trump, the US economy remains surprisingly resilient. But for how long? | Richard Partington

      by

      Chaotic and unpredictable, keeping up with Donald Trump’s volatile trade war – never mind his presidency – can be tough.Back in April after his “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, the talk was of the president crashing the global economy. Then, after a Wall Street backlash, the world learned the acronym “Taco”, which stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out”. Now, things are heating up again.The president’s decision to hit US trading partners – including Canada, Brazil, India and Taiwan – with new tariffs after his self-imposed 1 August deadline certainly reignites a threat to the world economy. Dozens of countries have been left reeling, and US consumers are expected to pay a heavy price.However, there is a sense that things could have been worse. Nowhere more clearly is this reflected than on Wall Street: despite the chaos of the president’s trade war, the stock market remains close to record levels.After the latest escalation on Friday, and some worrying US jobs numbers, share prices took a hit, sliding by about 1%. But this is a setback rather than a rout.A further slide could be ignited by this capricious president. Trump’s decision to fire the official in charge of labour market data and his war on the independence of the US Federal Reserve will make matters worse.But despite the warnings of untold economic damage from the US tariff war earlier this year, the American economy has proven surprisingly resilient in recent months.Last week, the president seized on US growth figures showing the economy had expanded at an annualised rate of 3% in the second quarter, far in excess of the 2.4% rate predicted on Wall Street. Could the “fake news” media have it wrong? Are tariff wars “good, and easy to win,” as Trump claims?While inflation has ticked up, from 2.4% in May to 2.7% in June, it is well below the peak that followed the height of the pandemic disruption and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and is far from hitting the levels feared.Back in April, in a country wrought with division, Democratic voters reckoned inflation was on track to hit 7.9% within a year, while Republicans said it would collapse to 0.9%.Butthere is good reason why the US economy has so far defied the prophecies of Armageddon. For starters, the hot-cold nature of Trump’s tariff war means investors still anticipate further deals will be done to avoid the worst threats from ever materialising. The toughest tariffs introduced on Friday are only just arriving, too, meaning any impact has yet to emerge.Most countries have not hit back with retaliatory measures, which would have dramatically worsened things by putting international trade into a deeper tailspin.Meanwhile, knowing full well the dangers of this erratic president, businesses have been planning for months to avoid the worst-case scenarios.US companies rushed to stockpile goods before the trade war, helping them to keep prices down for now. Some firms have taken a hit to profits, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank, reckoning this is better than testing struggling American consumers – worn out by years of high inflation – with further price increases.The tariff costs are also being spread by multinationals, by increasing prices across the markets they operate in. In one high-profile example, Sony has put up the price of its PlayStation 5 by as much as 25% in some markets, including the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. But not in the US.Still, there are signs that consequences are coming. When US businesses exhaust their pre-tariff stockpiles, it is likely that prices will creep higher. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of an erratic president is hitting jobs and investment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLast week’s US jobs market data has reignited fears over the resilience of the American economy. Tariffs are weighing on business confidence and steadily creeping into consumer prices.GDP growth of 3% might appear robust on the face of things, but this figure was heavily influenced by the 0.5% fall in output in the first quarter, when the surge in US firms rushing to beat Trump’s tariffs distorted activity. Growth in the first half averaged 1.25%, markedly slower than the 2.8% rate for 2024 as a whole.Part of the reason Wall Street remains sanguine about this is the continued belief that things could have turned out worse. Deals are still expected, with the pause in tariffs for key US trade partners Mexico and China suggesting this most clearly.The investor view is that rather than tariffs the president would prefer a string of box-office moments in front of the TV cameras with trade partners paying tribute to the court of Trump.However, it would be wrong to underestimate the self-described “tariff man’s” love of border taxes. And even though his most extreme threats will be negotiated down, the final destination will still be much worse than before. An economic hurricane might be avoided but a storm is still the last thing businesses and consumers need.Britain’s US trade deal is a case in point. A 10% US tariff on British goods has been welcomed as a big victory for Keir Starmer given the alternative, but it is still far worse than before.British cars will face a tariff rate four times higher than previously, costing jobs and growth in Britain while hitting American consumers in the pocket.For the US consumer, the average tariff had been close to 2% before Trump’s return to the White House. After his 1 August escalation, that figure leaps to about 15% – the highest level since the 1930s.Almost a century ago a similar wrong-headed protectionist approach in Washington made the Great Depression far worse: the Smoot-Hawley tariffs hit the US and triggered a domino effect among the main industrialised nations, ultimately leading to the second world war.In the unpredictability of Trump’s trade war, hope remains that similar mistakes can be avoided. But significant damage is still being done. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Good, mad and ugly: the US economy’s performance under Trump – in charts

      by

      According to Donald Trump’s White House, the US economy is booming, inflation is dead and jobs are surging. A blizzard of economic reports has cast a pall on such claims in recent days.This week’s data on Trump’s early economic record was mixed – good, mad and ugly – with jobs numbers so weak he reached for the catchphrase he once used to build himself into a reality TV star: you’re fired.The picture is chaotic, with robust headline growth in the world’s largest economy, wild swings in trade, and a remarkable slowdown in the labor market.For six months, Trump has staged an extraordinary campaign to overhaul the global economy and extract concessions from Washington’s allies and rivals by threatening and imposing steep tariffs on their US exports.But the unpredictable, erratic rollout of this strategy has already had bizarre consequences.Resilient-ish growthOn the surface, at least, this week’s deluge of data opened with good news: the US economy returned to growth in the second quarter, with gross domestic product (GDP) – a broad measure of economic health – expanding at a rate not seen since last summer.But this followed an unexpected contraction in the first quarter, and underlined some more concerning figures, such as a 15.6% drop in private domestic investment. Businesses have been struggling to keep up with the hour-by-hour jerks and jolts on sweeping economies policies.Yes, there was good growth in the last quarter but in the first six months, the US economy grew at a mediocre 1.2%. The Wall Street Journal called it “the weirdest GDP report ever”.Imports surge and plungeDelve a bit deeper, and you start to see how the US economy is grappling with a series of extraordinary forces as Trump hammers out his trade strategy.Firms spent much of the first quarter waiting for the president to reveal his plans for tariffs: which countries would be targeted, at what rates, and when. They stockpiled, triggering an unprecedented surge in imports that pushed growth into the red.In the second quarter, however, as Trump started to ramp up his economic attacks, imports tumbled at an equally astonishing pace. Net exports – how much a country exports more than it imports – boosted GDP.Interest rates on holdThis is Trump’s least favorite chart. Despite his many public demands, threats and attacks, the Federal Reserve has not yet cut interest rates this year.Why? Jerome Powell, the central bank’s chair, has repeatedly argued it should wait and see the impact of the president’s trade strategy before moving. Fed officials are worried that inflation – despite Trump’s claims that it has collapsed on his watch – has actually remained stubborn, and might rise as a result of his tariffs.This has gone down extremely poorly in the White House, where officials are counting down the weeks until Powell’s term as chair ends next May.Jobs growth stallsData released on Friday fundamentally changed the way US policymakers and politicians think about the economy. Until then, many inside the Fed thought everything was broadly ticking over nicely – and Trump administration officials claimed they were overseeing a boom in activity.But July’s employment report revealed far fewer jobs were created that month than economists had expected, and revised down estimates for May and June by an astonishing 258,000. Job creation has stalled.“Look, this jobs report isn’t ideal,” Stephen Miran, chairman of the White House council of economic advisers, told CNN, before suggesting that fading uncertainty around trade and fiscal policy would lead to significant improvement.“It’s all going to get much, much better from here,” he added. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump fires labor statistics chief hours after data showed jobs growth slowed

      by

      Donald Trump fired the federal government official in charge of labor statistics, hours after data revealed jobs growth stalled this summer, prompting accusations that he is “firing the messenger”.The US president claimed that Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of labor statistics, had “faked” employment figures in the run-up to last year’s election, in an effort to boost Kamala Harris’s chances of victory.Trump later claimed: “Today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad”.He produced no evidence for these allegations, and insisted that the US economy was, in fact, “BOOMING” on his watch.But Friday’s employment figures told a very different story, and raised questions about the state of the labor market since Trump’s return to office.“We need accurate Jobs Numbers,” he wrote on Truth Social. “I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.”McEntarfer was contacted for comment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) confirmed in a brief statement that she had been dismissed. William Wiatrowski, the agency’s deputy commissioner, will serve as acting commissioner.Trump’s abrupt announcement came as administration officials scrambled to explain a lackluster employment report. Not only did jobs growth fail to meet expectations in July, but previous estimates for May and June were revised significantly lower.The president was promptly accused of trying to hide accurate statistics. “Trump is firing the messenger because he doesn’t seem to like jobs numbers that reflect how badly he’s damaged the economy,” said Lily Roberts, managing director for inclusive growth at the Center for American Progress, a thinktank, said.“Politicizing our country’s collection of data on what’s going on in the economy … will make it harder to create an economy that makes sure everyone has a good job,” added Roberts. “Borrowing from the authoritarian playbook fuels more uncertainty that will cost Americans for years to come.”Paul Schroeder, executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, described the president’s allegation as “very damaging and outrageous”, adding: “Not only does it undermine the integrity of federal economic statistics but it also politicizes data which need to remain independent and trustworthy. This action is a grave error by the administration and one that will have ramifications for years to come.”McEntarfer is a widely respected economist and veteran employee of the federal government. She previously worked at the US Census Bureau under George W Bush and at the US census bureau under Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn January 2024, before McEntarfer’s confirmation for her current post by the US Senate, her nomination was backed by four former BLS commissioners.In a letter also signed by organizations including the American Statistics Association and a string of senior economists, they said there were “many reasons” to confirm McEntarfer as commissioner of labor statistics, citing her “wealth of research and statistical experience”.She was ultimately confirmed by a vote in the Senate, with 86 votes cast in favor and eight against.Gene Sperling, chair of the national economic council under Bill Clinton and Obama, and who worked as an official under Biden, said he expected Trump to “destroy the credibility” of economic data when his administration suffered its first bad jobs report. “Now: first bad job report, and he just fired BLS head over absurd claims of bias,” Sperling wrote on X, formerly Twitter.Trump’s decision to fire McEntarfer was “outrageous but not surprising”, said Julie Su, former acting US labor secretary under Biden. “He hates facts, so he blames truth-tellers.”The US “needs and deserves trustworthy economic data”, added Su. “This is a pathetic attempt by the president to gaslight everyone about the consequences of his disastrous economic policies.” More