More stories

  • in

    Stocks in Asia Fall Sharply, Extending a Rout Caused by Trump’s Tariffs

    Futures on the S&P 500, which allow investors to trade the index before regular trading begins on Monday, added to last week’s sell-off.Financial markets were hit hard by another wave of selling at the start of trading in Asia on Monday, with investors and economists grappling with rising odds of a severe economic downturn caused by President Trump’s significant new tariffs on imports.Trading was extremely volatile. Stocks in Japan plunged over 8 percent, while South Korea tumbled about 5 percent. In Australia, stocks fell more than 6 percent.Over the weekend, analysts circulated notes warning that Asia could be particularly vulnerable to a tit-for-tat exchange of retaliatory tariffs between China and the United States. Many countries in the region, including Japan and South Korea, count both nations as their top trading partners.President Trump doubled down on Sunday evening, saying that he would not ease his tariffs on other countries “unless they pay us a lot of money.” He also dismissed concerns that his steep new taxes on imports will lead to higher prices. “I don’t think inflation is going to be a big deal,” he told reporters on Air Force One.On Friday, China struck back at the United States with a 34 percent tariff on a number of American exports, matching a 34 percent tariff that Mr. Trump imposed on China last week.On Monday, stock benchmarks in Hong Kong and Taiwan plunged about 10 percent when they started trading. Stocks in mainland China were down about half that amount.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    A Tariffs Cheat Sheet

    An escalating global trade war has tanked markets and plunged corporate America into chaos. DealBook asked economists, investors and other experts to help make sense of what’s next.It was much worse than expected. President Trump’s attempt to reverse the rules of global trade through sweeping tariffs against dozens of nations, including major partners like the European Union, Japan and China, has caused a meltdown in global markets and sent corporate boardrooms scrambling.Today, 10 percent tariffs go into effect on all of America’s trading partners except Canada and Mexico. Additional, “reciprocal” tariffs will go into effect on dozens of other nations on Wednesday. China faces the toughest levies — at least 54 percent — and it hit back with its own toll on U.S. goods yesterday. Expect a response from the E.U. next week.Trump has argued that the economic pain caused by the tariffs will be short term and ultimately justified by a boom in the U.S. economy, but news of the measures hit investors hard. The benchmark S&P 500 closed yesterday near bear market territory, with analysts warning of an increased risk of recession.Jerome Powell, the head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, offered a somewhat glum outlook yesterday on the prospects for growth and warned of higher prices that he acknowledged could be more than temporary.There’s a lot going on. DealBook asked economists, investment researchers and other experts to help make sense of what’s next.How have the new tariffs changed the risk of a recession?We asked: Jason Furman, a professor of economics at Harvard and former economic adviser to President Barack Obama.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    The Theories Behind the Trump Shock

    There are two related theories of what Donald Trump’s dramatic revision of the global trade system is intended to accomplish.First, the goal is to revitalize American manufacturing, our capacity to build at home and export to the world. The global free trade system that took shape in the late 20th century served the American empire and American G.D.P. but at the expense of America’s earlier role as a manufacturing powerhouse — and because manufacturing jobs were such an important source of blue-collar male employment, at the expense of the working-class social fabric.Meanwhile, over time, our manufacturing base didn’t just move overseas, it moved into the territory of our greatest rival, the People’s Republic of China. So rebuilding industry in America has two potential benefits even if it sacrifices some of the efficiencies offered by global trade. Factory jobs fill a particular socioeconomic niche that’s been filled instead by drugs, decline, despair. And having a real manufacturing base is essential if we’re going to be locked into great power competition for decades to come.Under this theory, though, it would seem like tariffs would be most effectively deployed against China, countries in China’s immediate economic orbit, and developing countries that are natural zones for outsourcing. But the Trump administration has deployed them generally, against peer economies and allies. The policy seems much more sweeping than the goal, the potential damage to both growth and basic international comity too large to justify the upside.Which is where the second argument comes in — that this policy is about fiscal deficits, not just trade deficits and manufacturing. The same global system that made America a net importer also enabled us to borrow immense sums, but we are reaching the point where that borrowing cannot be sustained, where interest rates on the debt will crush our policymaking capacities even if there isn’t an overall flight from the dollar.Here tariffs serve several purposes. Most straightforwardly they generate revenue without striking the kind of grand bargain on Medicare and taxes that the two parties are just too polarized to make. (The only way a Republican president can preside over tax increases is to implement them unilaterally while insisting that they will fall mostly on foreigners.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Fact-Checking Trump’s Claim About Egg Prices

    President Trump, as he announced sweeping tariffs, batted away “very tired predictions” from critics of his economic agenda by citing a large decline in the price of eggs.“The price of eggs dropped now 59 percent, and they’re going down more and the availability is fantastic,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday.The wholesale price of eggs has indeed fallen by more than half since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, but that drastic decline is not yet reflected in the retail price, which consumers pay at the grocery store.According to the Agriculture Department’s weekly data release, the national wholesale average has fallen from $6.55 a dozen on Jan. 24 to $3 on March 28, a 54 percent decline. But the agency, in its latest release, noted that it could take up to three weeks for retail prices to catch up to wholesale prices and that “consumers are only now starting to see shelf prices slowly decline.”The average price of a dozen eggs in grocery stores was $5.90 in February, the month with the latest available data, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was almost a dollar more than the average in January.The wholesale prices of eggs remains much higher now than at this point at the end of March 2024, when the national average was $1.70 a dozen.The Agriculture Department predicted in its latest food price outlook that egg prices will increase by 57.6 percent in 2025 compared with the previous year. More

  • in

    Trump’s Tariff Agenda Bets on Americans Giving Up Cheap Goods

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues that the American dream is about more than cheap televisions, but inflation-weary consumers might disagree.President Trump’s sweeping tariffs are expected to raise the cost of cars, electronics, metals, lumber, pharmaceuticals and other products that American consumers and businesses buy from overseas.But Mr. Trump and his advisers are betting that it can sell an inflation-weary public on a provocative idea: Cheap stuff is not the American dream.“I couldn’t care less if they raise prices, because people are going to start buying American-made cars,” Mr. Trump said on NBC’s Meet the Press show on Sunday in response to fears of foreign car prices spiking.The notion that there is more to life than low-cost imports is an acknowledgment that tariffs could impose additional costs on Americans. It is also a pitch that the burden will be worth it. Mr. Trump’s ability to convince consumers that it is acceptable to pay more to support domestic manufacturing and adhere to his “America First” agenda could determine whether the president’s second term is a success or a calamity.But it is not an easy sell. The onslaught of tariffs has roiled markets and dampened consumer confidence. Auto tariffs that go into effect on Thursday will add a 25 percent tax on imports of cars and car parts, likely upending pricing in the sector. Mr. Trump has already imposed tariffs of 20 percent on Chinese goods and more are expected later this week, when the president announces his “reciprocal” tariffs on major trading partners, including those in Asia and Europe.In confronting anxiety over the trade uncertainty, Mr. Trump and his top economic aides have resorted to asking Americans to think about the bigger picture. They espouse the view that Mr. Trump’s trade wars are necessary to correct decades of economic injustice and that paying a bit more should be a matter of national pride.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Says He ‘Couldn’t Care Less’ if Auto Tariffs Raise Car Prices in the U.S.

    President Trump has said that “tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented.” For someone who once called himself a “tariff man,” tariffs are the solutions to many economic problems.He has argued that imposing tariffs would protect American factories, spur manufacturing, create new jobs and bend uncooperative governments to his will. Since his inauguration, while imposing and then suspending and then imposing tariffs again, Mr. Trump has upended the global trading system.But over that time Mr. Trump has also begun conceding that tariffs could cause financial discomfort for Americans. That possibility came up in stark terms in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” from Saturday, when Mr. Trump said that he “couldn’t care less” about the prospect of higher car prices.The president repeated the sentiment twice when asked about the 25 percent tariffs on imported cars and auto parts that he has promised will go into effect on Thursday. He told the NBC News host Kristen Welker that the tariffs were permanent, and that he would encourage auto companies and their suppliers to move to the United States.In one exchange, Ms. Welker asked Mr. Trump if he was at all concerned with the effect of tariffs on car prices, which experts have said could go up by thousands of dollars. “No, I couldn’t care less,” he said, “because if the prices on foreign cars go up, they’re going to buy American cars.”After the interview, an aide to the president told NBC that Mr. Trump was referring to the increase in foreign car prices.While the White House sought to emphasize foreign-made vehicles, the tariffs will affect American companies like Ford Motor and General Motors, which build many of their vehicles in Canada and Mexico. Nearly half of the vehicles sold in the United States are imported, according to S&P Global Mobility data, and almost 60 percent of auto parts in cars assembled in the country.A study by the Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan research center, forecast that tariffs would cause vehicle prices to increase by an average of 13.5 percent — an additional $6,400 to the price of an average new 2024 car.On Sunday, Shawn Fain, the president of the United Automobile Workers union, said that the tariffs were indeed a “motivator” for carmakers to bring jobs back to the United States. But, he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” they were not an “end-all solution” to help American auto workers. If jobs are being brought back to the United States, Mr. Fain said, they need to be “good paying union jobs that set standards.”Peter Navarro, a senior trade adviser to Mr. Trump, defended the tariffs and said they would raise about $100 billion, which would translate to tax credits for people who buy American cars. He, too, told Americans not to worry about the effects of the tariffs.Instead, he said on Sunday, they should “trust in Trump.” More

  • in

    Democrats: Still Under Construction

    More from our inbox:Domestic EnemiesNew housing under construction in Georgetown, Texas.Mike Osborne for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Alliance,” by Ezra Klein (column, March 9):Mr. Klein gets some things right about government efficiency and some things absolutely wrong. I agree that Democrats should pursue policies of abundance rather than policies of constraint. But Democrats did make that argument repeatedly and provided real policy solutions — for example, an expanded child tax credit that reduced child poverty roughly by half within a two-year period.Mr. Klein underestimates the power of the media’s constantly hammering on the message of division and the false assumption that taking care of the poorest will disadvantage working- and middle-class white people. He also contrasts housing construction policy in California and Texas, blaming overregulation for California’s lack of progress in meeting needs. Earthquakes? Wildfires? Coastal erosion? Access to adequate water? Mr. Klein ignores those constraints. And has he been to Texas lately?I am from a large Texas family and lived in California for 40 years. “Accessible housing” in Texas has led to endless sprawl, long commutes, increasing air pollution alerts and limited access to amenities to improve the quality of life. With its diminishing investment in public goods like schools and parks, its poor family support and hostility to women and diverse people, and one of the most corrupt administrative and legislative governments in the United States, Texas is hardly a model.Terry L. AllisonMontrealTo the Editor:Ezra Klein suggests that “a politics of abundance” can defeat the “politics of scarcity” that fuels the fear driving people into the arms of authoritarians like Donald Trump. While I agree from a philosophical standpoint, I must ask: How can we pull that off in a world where more and more of our planet is becoming uninhabitable because of climate change?Climate change is at the root of most of the challenges we face today. Millions of people displaced by famine, fire or flood will move to the quickly dwindling parts of the planet that are habitable. People in these still habitable locations sense this at their deepest core, and thus the politics of scarcity are born — not from propaganda but from actual crisis.We cannot even begin to project any sense of “abundance” while this indisputable fact remains true. The only way to save not only our political representation but also our planet is to face this existential crisis squarely, so that maybe one day “abundance” becomes a word that we can use truthfully, and joyfully, once again.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    The Second Trump Administration Is About Ideology, Not Oligarchy

    The Democrats, casting about for an anti-Trump narrative, have found a word: “oligarchy.” It was part of Joe Biden’s farewell address; it’s central to Senator Bernie Sanders’s barnstorming; it shows up in the advice given by ex-Obama hands. It aspires to fold together President Trump’s self-enrichment, Elon Musk’s outsize influence, the image of Silicon Valley big shots at the inauguration with a familiar Democratic criticism of the G.O.P. as the party of the superrich.I don’t want to pass premature judgment on its rhetorical effectiveness. But as a narrative for actually understanding the second Trump administration, the language of “oligarchy” obscures more than it reveals. It suggests a vision of Trumpism in which billionaires and big corporations are calling the shots. And certainly, the promise of some familiar Republican agenda items — like deregulation and business tax cuts — fits that script.But where Trump’s most disruptive and controversial policies are concerned, much of what one might call the American oligarchy is indifferent, skeptical or fiercely opposed.Start with the crusade against wokeness and D.E.I., a fight spreading beyond the federal bureaucracy to everything (state policymaking, university hiring) influenced by federal funding. Is this a central oligarchic agenda item? Not exactly. Sure, some corporate honchos were weary of activist demands and welcomed the rightward shift. But before the revolts that began with politicians like Ron DeSantis and activists like Christopher Rufo, the corporate oligarchy was an ally or agent of the Great Awokening, either accepting new progressivism’s strictures as the price of doing business or actively encouraging D.E.I. as both a managerial and a commercial strategy.Capital, in other words, is flexible. It can be woke or unwoke, depending on the prevailing winds, and it will adapt again if anti-D.E.I. sentiment goes away.Next, consider Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, with its frantic quest to slash contracts, grants and head counts at government agencies. Is this oligarchy? No doubt some corporations stand ready to fill spaces left open by the public-sector retreat. But the American corporate sector as a whole is deeply enmeshed with governmental contracting, heavily invested in public-private partnerships, accustomed to cozy lobbying relationships and eager to take advantage of government largess.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More