US economy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Cooking the books? Fears Trump could target statisticians if data disappoints

      by

      Summarizing his befuddlement with numbers, Mark Twain observed that there were “lies, damned lies and statistics”.The acerbic phrase later become so deeply embedded in popular consciousness that it once formed the title to an episode of The West Wing, NBC’s portrayal of a fictitious US president played by Martin Sheen.Now professional economists and number-crunchers fear the aphorism could become a White House theme in real life. Buffeted by global markets and public opinion – both of which show a wary skepticism of Donald Trump’s affinity for trade wars – the president may be about to turn his renowned hostility to truths at odds with what he believes towards public servants charged with producing accurate information.A proposed rule change making it easier to fire civil servants deemed to be “intentionally subverting presidential directives” could pave the way for the White House to fire statisticians employed to produce objective data on the economy but whose figures prove politically inconvenient, experts warn.Statistics released by agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are used by the Federal Reserve Bank to set inflation policy and interest rates. They also form the basis on which businesses and investors take decisions.The US’s global reputation as a stable economic power and a reliable partner goes hand-in-hand with its long history of producing accurate data, dating back to the establishment of the BLS in 1884. Interfere with the latter and you risk sacrificing the former, experts warn.But with Trump under pressure to explain shrinking gross domestic product (GDP) figures amid economists’ warnings that tariffs could trigger a recession, the administration could use new employment rules to pressure workers into “cooking the books”.“There are a number of changes to the civil service that make it much easier for the administration to try to interfere with the activities of the statistical agencies and that worries me,” said Erica Groshen, a specialist in government statistics at Cornell University.While acknowledging that there is as yet “no evidence” the Trump administration has done so, Groshen, a former commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), fears a new rule proposed last month by the White House’s office of personnel management threatens the future integrity of federal agencies’ figures.The change, based on an executive order signed by Trump on 20 January immediately after his inauguration, would reclassify about 50,000 as-yet-unspecified permanent civil servant positions to “policy/career” category, thus enabling their removal for “poor performance or misconduct”.The precise roles to be so redefined have yet to be revealed but Groshen fears statistic specialists will be in the administration’s crosshairs.“Bureau of Labor Statistics’ leaders could be fired for releasing or planning to release jobs or inflation statistics unfavorable to the president’s policy agenda,” she wrote in a briefing paper that urges organizations dependent on BLS figures to submit comments criticizing the proposal.“By making it easier to remove employees if a president determines that they are interfering with his or her policies, it increases the potential for passivity or political loyalty to be prioritized over expertise and experience.”Trump regularly cast doubt on the accuracy of economic data when in opposition – calling positive BLS jobs figures during the Obama and Biden administrations “fake” but hailing them as accurate when they painted a rosy picture of the economy during his first presidency.Last month, when GDP figures showed an economic contraction during the first 100 days – partly fueled by tariffs – Trump put the blame on Biden.“We had numbers that, despite what we were handed, we turned them around and we were getting them really turned around,” he told reporters.The commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick – who has direct responsibility over many of the statistical agencies – has suggested changing the way GDP is calculated in a way that might provide more upbeat figures but which would mark a departure from established practice and international standards.Diluting data agencies’ impartiality risks adding the US to the category of countries which have had the veracity of their economic statistics openly doubted, critics say. Groshen cited Argentina, whose official inflation figures were rejected as false by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Greece, where government statisticians were said to have miraculously made inflation and disqualifyingly high budget deficits “disappear” to enable it to join the European Union’s single currency, the euro, in the late 1990s.The sleight of hand had dire consequences. The 2008 global financial crash propelled the country’s economy into a tail-spin, forcing it to seek huge loans from the IMF and the EU, which were only given on condition of harsh austerity measures and cuts to public services.Popular anger over the conditions in Greece destabilised establishment political parties and led to a rise in support for radical and populist alternatives, including the leftwing Syriza, which won power in 2015. Frequent elections and changes of government since have raised concerns about the health of the country’s democracy.The IMF also censured Argentina and threatened it with expulsion in 2013 after officials were found to have been grossly understating the inflation rate for the previous six years.Argentina – historically one of the IMF’s biggest borrowers – did not receive another loan from the organisation until 2018. That loan, followed by another in 2022, failed to stabilise the country’s economy and in 2023, Javier Milei, a far-right candidate and professed admirer of Trump, was elected president pledging drastic spending cuts to address its chronic economic problems.Last month saw the fund agree to another $20bn bailout for Milei’s government.Despite these baleful precedents, the Trump administration’s sensitivity to economic figures indicating a tariff-driven slowdown creates a potential spur to follow a similar path, argued Erasmus Kersting, an economics professor at Villanova University.“I would say that there’s definitely an incentive to cook the books, but I don’t think that it is going to be very easy or feasible to do,” he said, citing the US’s long tradition of producing accurate economic figures.“The Bureau of Economic Analysis would essentially need to be silenced or defunded and replaced with some other statistical agency, which would then result in different figures. The same would be true of the Bureau of Labor statistics.”Accurate and unbiased figures are crucial in helping the Federal Reserve form sound policy, Kersting said. In their absence, Trump might have more scope to attack the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, who he has already accused of “playing politics” by not bowing to his demand to cut interest rates.Kitty Richards, a former treasury and White House official under the Biden and Obama administrations, said data collection had been impaired by Elon Musk’s attacks on federal agencies under the auspices of the unofficial “department of government efficiency,” or Doge.“We should view attacks on government data collection as hand in glove with attacks on journalism,” said Richards, now a senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, a thinktank. “Undermining data collection and casting doubt on data that is released is part of a program of undermining the public’s ability to learn the truth.”Even a temporary interruption of the US’s established data-collecting capacity would be a “real tragedy” and lead to a permanent loss of knowledge, she said. “You can’t go back and fix it. If you have a data series stretching back 50 years, then it gets cut for two or three years, you no longer have that 50-year data series. You’ve lost knowledge forever.”Greshen, who is calling on users of government statistics to object to the proposed civil service changes before a 30-day window expires on 23 May, said the fate of US democracy could hinge on the continued production of accurate figures.“In a democracy, you want to be feeding people the right information so they will make the right choices. But if the goal is to destroy democracy, you’d want to control the statistics to fit your story … you want to be promoting your own version of reality.” More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘So many are devastated’: Trump’s federal firings and their ripple effect

      by

      Naomi Anderson was on leave looking after her young baby when she was told her US Department of Agriculture job helping farmers in developing countries was being cut. A former volunteer with the Peace Corps, which sends young Americans overseas to projects in emerging economies, Anderson had expected to spend her whole career in international development.“I had taken this job two years ago expecting to stay here for at least 10 years, and you know, we had started to make a community and build up our life here. In January, we had started looking at buying a home,” she says.Now Anderson is having to consider giving up the apartment in the Washington DC commuter town of Reston, Virginia, that she shares with her husband and their four-month-old baby and almost two-year-old toddler.“Financially, it’s a little bit precarious, and honestly we’re not sure what we’re going to do,” says Anderson, who is also an activist with the local branch of the AFSCME union and dabbles in selling political merchandise. “We’re thinking about moving back to Ohio, where I’m from, where my family is. You know, it’s a lot cheaper there.”Anderson is far from alone. “In our apartment complex, there’s been lots of yard sales, people selling things and moving away. It really does seem like people are just picking up and leaving, because it’s too expensive to live here without a job,” she says.Tough life-decisions like these have been forced on hundreds of thousands of former federal employees in the past couple of months, as the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge), which is headed up by Donald Trump’s favourite tech billionaire, Elon Musk, has slashed jobs in a cost-cutting spree.Data from the latest monthly Challenger jobs report suggests Doge has been responsible for 281,452 job cuts so far – almost eight times the number of workers the government let go in the entire year to April 2024.Brendan Demich is among those to be dismissed, losing his job as an engineer at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All his colleagues working on mine safety, as well as those in their sister laboratory testing equipment such as respirators, are also leaving – more than 200 in total – as part of a wave of cuts initiated by Trump’s health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr.“So many people are devastated,” says Demich, chief steward of the local AFGE union branch. He says so many workers have been removed at once that their colleagues have barely been able to give them any kind of send-off. “It’s just unceremoniously leaving, because they had their package processed and they had to walk out the door.”Each of these cuts has its own human impact, but experts are warning of a growing risk that they combine to trigger an economic retrenchment – particularly in areas with a heavy concentration of government jobs.View image in fullscreenLiz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO federation of 63 trade unions, which together represent more than 15 million US workers, is trying to build a nationwide campaign to highlight the devastating impact.“The trick is connecting the dots because there’s already a national narrative around what’s happening but it’s not quite being felt yet,” Shuler says. “Elon [Musk] has his ‘department of government efficiency’. We established the ‘department of people who work for a living’. That’s kind of cheeky, but it’s kind of serious, because we’re saying we’re the ones working on the frontlines. We know what’s efficient and what’s not.“Obviously as the labour federation we’re worried about jobs and people’s livelihoods, but it’s also connected to community, and the fact the economy is being impacted in such a stark way, that ripples out across all of the industries that we represent,” she adds.These ripples are being felt especially strongly in the towns and counties around Washington DC, where job losses and government cuts crop up constantly in conversation.Kate Bates is the president of the chamber of commerce in affluent Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the US capital. She compares the current uncertainty to the pandemic, “but during Covid, the federal government was the backstop, whereas right now it’s the federal government that’s causing a lot of this,” she says.Bates reports that her members are warning of a slowdown across real estate and hospitality, as well as among government contractors, with several reporting they have already had to make job cuts.“What we hear from a lot of people is that if they could plan for the cuts, they would be in an OK position, right? But because things are changing, going back and forth, that’s causing a lot of stress,” she says.View image in fullscreenBusinesses that rely on government workers for custom are also feeling the chill. Saamir Nizam, the general manager of Arlington’s Barley Mac restaurant, which is part of a small family-owned chain, has noticed trade declining in just about every one of their usual customer groups.The nearby hotels are less occupied; bookings for “happy hour parties” by the accountants and consultants who serve the federal government are down by two-thirds; and many older local residents have been spooked by market volatility.“We can only do so much to turn things around: we can’t pull people to Washington, or convince companies to go out and do things,” Nizam says. “Barley Mac serves great food, it gives great service, but it exists, like many restaurants, on the financial margin. And if the whole year is on the margin then restaurants like ours will go under, because we’re not part of a huge national chain which has deep pockets.”View image in fullscreenJess Miller, who set up Rock Spring Real Estate Solutions a couple of years ago, has been hosting a breakfast roundtable for clients, on the top floor of an as yet unoccupied new office block in Arlington.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionShe has noticed clients responding to the shifting climate, pulling out of deals and hoping to negotiate unusually short leases. The owners of this building are splitting the floors instead of looking for one anchor tenant.“Just how they’re making decisions is different – the cutbacks we’re seeing,” Miller says. “It hit the NGOs first and then it hit, you know, the corporations and the contractors, and it’s a lot of the senior management.”Katherine D’Zmura Friedman is a co-founder and the chief executive of Thumbprint, an Arlington-based startup offering an artificial intelligence platform for designing office layouts.View image in fullscreen“There’s no universe in which something like the last few months happens and there’s not serious consequences,” she says. “We’ve had family friends, we’ve had neighbours lose their jobs, and these are not people who would normally be subject to layoffs. These are people who are at the peak of their career, and hyper-specialised.”As far as the business effects are concerned, D’Zmura Friedman says: “Certainly on the commercial side, there’s been hesitancy about launching into things.”At her office nearby, Renata Briggman, a residential estate agent, plays down the idea that the housing market in Arlington could be hit, pointing to the many local employers broadly unaffected by federal spending – such as Amazon, which is headquartered here.However, she does acknowledge signs of change. “It’s definitely shifting. We’re not seeing any fire sales, it’s too soon for that. It’s very, very slow, and we’re just going to start seeing it, it’s just on the cusp … end of June, we’ll have a better idea.”View image in fullscreenSuch challenges are being replicated across the region. Jimmy Olevson, the president and chief executive of National Capital Bank, which serves Washington DC and the surrounding areas, says the bank is not yet seeing signs of financial distress, such as rising arrears, but the mood is “uneasy”. Many customers who have had a recent mortgage application approved seem to have put house-hunting on hold.Some experts fear this widespread mood of unease bodes badly for the coming months. Analysis by Dr João Ferreira, an expert in regional economics at the University of Virginia, suggests more than 320,000 people in the state are employed directly by the federal government – and another 441,000 jobs depend on taxpayer-funded contracts, of the kind that are being cut.In some sectors – construction, for example – the same firms fretting about whether their contract will be cut are also contending with the rising price of materials, as a result of tariffs. Although some of the border taxes have been paused or reduced, those restrictions that remain mean costs are still far higher than at the start of the year.In theory, the Trump administration could lift the gloom by drawing a line under budget cuts as Musk heads back to his day job running the electric carmaker Tesla. But key members of the cabinet, including Kennedy and the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, have boasted of how much they plan to slash from their budgets – and White House trade policy continues to see-saw.Ferreira says: “I think, as an economist, I’ve never seen so many things happening at the same time. But they all lead to the same direction, and that’s a recession.”He says Virginia has often been cushioned from economic downturns in the past by federal funding, but in this cycle he expects the state to lead the way. “We definitely might see that Virginia, and other regions like Maryland, will be the frontrunners in this recession period,” Ferreira says.Meanwhile, for many of the affected individuals, the future looks highly uncertain – despite the US treasury secretary Scott Bessent’s suggestion they should go work in manufacturing. “For us on our team, we work in international development,” says Anderson. “We have a background in humanitarian work, and the Trump administration is trying to cut international foreign aid. So where do you go from there?” More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      China and US agree 90-day pause to trade war initiated by Donald Trump

      by

      China and the US have agreed a 90-day pause to the deepening trade war that has threatened to upend the global economy, with reciprocal tariffs to be lowered by 115%.Speaking to the media after talks in Geneva, the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said both sides had shown “great respect” in the negotiations.Bessent said: “The consensus from both delegations this weekend was neither side wants a decoupling.”The 90-day lowering of tariffs applies to the duties announced by Donald Trump on 2 April, which ultimately escalated to 125% on Chinese imports, with Beijing responding with equivalent measures.China also imposed non-tariff measures, such as restricting the export of critical minerals that are essential to US manufacturing of hi-tech goods.The US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, said China’s retaliation had been disproportionate and amounted to an effective embargo on trade between the world’s two biggest economies.With the 115% deduction, Chinese duties on US goods will be lowered to 10%, while the US tax on Chinese goods will be lowered to 30%. That is because the US tariffs include a 20% rate imposed by Trump before the latest trade war, which the president said was related to China’s role in the US’s fentanyl crisis. The fentanyl-related tariff will still apply.A spokesperson for China’s ministry of commerce said: “This move meets the expectations of producers and consumers in both countries, as well as the interests of both nations and the common interest of the world.“We hope that the US side will, based on this meeting, continue to move forward in the same direction with China, completely correct the erroneous practice of unilateral tariff hikes, and continually strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation.”China’s yuan jumped to a six-month high on the signal that the trade war would be paused. Up to 16m jobs were at risk in China, according to some estimates, while the US faced rising inflation and empty shelves thanks to dizzying tariffs on the biggest supplier of US goods.Bessent said he was impressed by the level of Chinese engagement on the fentanyl issue during the talks in Switzerland. “For the first time the Chinese side understood the magnitude of what is happening in the US,” Bessent said.A joint statement published by the US and China on Monday said that both sides would “continue to advance related work in a spirit of mutual openness, continuous communication, cooperation and mutual respect”.William Xin, the chair of the hedge fund Spring Mountain Pu Jiang Investment Management, told Reuters: “The result far exceeds market expectations. Previously, the hope was just that the two sides can sit down to talk, and the market had been very fragile. Now, there’s more certainty. Both China stocks and the yuan will be in an upswing for a while.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHu Xijin, the former editor of the nationalist Chinese tabloid the Global Times, said on social media the agreement was a “great victory for China in upholding the principles of equality and mutual respect”. Hu noted on Weibo that the recently agreed UK-US trade deal maintained the US’s 10% tariff on UK imports, “while the UK did not implement reciprocal measures”.Wang Wen, the head of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, said: “This is an unexpected achievement in Sino-US tariff negotiations.”However, Wang also urged caution, as he said the agreement “does not represent the resolution of the structural contradictions between China and the United States, nor does it mean that there will be no friction and serious differences between China and the United States in the future”.Stock markets across Europe rose in the aftermath of the US-China announcement. Germany’s DAX index jumped by 1.5%, with Mercedes-Benz, Daimler Trucks and BMW among the biggest risers. France’s CAC index rose by 1.2%.Additional research by Lillian Yang More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Why is Trump so fixated on toys for little girls? | Moira Donegan

      by

      Donald Trump has found a new target for his trademark mockery and dismissal: little girls.In comments at a 30 April cabinet meeting, the president seemed to dismiss the economic impact of his chaotic tariff regime on American consumers by citing girls as the primary complainants. “Somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open,” Trump said. “Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally.”Trump is prone to odd non-sequiturs, but the dolls have become something of a sticking point. Onboard Air Force One on 4 May, he doubled down on his insistence that American girls should have fewer toys. “All I’m saying is that a young lady, a 10-year-old girl, nine-year-old girl, 15-year-old girl, doesn’t need 37 dolls,” he told reporters. “She could be very happy with two or three or four or five.”In an interview with Kristen Welker of Meet the Press that same day, Trump again mentioned the dolls. “I don’t think a beautiful baby girl needs – that’s 11 years old – needs 30 dolls,” Trump said. “I think they can have three dolls or four dolls because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable.” He went on to assert that American children also have too many pencils. “They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.”In some respects, the comments seem like a rare bit of honesty from the president: an acknowledgment of the reality that his tariffs will hurt consumers and lower the American their standard of living. With steep tariffs on many consumer goods, particularly those made in China, and supply chain issues caused by retailers and producers frantic attempts to offset the costs of the new tariffs, many common products – yes, including children’s toys – will become shorter in supply and steeper in cost. Because of Trump’s policies, it is indeed true that there will be fewer presents for children underneath American Christmas trees this year – a trend that is likely to continue for years to come if Trump’s trade war triggers an economic recession, as is widely expected. Americans themselves don’t have much say in this, but Donald Trump wants us all to know that he’s comfortable with us, and our children, having less.But the selection of dolls, in particular, as Trump’s stand-in for consumer prices reflects the gendered ideas about work, money and purchasing that animate Trump’s chaotic economic policy. After all, Trump did not talk about the impact of his trade regime on toy trucks or GI Joe action figures – and he certainly didn’t mention its likely impact on things like video games, basketballs, squat racks or protein powders. The tariffs will increase prices across economic sectors and hurt consumers of all kinds of goods. But Trump did not speak in general terms about those who might like to buy a house one day, or about who will be hurt by his tariffs on Canadian lumber, or about those who would like to be treated for their illnesses but who have to pay steeper prices for the medicines they need when tariffs hit pharmaceuticals. He didn’t talk about any of the consumption that Americans are uniformly agreed to think of as reasonable, dignified or aspirational. He chose, instead, something seen as trivial, childlike, and only for girls.The comments aim to cast the pain that consumers will face as ultimately feminine and frivolous, their complaints petulant and childlike. In this respect, Trump is drawing on a long tradition of economic rhetoric that aims to cast consumption as feminine, decadent and morally suspect – and to contrast it with the supposedly more manly and virtuous productive side of the economy. It’s a laughably stupid symbolism, one that only works for those deeply committed to their ignorance about how the economy actually works: in truth, everyone consumes, and people of all genders participate in the productive economy. But Trump does not argue based on the facts: he asserts dominance. And here, he casts those Americans who would complain about the economic pain that he is inflicting on them as feminine and hence as contemptible, deserving no more respect than spoiled children.The project of masculinizing the economy – perhaps especially at children’s expense – is one that the Trump administration seems to be pushing more broadly. Trump claims, despite the near-universal assertions of economists to the contrary, that his tariffs will shift the US away from the primarily female service sector industries that have dominated the American economy since the 1970s back to a more masculine manufacturing base.To this end, his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, a billionaire former CEO, went on MSNBC late last month to describe his vision for the future of the American worker. “It’s time to train people not to do the jobs of the past but to do the great jobs of the future,” Lutnick said, arguing that fewer people should be aspiring to bachelor’s degrees and should expect to occupy themselves in lower-skill factory work instead. “This is the new model, where you work in these kind of plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here.”This is the vision for your children’s future that the Trump administration wants to put forward: deprived of material comforts and joy in childhood, then deprived of the hope for upward mobility in adulthood. They want you, and your kids, to be poor, desperate and ignorant. They want you to work in repetitive, dangerous, back-breakingly physical jobs, and they want you to have no aspiration to anything better. They want you to imagine your future, and your children’s futures, not as an open horizon of freedom and potential, but as a dark and desperate struggle, devoid of the notion that we might be anything more than useful instruments for the needs of capital. What do they offer Americans as compensation for this loss? Virtually nothing, aside from misogynist contempt, and the assurance that as our living standards sink and our prospects disappear, in our suffering, at least, we are masculine.On Fox News this past Tuesday, the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, tried to put this spin on things. Describing what he would say to a little girl who would be denied dolls because of Trump’s tariff policy, Bessent insisted that it was for her own good. “I would tell that young girl that you would have a better life than your parents,” Bessent said. But the Trump administration is doing everything in its power to ensure that America’s children – and in particular, its little girls – have it worse.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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