US economy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      If you thought Elon Musk was bad, look at his dreadful mini-mes and shudder for America | Emma Brockes

      by

      You would be forgiven for thinking we were back at the Bullingdon Club, in the company of Jonty, Munty, Stiffy, Kipper, Chugger and, to use the polite version, Pig Botherer – only in this case it’s Big Balls and a guy with a history of racist tweeting. This is the sudden, startling emergence into American political life of a type deeply recognisable to Brits: that is, jaunty young men with juvenile nicknames and a firm belief they should be running the world.This being America, the class signifiers are slightly different from those in Britain. But in most regards, the cohort of young men hired by Elon Musk for his cost-cutting taskforce, the department of government efficiency (Doge), will be familiar to anyone who lived through the era of Boris Johnson’s weapons-grade flippancy or reports of David Cameron’s youthful hijinks. (Donald Trump is very flippant, of course, but his style skews locker room rather than debate chamber – or, in this case, maths olympiad.) And while politics has always run on young, volunteer energy, less common in the US, perhaps, is the imperial swagger, the sheer frivolous entitlement accompanying a crowd that has seemingly been given the keys to the kingdom.Let’s look at the lineup. The youngest of Musk’s Doge hires, Edward Coristine – online username, Big Balls – is a 19-year-old former intern at Neuralink, Musk’s neurotechnology company, who until recently appeared to be a first-year student at Northeastern University in Boston. Luke Farritor is a 23-year-old former SpaceX intern. Marko Elez, 25, used to work for X and SpaceX, and was revealed by the Wall Street Journal to have authored several since-removed tweets asserting, among other things, “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity.” (Elez briefly resigned before Musk announced he’d reinstate him.)And Gavin Kliger, a 25-year-old who boosted a post on X by the white supremacist Nick Fuentes, and whose newly launched Substack this week highlighted the perils of skipping freshman English 101 with a post entitled “Why DOGE: Why I gave up a seven-figure salary to save America.”Between them, these men have gained access to federal premises and staffing systems that govern agencies including USAid, the Department of Health and Human Services, the education and energy departments, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and contain sensitive information relating to millions of Americans. Elez was, reportedly, erroneously given overwrite access to the Treasury department’s payment system before it was yanked back to read-only.Of course, given that Doge has not responded to questions about what, if any, security clearance these young men have gone through, read-only is bad enough. The head of Doge, hiring in his own image, has turned to young, male software engineers with startup energy and the conviction that if you understand coding, you understand life. They’ve established sleeping pods in spare offices at the federal agencies they have been engaged to gut or dismantle, so that while Musk goes on X to mock federal employees for not working at weekends, his mini-mes work round the clock.This feat would be more impressive if their online remarks and bios didn’t flag what might diplomatically be called large gaps in their skill-sets. Musk, a man with the emotional maturity of a cartoon bank robber, is leading a group of men most of whom have no government or management experience whatsoever, let alone expertise in fields governed by the agencies they have been tasked to reform. The whole scene is reminiscent of the 90s boom in management consultancy, during which new graduates stared with frank disbelief at anyone who was over 35 and still breathing. And sure enough, as reported in the New York Times, young engineers have been overheard referring to federal employees as “dinosaurs”, who have in turn called the guys in baseball caps “Muskrats”.On X, meanwhile, Musk amplified a post pitching “autistic tech bros” against “non-binary Deep State theater kids”, and another that said what’s happening in the US right now is equivalent to “the yearbook committe and theater kid types getting rocked by a football team and chess club alliance”. Theatre kids and chess nerds are, traditionally, both categories of social death in high school that are targeted by queen bees and jocks, a case of Musk siding with the oppressor that’s even sadder when you consider that Trump isn’t even a real jock. (For a full account of Trump’s hilariously mediocre sports career relative to his claims about it, read Lucky Loser by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig.)Anyway, we know how this ends. In the largest sense, with the cancellation of programmes mandated democratically in Congress by a bunch of unelected goons in puffer vests. And in the smallest sense, with one of these 22-year-old jerks spilling his Big Gulp cup of Mountain Dew over a keyboard at the Treasury and wiping the social security data of 70 million Americans. I look forward to watching as Big Balls and co find new ways to tank an economy even more efficiently and irreversibly than Brexit.

      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Modi heads to US in mission to dodge a tit-for-tat tariff battle

      by

      The Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, is heading to Washington for high-stakes talks in an attempt to avoid a trade war with Donald Trump.India is considering tariff cuts in at least a dozen sectors in the hope of dodging US tariffs that would pile more pressure on its already slowing economy.Wednesday’s meeting will test the much-hyped “bromance” between Trump and Modi, in which they exchanged bear hugs and effusive compliments during the president’s first term. Trump has called Modi “the nicest human being”, while the Indian prime minister has referred to the president as his “dear friend.” Both are populists who rose to power on waves of anti-establishment ardour and nationalism.The Indian foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, told reporters that the fact the prime minister had been invited to visit the US “within barely three weeks of the new administration taking office, shows the importance of the India-US partnership”.Trump has not held back his frustration over India’s high tariffs, labelling the country a “very big abuser” and accusing it of blocking US imports.Modi’s two-day visit comes shortly after Trump announced a 25% tariff on global steel and aluminium imports into the US. Calling the tariffs “the first of many”, the president indicated there could be levies on cars, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and other goods. He is planning a system of “reciprocal tariffs”, saying: “If they charge us, we charge them.”The metal tariffs have rattled India’s steel and aluminium industries, which export good worth billions of dollars to the US each year. The Indian Steel Association said on Tuesday the steel tariff was “expected to slash exports to the US by 85%”.In an effort to pre-empt punitive trade action, in its budget last week the Indian government cut duties on a range of goods, including high-end motorcycles such as Harley-Davidsons. It is also considering tariff cuts on other products, including electronics, medical and surgical equipment, chemicals, dish antennae and wood pulp, many of which originate in the US.Bilateral trade has been growing steadily, surpassing $118bn (£95bn) in the last financial year, with India running a $32bn trade surplus. Trump says he wants a relationship that is more “fair” while India says it is open to discussing a limited trade deal to address US concerns about market access.Trump has urged Modi to buy more US defence and energy products, with India presenting a lucrative market as the world’s largest arms importer. Nuclear energy, including small and modular reactors, is also on the agenda, as India seeks to expand its clean energy sources to meet decarbonisation targets. Reports suggest India is already in talks to buy combat vehicles and finalise a fighter jet engine deal.Another significant issue is Trump’s crackdown on illegal migration. The president says Modi has assured him India “will do what’s right” on the matter.The US last week deported 104 Indian migrants and plans to return many more. Images of deportees in shackles during a 42-hour military flight prompted public anger in India, with a senior Indian government official responding that “this kind of treatment can perhaps be avoided”. Discussions are expected to focus on managing the return of hundreds of other Indian nationals to be deported.Modi will also push for expanding H-1B visas, which are vital for the Indian IT workforce in the US. Importantly for Modi, Trump has expressed support for the H-1B visa programme, which brings skilled foreign workers to the tech sector. Elon Musk has backed the H-1B visa scheme, saying it drives innovation but, highlighting the ideological divide among key figures in Trump’s orbit, Steve Bannon and other Maga voices argue that H-1B visas siphon jobs and undermine American workers.Modi has framed his visit as an opportunity to build on the successes of the US-India partnership, in particular in technology, defence, energy, and supply chains. But his immediate mission is to keep trade relations from spiralling into a damaging tit-for-tat tariff battle. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It’s a constant weight’: Americans struggle with record credit card debt

      by

      US credit card debt reached a record $1.17tn in the third quarter of 2024, growing from $770bn in the first quarter of 2021 and the share of active credit card holders making just minimum payments rose to 10.75%, the highest percentage ever in data going back to 2012.The Guardian spoke with individuals around the US about their experiences and issues with credit card and other personal debt. They requested to remain anonymous for privacy concerns about personal finances.Angela, a 42-year-old teacher in Virginia, explained she and her husband had struggled with paying off about $20,000 in credit card debt accrued mostly from paying medical bills not covered by her health insurance from infertility issues.“The medicines, procedures, and travel all hit us hard,” she said. “It just piles up and it piles up and you have to miss a payment because something else in life happens, and or you don’t make the payment you want to make, and it just starts to kind of snowball on you.”The debt has made it difficult to save anything and is always looming on her.“It’s a constant weight in the back of my mind which clouds all my little joys,” said Angela. “With inflation, cost of living rising, and life, I have struggled to pay down the debt. We do less, stress about what we can spend on or can afford.”A 54-year-old woman in Ohio said she lost her job in 2024 and was not approved for unemployment benefits because she was classified as a subcontractor, adding to debt she already had from medical bills and home repairs.“I’m now unable to pay them, and I can’t find a job due to a tight market and most likely age discrimination,” she said. “My debt has escalated to the equivalent of half my typical annual income. This and the inability to find a job have left me with no choice but to remain in a very unhappy, toxic, romantic relationship.”A 35-year-old software engineer in Los Angeles, California, said she accrued significant personal debt putting herself through engineering school at the age of 29, but despite making a salary of over $100,000 a year, she still struggles with paying it off and keeping up with bills.“I’m now facing huge interest rates and can barely pay down principal balances,” they said. “Student loans only covered my rent. If additional student loans existed for people in situations like mine, I wouldn’t have needed to charge so much to my credit cards.”This week the senators Bernie Sanders and Josh Hawley introduced a bill to cap credit card interest rates to 10% for the next five years, which Trump has claimed he would support. The average credit card interest rate is 28.6%, despite banks being able to borrow from the Federal Reserve at less than 4.5%.About 82% of all US adults have at least one credit card, with the average about four credit cards per US consumer, according to Experian, and the average household has over $21,000 in credit card debt.A 69-year-old retiree in Moody, Alabama, said she lived check to check on social security and had had no choice but to rely on credit card debt for food, bills and other living expenses.“I am constantly stressed about money,” she said, adding it had created anxiety, depression and sleeping issues.A 47-year-old teacher in Mesa, Arizona, said he had fallen into debt trying to provide for a family of four, and covering the funeral costs for his mother, even as he said he had been “working my car to the bone for gig work to pick up the slack”.A 72-year-old in California said she only made a little over $1,200 a month from social security, but more than half of it went toward a debt consolidation payment.“Money is always an issue with me, I’m currently keeping my debt at bay with loans out of what little I have for retirement, but still losing about half my monthly income to debt repayment that I wish I could be saving for a home.”A 53-year-old in Connecticut explained he had fallen into significant credit card debt after losing his small business due to the pandemic shutdowns, from barely ever using credit cards to maxing out several, even after finding a job, which was difficult at his age.“The pay was a fraction of what my business was pulling in and at this point, I maxed out the credit cards as I didn’t have a lot of credit on them to begin with. I have since taken out two personal loans and got a third credit card. All of them are maxed out,” they said. “I’ve gained 60lb, my hair has been falling out, and I can’t sleep more than four hours a night.”Money owed on revolving debt grew 52.5% to $645bn, from a decade low of $423bn in second quarter 2021, according to a report by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve.Twenty-three per cent of Americans with less than $25,000 annual income have no bank account. Forty-six per cent of Americans with annual incomes between $50,000 and $99,999 carried a credit card balance, while low-income Americans were more likely to predominantly use buy now, pay later, payday or pawn shop loans, with average annual interest rates of payday loans at 400%, with many much higher.According to data from the US Federal Reserve, 6% of Americans used a payday loan in 2023, up 1% from 2022, with users more likely to be low-income, Black and Hispanic adults, and adults with a disability.David, a 57-year-old gig worker and educator in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said he first took out a payday loan about six years ago when he lived in Oklahoma and had just started a new job and needed a loan to bridge the gap between paychecks.He said he was offered more money for the loan than he asked for, and as he made payments, the lender frequently offered to extend him more credit.“They report every late payment, every non-payment to the collection agencies, and I got into a merry-go-round, in over my head, and it wrecked my credit score,” said David. “There’s no negotiating, settling, or anything like that with payday lenders.”He said the collection tactics included calling his place of employment, calling the references on his initial loan application, to demand payment from him, which continued to grow with high interest rates and added fees. The length of time and impact it had on him had given him major depression and suicidal thoughts, he said.“They’re so predatory on very vulnerable people,” he added. “I can’t even get my own apartment without a co-signer. It’s just humiliating.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump announces 25% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum

      by

      Donald Trump announced 25% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum on Monday, ramping up his controversial bid to boost the US economy by hiking taxes on imports from overseas.The modified US duties will be enforced “without exceptions or exemptions”, the president declared, dashing the hopes of countries that hoped to avoid them.Trump first imposed steep tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum during his first presidency. The action announced on Monday night ends exemptions granted to certain countries, and increases the duty rate on aluminum.The changes are not due to come into effect until 4 March, however, according to a White House official – raising the prospect of the Trump administration brokering deals with governments seeking reprieve.Countries including Australia have already been making their case and Trump later said he would give “great consideration” to Australia’s request for an exemption to the steel tariffs due to that country’s trade deficit with the US.Trump first trailed his latest tariff actions on Sunday, adding that he would also announce a further set of reciprocal tariffs later in the week, drawing warnings of retaliation from trade partners.“The steel and aluminum tariffs 2.0 will put an end to foreign dumping, boost domestic production and secure our steel and aluminum industries as the backbone and pillar industries of America’s economic and national security,” Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade adviser, told reporters.“This isn’t just about trade. It’s about ensuring that America never has to rely on foreign nations for critical industries like steel and aluminum.”Trump will also impose a new North American standard requiring steel imports to be “melted and poured” and aluminum to be “smelted and cast” within the region to curb US imports of minimally processed Chinese and Russian metals that circumvent other tariffs.Trump and his allies, who repeatedly claimed that tariffs could “Make America great again” when fighting to regain the White House, believe that higher taxes on imported steel and aluminum will help shore up US industrial heartlands.The US president said he would announce plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on other countries over the next two days. He signed two proclamations as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office: one ending waivers granted by Joe Biden to steel and aluminum tariffs instituted during his first term, and the other raising duties on both metals to 25%.He also raised the prospect of future US tariffs on cars, semiconductor chips and pharmaceuticals from markets across the world.Asked about the possibility of other countries retaliating against US tariffs, Trump said: “I don’t mind.”Canada’s industry minister said the US tariffs were “totally unjustified”, with Canadian steel and aluminum supporting key US industries including defense, shipbuilding, energy and autos.“This is making North America more competitive and secure,” Francois-Philippe Champagne said in a statement. “We are consulting with our international partners as we examine the details. Our response will be clear and calibrated.”The European Commission said it saw no justification for the tariffs and said President Ursula von der Leyen would meet US vice-president JD Vance in Paris on Tuesday during an AI summit.In South Korea, the industry ministry called in steelmakers to discuss how to minimize the impact of tariffs.Ahead of a meeting with Trump on Wednesday, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi was preparing to offer to cut Indian tariffs in a range of sectors that could boost US exports to the country, government officials in Delhi said.Trump has previously called India a “very big abuser” on trade, and his top economic adviser Kevin Hassett singled out the country as having “enormously high” tariffs in a CNBC interview.This latest wave of tariffs is different than the one imposed by the White House on China last week, which hit all goods traveling from the country to the US with an additional 10% duty. He also threatened Canada and Mexico with the same blanket tariffs, at higher a rate of 25%, only to agree to a one-month delay before pulling the trigger.Trump signed proclamations that raised the tariff rate on aluminum imports to 25% from the previous 10% that he imposed in 2018 to aid the struggling sector. His action reinstates a 25% tariff on millions of tonnes of steel imports and aluminum imports that had been entering the US duty-free under quota deals, exemptions and thousands of product exclusions.The proclamations were extensions of Trump’s 2018 section 232 national security tariffs to protect steel and aluminum makers. A White House official said the exemptions had eroded the effectiveness of these measures.About a quarter of steel used in the US is from overseas, with Canada, Brazil and Mexico as the top providers. South Korea, Japan and Germany are also key markets.China, hit by a 25% steel tariff during Trump’s first administration that was maintained under Joe Biden, is not a significant exporter of steel to the US. But it is the largest exporter of steel to the world, dominating the global market with typically cheaper products. Some countries then export their own steel products, at higher rates, to markets including the US.Trump’s fixation with tariffs has alarmed economists, who have warned their imposition may derail his repeated promises to rapidly bring down prices for millions of Americans.But Trump has defended his strategy, claiming they could raise “trillions” of dollars for the US economy – and that even the mere threat of import duties can prompt countries to bend to his will. “Tariffs are very powerful, both economically and in getting everything else you want,” he said last week.Reuters contributed to this story More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump to announce 25% aluminum and steel tariffs as China’s levies against US come into effect

      by

      Donald Trump has said he will announce new 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports into the US on Monday that would affect “everybody’, including its largest trading partners Canada and Mexico, in another major escalation of his trade policy overhaul.Trump’s pre-announcement came as China’s retaliatory tariffs, announced last week, came into effect. The measures target $14bn worth of products with a 15% tariff on coal and LNG, and 10% on crude oil, farm equipment and some vehicles.The US president, speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, also said he would announce reciprocal tariffs – raising US tariff rates to match those of trading partners – on Tuesday or Wednesday, which would take effect “almost immediately”. “And very simply, it’s, if they charge us, we charge them,” Trump said of the reciprocal tariff plan.The move on steel and aluminum brought a swift reaction from Doug Ford, the premier of the Canadian province of Ontario, who accused the US president of “shifting goalposts and constant chaos” that would put the economy at risk.Monday’s tariffs would come on top of existing metals duties.The largest sources of US steel imports are Canada, Brazil and Mexico, followed by South Korea and Vietnam, according to government and American Iron and Steel Institute data.By a large margin, Canada is the largest supplier of primary aluminum metal to the US, accounting for 79% of total imports in the first 11 months of 2024. Mexico is a major supplier of aluminum scrap and aluminum alloy.During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum, but later granted several trading partners duty-free quotas, including Canada, Mexico and Brazil.Joe Biden extended these quotas to Britain, Japan and the European Union, and US steel mill capacity utilization has dropped in recent years. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that the new tariffs would come on top of the existing duties on steel and aluminum.Trump’s rollout of tariffs has been widely criticised and prompted volatile market reactions and fear of more to come. Beijing has lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organisation, but otherwise has been muted in its response. The tariffs imposed by Trump are far below the level he had threatened during the election campaign, and analysts have said China was prepared for them.Beijing’s actions – which also include investigations into several US companies including Google – were seen by analysts as measured and allowing room for negotiation.Amid wider pushback against Trump’s economic heavy-handedness, French President Emmanuel Macron warned in an interview broadcast on Sunday that he was willing to go “head-to-head” on tariffs with the US president. “I already did so, and I will did (sic) it again.”Macron told CNN that the EU should not be a “top priority” for the US, saying: “Is the European Union your first problem? No, I don’t think so. Your first problem is China, so you should focus on the first problem.”Macron said tariffs would harm European economies but also the US, given the level of economic ties. “It means if you put tariffs on a lot of sectors, it will increase the costs and create inflation in the US. Is it what your people want? I’m not so sure,” he said.He said the EU must be ready to react to US actions, but stressed that the 27-nation bloc should mainly “act for ourselves”. “This is why, for me, the top priority of Europe is competitiveness agenda, is defence and security agenda, is AI ambition, and let’s go fast for ourselves.“If in the meanwhile, we have [a] tariff issue, we will discuss them and we will fix it.”Trump has long complained about the EU’s 10% tariffs on auto imports being much higher than the US car rate of 2.5%. He frequently states that Europe “won’t take our cars” but ships millions west across the Atlantic every year.The European Commission said on Monday it would react to protect EU interests, but said it would not respond until it had detailed or written clarification of the measures. “The EU sees no justification for the imposition of tariffs on its exports. We will react to protect the interests of European businesses, workers and consumers from unjustified measures,” the commission said in a statement.Trump has also flagged tariffs against Taiwan’s semiconductor industry – which he has repeatedly and without evidence accused of stealing US business. Taiwan now appears to be scrambling to prevent that happening. This week senior economic officials will fly to the US to meet their counterparts. Taiwan’s government and state-run petroleum company are also reportedly taking steps to buy more US gas and oil to reduce Taiwan’s trade surplus – a key factor cited by Trump in enacting tariffs.Reuters contributed to this article. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘What a circus’: eligible US voters on why they didn’t vote in the 2024 presidential election

      by

      The 2024 US presidential election had been widely characterized as one of the most consequential political contests in recent US history. Although turnout was high for a presidential election – almost matching the levels of 2020 – it is estimated that close to 90 million Americans, roughly 36% of the eligible voting age population, did not vote. This number is greater than the number of people who voted for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.More than a month on from polling day, eligible US voters from across the country as well as other parts of the world got in touch with the Guardian to share why they did not vote.Scores of people said they had not turned out as they felt their vote would not matter because of the electoral college system, since they lived in a safely blue or red state. This included a number of people who nonetheless had voted in the 2020 and 2016 elections.While various previous Democratic voters said they had abstained this time due to the Harris campaign’s stance on Israel or for other policy reasons, a number of people in this camp said they would have voted for the vice-president had they lived in a swing state.“I’m not in a swing state, and because of the electoral college my vote doesn’t count. I could have voted 500,000 times and it would not have changed the outcome,” said one such voter, a 60-year-old software developer with Latino heritage from Boston.Having voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, he voted in 2020 but left the presidential slot blank “as a Quixotic protest against the electoral college and my preference for Bernie Sanders”, he said.He said he felt “heartbroken” over Joe Biden and Harris’s stance on Gaza. “If I were in a swing state I would always vote for Dems, though,” he added, echoing several others.A 40-year-old carpenter from Idaho who voted in the previous two elections because he then lived in the swing state of Arizona – giving his vote to Clinton and Biden – also said he did not vote this time because he felt his vote did not matter due to the electoral college system.“I didn’t find Harris compelling, just more of the same. Politicians from both parties seem unwilling to make the kind of fundamental economic and political changes that would make a meaningful difference for all people, namely a move towards a more democratic socialist system. That being said if we didn’t have the electoral college I probably would have voted for Harris,” he said.A large number of people said they abstained because no candidate represented working- or middle-class interests and people such as themselves, including several people who voted in the previous two elections but did not vote this time.Some people from swing states said they did not vote because both parties were too similar and did not address concerns of the common voter, among them John, a 29-year-old financial professional from Pennsylvania who is a registered independent, but voted for Clinton and Biden in the previous two elections.“What is the point [of voting]?,” he asked. “Aside from a handful of weaponized issues, the parties are nearly identical. They both hate the poor and serve only their donors.”A number of former Trump and Biden voters said they had not voted in this election as they disliked both candidates, among them Jared Wagner, a 34-year-old from Indiana who works in the trucking industry and said he had voted for Trump in 2016 but had abstained in both the 2020 and 2024 election.“I refuse to put my name on either candidate when I know neither of them are truly the best we have to offer. We need a major overhaul to the two-party system,” he said.
      “As a man with young children I worry about what kind of country they will grow up in. It terrifies me; we deserve better.”John, a 58-year-old from West Virginia, said he had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but had decided that not voting this November “felt most authentic and appropriate”.“I wasn’t apathetic about this election, I followed it closely,” he said. “But most of the candidates and issues left me cold and disinterested and seemed to be simply perpetuating the existing system, especially the status quo of authority and law and order, or rampant human development on the land.“On the presidential level, I was shocked and disgusted that the Harris campaign chose to completely ignore discussing climate change. Fundamentally, this election seemed to have very little to do with my interests and concerns.”Anne, a 65-year-old retired white woman from California, was among various people who said they had voted but not for any presidential candidate.She said she had always previously voted for the Democratic candidate, but could not bring herself to do so this time.“I did vote for all other down-ballot candidates and initiatives,” she said. “I would have voted for Harris had my vote made a difference, but I could not vote for a president who will continue the complete destruction of Gaza and annexation of the West Bank.”Various people said they did not vote for a presidential candidate in the 2024 election because they had only wanted to cast a positive vote for a candidate rather than merely an opposition one, and that neither candidate had offered a compelling vision for change.Among them was a 62-year-old professional working in process planning from Texas, who said he had voted for the Republican presidential candidate at every election between 1984 and 2016.“In 2020 I voted Libertarian as a protest vote,” he said. “This year I was so turned off by Trump’s low character, economic ignorance, disregard of our national debt, hostility to Ukraine and so on that I was trying to convince myself to vote for Harris. But her economic policy was just a grab bag of voter payoffs and she doesn’t care about the debt either.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“So I did not vote for president. I voted for Senate, congressman, and many other down ballot races. I split my ticket, too. I just no longer want to vote against anyone. I want to vote FOR someone. And none of the candidates for president wanted my vote enough.”A 35-year-old Black male voter from Portland, Oregon, who works at a gas station, said he disliked Kamala Harris but now regretted not voting for her, as he had thought Trump would lose the election.“I did not vote in 2016 or 2020 either because I did not like any of the candidates in those elections either. I last voted in 2012, for Obama,” he said.“I felt both candidates fell well short of the presidential standard, and didn’t feel I could cast a vote for either,” said a 47-year-old engineering manager and registered Republican from Texas.“VP Harris failed to demonstrate she was ethically or intellectually capable of executing the office, repeatedly failing to detail out her policies and generally running her campaign like a popularity contest – ‘collect enough celebrity endorsements, by paying them, and the masses will elect you,’” he said.Trump, he felt, “cares about the US and believes his own ideas will ‘save’ the country – but he’s a terrible human being. I don’t feel he represents a majority of Americans at all, but is more a reaction to some of the issues we face as a country.”Various people who did not vote in other recent elections either said that again this time no candidate was leftwing enough, among them 37-year-old Elly, a mother of four daughters from the midwest.“Bernie Sanders was the last candidate I was excited to vote for,” she said. “This election came down to two parties who have utterly abandoned everyday people and their problems with affordability and worries about climate change, but one party, the Republicans, were savvy enough to pretend they felt the collective pain of the common folks, whilst the Democrats mostly said ‘all is well.’ I couldn’t in good conscience support either side on the national level.”Several people who usually always voted Democrat in the past said the Harris campaign had been overly focussed on progressive identity politics for them to be able to lend it their support this election, such as Simon, a father from California in his 60s who had voted for Clinton in 2016 and for Biden in 2020 in protest against Trump, but had abstained this year due to Harris’s embracing of “trans ideology”, among other reasons.“I am not a fan of the Democrats, but I would have voted to keep Trump out of office if there was an economically literate, competent, law and order candidate who was willing to challenge the excesses of ‘woke’,” he said. “The Dems are out of touch on social issues, and have tacked too far to the left to appease a minority of progressives.“I support some policies that would be considered rightwing on immigration, but also investing in social housing, so I’m looking for candidates capable of taking difficult decisions based on rational analysis.”Leigh Crawford, a 56-year-old hedge fund manager from California, who had voted for Barack Obama in 2012, for Clinton in 2016 and for Biden in 2020, said he had abstained this time as both candidates were fiscally irresponsible in his view, because he strongly disliked Trump’s anti-immigration and pro-tariffs stance, and because Harris had been “pro-censorship” and “too tolerant of antisemitism”.Several people said they did not vote this time because of a growing disillusionment with the extreme polarization in US politics, including Chris, an architect in his 40s from Tennessee who had voted twice for Obama, and once for Trump in 2016, but had abstained in 2020 and 2024 as he had lost hope in politics.“Skip the debates, what a circus,” he said. “I’m so sick of hearing about politics.“The political system in the US is broken. Things are so polarized, there is no cooperation for the good of the people. There is just so much hate, even in everyday conversation with average people.“There is just so much of this ‘if I don’t win, I’m taking the ball and going home’ mentality. It just causes nothing to get accomplished.” More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden says he was ‘stupid’ not to sign Covid stimulus checks as Trump did

      by

      Joe Biden has voiced regret for not following Donald Trump’s example by putting his signature on Covid-19-era economic stimulus cheques sent to Americans during a speech about his record on the economy as he prepares to leave office.Five weeks after his vice-president, Kamala Harris, lost the presidential election to Trump, the US president suggested on Tuesday that his failure to put his name on the cheques may have contributed to voters blaming his administration for high prices even when the economy was improving.“Within the first two months of office I signed the American Rescue Plan,” Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based thinktank. “And also learned something from Donald Trump – he signed checks for people, $7,400 for people because we passed the plan. I didn’t – stupid.”Trump was widely criticised after becoming the first president to have his name printed on cheques disbursed by the Internal Revenue Service – America’s federal tax authority – in 2020. The move followed legislation from Congress intended to ease the impact of the economic slowdown that resulted from the first wave of the Covid pandemic.“I’m sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it,” he said at the time.Anecdotal evidence suggested that he may have been given credit by voters that was denied to Biden for his response to the pandemic.Campaigning for Harris, Barack Obama told audiences that some voters had told him that “Donald Trump sent me a check during the pandemic” to explain their support for him.Biden interrupted his speech after about 10 minutes to tell the audience that his teleprompter had broken down, forcing him to speak unscripted. Such a move was notable as during his presidency, critics frequently remarked on Biden’s public appearances for an over-reliance on teleprompter-scripted deliveries, suspected by many as intended to guard against his tendency for verbal gaffes.His attempt at justifying his self-styled “Bidenomics” approach amounted to a rebuff to detractors – both Democrat and Republican – who blamed his administration for failing to counteract inflation and persistently high prices, even while job creation and growth rebounded strongly after the Covid-19 pandemic forced a widespread economic shut down.“We got back to full employment, got inflation back down, managed a soft landing that many people thought was not likely to happen,” Biden said. “Next month, my administration will end, and a new administration will begin. The new administration’s going to inherit a very strong economy, at least at the moment.”During the campaign, opinion polls repeatedly showed concerns over the economy topping voters’ priorities, with many voicing frustration over high fuel and grocery costs. The administration blamed fallout from the pandemic – which prompted the enactment of a $1.9tn stimulus plan early in Biden’s term aimed at reviving the economy – and on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.But Biden suggested Trump might squander his economic legacy by reverting to “trickle-down” economics amid indications that the president-elect intends to extend his 2017 tax cuts, which drastically slashed rates paid by corporations and the rich, while imposing tariffs on foreign imports.“By all accounts the incoming administration is determined to return the country to another round of trickle-down economics … once again causing massive deficits or significant cuts in basic programs,” Biden said.“I believe this approach is a major mistake. I believe we’ve proven that approach is a mistake over the past four years.” More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      If Trump’s tariffs start a trade war, it would be an economic disaster | Mark Weisbrot

      by

      “To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff, and it’s my favorite word,” said Donald Trump last month. Pundits, politicians and financial markets are trying to figure out why, since he announced a week ago that he would impose tariffs on the United States’s three biggest trading partners: 25% for Mexico and Canada, and 10% for China.One theory is that tariffs can be a beautiful distraction. Trump, more than any previous US president, has fed on distractions for years, both to campaign and to govern. He can move seamlessly from one distraction to the next, like a magician preparing for the opportune moment to pull a coin from where it appears to have been hidden behind your ear.Although he still has seven weeks before he takes office, he could use a distraction that can start sooner. He has run into problems with cabinet and other appointments that require Senate confirmation. Of course he could easily find people who would do his bidding and be acceptable to a Senate with a Republican majority. But that would defeat the main purpose of nominating people who seem indefensible: to force Republican senators to display the abject subservience that Trump needs to be public, in order to ensure his unwavering dominance within his party.This is no small part of his governing strategy; it involves a big takeaway from the failures of his first term, from his point of view. The lesson is: loyalty to Trump first. Violators will be banished. And with small margins in the Senate and the House, things could begin to unravel if this core imperative goes unenforced.But the days before Trump actually takes office could also be the best time for him to use the threat of tariffs to begin bullying foreign governments for things that might benefit his allies, donors or himself. Other governments besides the three that he named are trying to figure out what they can offer Trump to avoid the economic disruption of tariffs. Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, who does not see Trump as a friend, has urged the EU to negotiate with him, rather than adopt a retaliatory, eg tariff, response.Trump’s two offered pretexts for the tariff threat – migration and drugs, in this case fentanyl – are not credible. About 18% of the undocumented people encountered by border patrol over the past year have been from Venezuela and Cuba, two countries that have been devastated economically by sanctions imposed by the US government. If reducing immigration were really Trump’s concern, he would not have deployed sanctions that have driven millions of people from their homes to the US border; and he could end these sanctions in January by himself.Broad economic sanctions are a form of economic violence which targets civilians in order to achieve political ends, including regime change. US congressman Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, made this clear in a letter that he wrote to Joe Biden asking for the sanctions on Venezuela to be dropped. The Trump sanctions in Venezuela in 2017 killed tens of thousands of civilians during the first year, and many more in the years that followed, including under Biden.As for fentanyl, about 75,000 people died from overdoses of this drug in 2023. But it’s difficult to see how Trump’s tariffs could help solve this problem. It’s a glaring example of how more than four decades of a failed “war on drugs”, based on criminalization of use and supply-side intervention, have made things worse. In this case the drug war has led to an innovation – fentanyl – that is vastly more powerful than heroin, much cheaper to produce, more addictive and easier to transport, distribute and produce.There is general agreement in the economic research on the effects of Trump’s trade and tariff wars in his first term as president, in which he placed tariffs on about $380bn of US imports. The overall impact on living standards for US workers and most Americans is found to be negative, with the cost of the tariffs being absorbed by US consumers. Employment overall did not increase, and may have fallen due to the negative impact of retaliatory tariffs.The economic research looking at the expected impacts of tariffs that Trump has talked about going forward also finds the impact on the US economy to be negative. And there is potential for much more damage if other countries respond with more retaliatory tariffs than they did in 2018-2020.Meanwhile, the productivity of Trump’s tariff offensive in generating distractions remains high. On Sunday he took a shot at the so-called Brics countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and other economic powers: “We require a commitment from these countries,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “that they will neither create a new Brics currency nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar or they will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US economy.”None of these things will happen while Trump is in office. Nor will threats like this deter the majority of the world, when it is ready, from replacing a system of global governance that is overwhelmingly run by one country with help from the richest people in other rich countries. Our current system is one in which the “exorbitant privilege” that the dollar-based financial system bestows upon the US government gives the president the power to destroy whole economies with the stroke of a pen.But this is a longer story; for Trump it’s just another threat and another distraction in the post-truth world that he, as much as anyone, helped create. But he will need more than distractions to take this country further down the road toward de-democratization, which is what brought to him and his party the power that they now have.

      Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is the author of Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy More