Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    What Across-the-Board Tariffs Could Mean for the Global Economy

    Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has floated the idea of a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, a plan that economists say could badly damage trade.Former President Donald J. Trump blames the global trading system for inflicting a long list of ills on the American economy including lost jobs, closed foreign markets and an overvalued dollar.The remedy, he insists, is simple: tariffs. Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has repeatedly said he would raise tariffs if elected. China, a geopolitical and economic rival, would face an additional 50 or 60 percent tariff on its exports to the United States. He has also floated the idea of a 10 to 20 percent surcharge on exports from the rest of the world.Although smaller than the percentage proposed for Chinese exports, an across-the-board tariff has the potential to deliver a much more devastating jolt to world trade, many economists warn.Such a surcharge would not distinguish between rivals and allies, critical necessities and nonessentials, ailing industries and superstars, or countries adhering to trade treaties and those violating them. (Democrats have also embraced tariffs as a policy tool, but Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has criticized Mr. Trump’s universal approach as inflationary.)Here is what you need to know about the idea of a universal tariff on all imports.In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon levied a 10 percent surcharge on all taxable imports.Associated PressWhat are the historical precedents?Mr. Trump’s broad-brush tariffs frequently evoke comparisons with the destructive global trade war that the United States helped to initiate in the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs passed by Congress. The Senate Historical Office has called that law “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 63 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Embrace Tariffs

    Both Democrats and Republicans are expressing support for tariffs to protect American industry, reversing decades of trade thinking in Washington.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, there was not much love for tariffs in Washington. Many Republicans and Democrats believed that putting levies on imports created economic inefficiencies and that freer trade was the best recipe for growth.That view has largely fallen out of fashion in 2024. While Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, differ greatly in their campaign proposals, both of their parties are increasingly embracing tariffs as an essential tool in protecting American manufacturers from Chinese and other global competitors.It has been a sharp reversal from previous decades, when most politicians fought to lower tariffs rather than raise them. But the loss of American manufacturing jobs as a result of globalization and China’s focus on churning out cheap exports have created a bipartisan backlash against more open trade. Given that Mr. Trump’s 2016 win capitalized on such sentiments, Democrats have been striving to avoid losing voters opposed to free trade.“On economic policy and trade issues, you have both major parties moving in the same direction,” said Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, which advocates tariffs and domestic investments in industry.Mr. Iacovella said that Mr. Trump would most likely go further on tariffs than Ms. Harris would, but that no matter who won the election “it’s still going to be a tariffs administration, and an industrial policy one.”Ms. Harris has sought to differentiate herself from Mr. Trump’s trade proposals, which include tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on most imports, as well as levies of more than 60 percent on China. Many economists say that level of tariffs would drive up prices for consumers, since companies would be likely to pass on higher import costs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Kroger and Albertsons Confront a Skeptical F.T.C. in federal court

    The Federal Trade Commission, which is trying to block Kroger’s plan to acquire Albertsons, said in court that the merger of grocery giants would also hurt workers’ pay and benefits.A trial that could determine whether the two largest supermarket chains in the United States can merge opened in Portland, Ore., on Monday, pitting the grocery giant Kroger against regulators who argue that its takeover of Albertsons would eliminate competition at the expense of consumers and workers.Before Judge Adrienne Nelson of U.S. District Court, the Federal Trade Commission and the supermarket chains laid out their arguments in court for the first time, as union representatives and workers protested the deal on the courthouse steps. Less competition, the agency’s lawyers said, would give Kroger more leverage to raise prices on millions of consumers.The highly anticipated proceedings, set to last three weeks, come as high food prices have become a critical focus in the presidential race. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has backed a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries to combat high grocery costs.Kroger and Albertsons defended the $24.6 billion deal, which would be the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history, saying it would bolster their leverage with suppliers and improve competition against major retailers like Costco, Amazon and Walmart. But the F.T.C. — backed by a chorus of unions, consumer advocates, politicians and independent grocery chains — reiterated its position that the merger would probably result in higher prices for groceries and worse conditions for workers.The deal “would eliminate the competition that shoppers and workers depend on in one fell swoop,” Susan Musser, the F.T.C.’s chief trial counsel, said in her opening statement. “This lawsuit is part of an effort aimed at helping Americans feed their families.”In bringing the case, the F.T.C. has been joined by the attorneys general of eight states, including California and Illinois, as well as the District of Columbia. It’s part of a regulatory push under the Biden administration to rein in corporate consolidation in an array of industries, including airlines, Big Tech, book publishing and pharmaceuticals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Increased sausage demand could be worrying signal on the economy

    A meat counter showing a variety of sausages at a Fred Meyer grocery store, a sub of Kroger, in Palmer, Alaska.
    Michael Siluk | UCG | Universal Images Group | Getty Images

    An uptick in sausage demand can offer the latest sign of consumers tightening their belts as they continue grappling with high prices.
    There has been “modest growth” in the dinner sausage category for one producer, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve’s Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey released Monday. This underscores the trends of shoppers opting for cheaper products and pulling back spending all together as cumulative inflation bites into purchasing power.

    “This category tends to grow when the economy weakens,” the respondent said, according to edited comments included in the Dallas Fed’s report. That is because “sausage is a good protein substitute for higher-priced proteins and can ‘stretch’ consumers’ food budgets.”
    This anecdote pointed out by eagle-eyed Bespoke Investment Group on social media site X comes as grocery prices remain top of mind for consumers. While the rate of annualized inflation has fallen closer to levels deemed healthy by economic policymakers, the collective increase in prices compared to just a few years ago has left everyday Americans feeling sour about the state of the national economy.
    Additionally, it bolsters two themes emerging as hallmarks of today’s post-pandemic economy.
    A growing chorus of corporate executives, including those leading some of the largest restaurant chains, have warned that the consumer is starting to slow down. In particular, they have pointed to stress on lower-income tax brackets as they attempt to make their dollars go further.
    The shift to sausage also highlights an action experts call the “trade down.” Carefree customers may select protein that is typically more expensive such as steak or chicken. On the other hand, price-conscious shoppers will hunt for sausage or other lower-cost alternatives.

    Other food manufacturers who responded to the Dallas Fed’s survey also raised concern about their economic health. One said agriculture as a whole was “hurting,” citing challenges from factors such as weather and higher costs.
    Another put it more plainly, saying it was “preparing for the recession.”

    Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump and Harris Embody a Stark Partisan Divide on Fighting Poverty

    The two presidential candidates can both point to records of pushing poverty rates down, but their approaches could hardly be more different.Follow the latest updates on the Harris and Trump campaigns.The presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump presents the sharpest clash in antipoverty policy in at least a generation, and its outcome could shape the economic security of millions of low-income Americans.As the onset of the pandemic in early 2020 threatened to decimate the economy, Mr. Trump signed a large stimulus package that included substantial aid for the poor. When President Biden and Ms. Harris took office in 2021, their administration pushed more big aid expansions through Congress as part of their pandemic-recovery plan, driving the poverty rate still lower.But if the two candidates’ responses to that extraordinary period had elements in common, the lessons they took from it were very different.In the pandemic-era programs, now mostly expired or reduced, Ms. Harris and other Democrats found reinforcement of their faith in the government’s power to ameliorate hardship. If elected, she would seek to sustain or expand many of them, including subsidies for food, health care and housing, and revive a change to the child tax credit that essentially created a guaranteed income for families with children. Those policies helped temporarily cut the poverty rate by more than half from prepandemic levels.She backs a $15 federal minimum wage, which Republicans have fought, and is a vocal supporter of programs like subsidized child care and paid family leave meant to help balance work and family.Mr. Trump says little about his role in pandemic-era poverty programs, which many Republicans view as having been excessive and fraud-ridden. Instead, he touts his 2017 tax cuts, which he credits for boosting the economy and reducing poverty to a prepandemic low, and he has vowed to extend them when they expire next year. Most of the direct benefit from those cuts went to corporations and the wealthy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Can the G.O.P. Really Become the Party of Workers?

    The most surprising moment of this year’s Republican National Convention may have come on its first night, when the president of the Teamsters railed in prime time against corporate elites and denounced a “war against labor” by business groups. The gasps from some in the hall were almost audible on television.But in many ways, it was a little-noted speech the week before, by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, that was more revealing about the party’s evolving relationship with organized labor.If anything, Mr. Hawley, a rising Republican star who is one of the Senate’s most conservative members, seemed to outflank the Teamsters’ leader. His speech, delivered at the National Conservatism Conference, criticized Republicans who “cheerleaded for corporate tax cuts and low barriers for corporate trade, then watched these same corporations ship American jobs overseas.” Mr. Hawley concluded that, “in the choice between labor and capital,” his party must “start prioritizing the workingman.”Since at least the Nixon era, Republicans have nodded rhetorically at the working class, asserting that their party stands for the cultural values these voters hold dear. And for just as long, Democrats have called that pitch hollow, insisting that Republicans have sought to dupe blue-collar voters into supporting policies that benefit the wealthy. Speaker after speaker at the Democratic National Convention this week went on in this vein.Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has become a leading voice among Republicans pushing for a new relationship with labor. Eric Lee/The New York TimesWhat’s far less common is for a Republican to agree with that critique. “The recent Republican Party, the 1990s party, privileged the money crowd in just about every possible way,” Mr. Hawley said in his speech.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Care Policies Take Center Stage in Harris’s Economic Message

    The Democratic nominee says she wants to make raising a family more affordable. But she has provided few details on her proposals.The “care economy” — a broad set of policies aimed at helping parents and other caregivers — was the great unfinished work of President Biden’s domestic agenda. Vice President Kamala Harris has made it a central aspect of her campaign to succeed him.Ms. Harris, the Democratic nominee, has spoken frequently on the campaign trail about making it more affordable to raise children. She chose a running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, whose signature policy accomplishments include the creation of a paid family leave program.In the first major economic speech of her campaign, she proposed restoring an expanded child tax credit and called for a new $6,000 benefit for parents of newborns. She also laid out policies that aim to reduce housing costs, such as providing up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to first-time home buyers.In her speech accepting the Democratic nomination on Thursday, Ms. Harris said she would not let conservatives end programs like Head Start that “provide preschool and child care for our children.”But Ms. Harris has not yet offered specific proposals on child care, paid family leave or early childhood education. That has surprised some progressive policy experts, and brought flashbacks of the Biden administration’s inability to enact more sweeping policies.Mr. Biden also initially made the care economy a central piece of his domestic policy agenda, putting it alongside proposed investments in roads and bridges, domestic manufacturing and green energy. His aides often argued that care was a form of infrastructure — that affordable child care, like highways, was essential to a well-functioning economy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Stocks Rise as Fed Chair Powell Signals Rate Cuts in Jackson Hole Speech

    Jerome H. Powell made it clear that the Federal Reserve will cut rates on Sept. 18, as the central bank turns the corner in its fight against inflation.Speaking in his most closely watched speech of the year, Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, clearly signaled on Friday that the central bank was poised to cut interest rates in September.And while Mr. Powell stopped short of giving a clear hint at just how large that move might be, he forcefully underscored that the central bank stands prepared to adjust policy to protect the job market from weakening further and to keep the economy on a path for a soft landing.“The time has come for policy to adjust,” Mr. Powell said during the Kansas City Fed’s annual conference at Jackson Hole in Wyoming. “The direction of travel is clear, and the timing and pace of rate cuts will depend on incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks.”He then added: “We will do everything we can to support a strong labor market as we make further progress toward price stability.”Mr. Powell’s speech was his firmest declaration yet that the Fed is turning a corner in its fight against inflation. After more than a year of holding interest rates at 5.3 percent, the highest level in more than two decades, officials finally have enough confidence to change their stance by cutting rates at their Sept. 17-18 meeting.Policymakers have been using those high rates to try to cool the economy and, by doing so, wrestle down rapid inflation. But as price increases slow substantially and the job market shows signs of wobbling, officials no longer need to hit the brakes quite so hard.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More