Raphael Stevens

Chinese Premier Li Qiang last week delivered an annual report on government work that named boosting consumption as the top task for the year ahead.
The state planner calls for efforts to “increase spending power” and encourage the development of products and scenarios that would encourage consumers to spend. But it’s not a call to support all kinds of shopping.
Economists have long called for a structural re-calibration of the income distribution system and policies seen necessary to stimulating domestic consumption in a meaningful way.

QINGDAO, CHINA – JANUARY 08: Customers browse at an electronics shop amid an ongoing nationwide trade-in subsidy program on January 8, 2025 in Qingdao, Shandong Province of China.  
Zhang Ying | Visual China Group | Getty Images

BEIJING — China’s latest move to boost consumption isn’t meant to jolt all kinds of spending.
Policymakers last week doubled subsidies for a consumer trade-in program to 300 billion yuan ($41.47 billion) this year, matching market expectations — and again steering clear of cash handouts. The subsidies will go toward around 15% to 20% of the purchase price for select products, including mid-range smartphones and home appliances.

That’s an expansion from last year’s 150 billion yuan program, announced in the summer, for a narrower range of products.
The new round of subsidies are “pretty substantial” and will likely support retail sales, similar to how e-commerce companies saw a sales boost in certain products late last year, Jacob Cooke, co-founder and CEO of WPIC Marketing + Technologies, told CNBC on Monday.
While there’s skepticism that the impact of a one-time subsidy won’t last long, Cooke said more subsidy programs will likely follow. He added that China’s “aggressive” 5% GDP growth target and prioritization of consumption indicate that Beijing will do more to support growth — without relying as much on the old playbook of infrastructure spending.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang last week delivered an annual report on government work that named boosting consumption as the top task for the year ahead.
That’s the first time in a decade that Beijing has given consumption such high priority, said Laura Wang, chief China equity strategist at Morgan Stanley. She added that the government work report cited “consumption” 27 times — the most mentions in a decade.

While Beijing has not followed the U.S. or other countries in handing out cash to consumers, Chinese policymakers have increasingly acknowledged the need to counter deflationary pressure at home.
China must focus more on domestic demand given the possibility of “new shocks” to overseas demand, Shen Danyang, head of the drafting group of the Government Work Report and director of the State Council Research Office, told reporters Wednesday in Mandarin, translated by CNBC.
China’s retail sales grew by 3.5% last year, a sharp slowdown from 7.2% growth the prior year. In a sign of a persistent drop in demand, China’s consumer price inflation in February fell below zero for the first time in over a year, according to official data released Sunday.
If prices are too low, it becomes difficult to incentivize businesses to invest and increase consumers’ income, Chen Changsheng, member of the drafting group of the Government Work Report and deputy director of the State Council Research Office, said at the same press conference on Wednesday.
He noted that the work report called for four tasks to address the depressed prices: expanding fiscal support, working to lift consumption, using regulation to prevent price wars and making a greater effort to stabilize real estate prices.
Real estate accounts for the majority of household wealth in China. A crackdown on property market leverage in 2020 spurred a slump that only started to turn around late last year — after a high-level policy call in September to halt the real estate sector’s decline.
Stabilizing real estate can have a significant effect on boosting consumption, similar to wealth effects from a rise in the stock market, said Meng Lei, China equity strategy analyst at UBS Securities, noting expectations that the mainland China A share market has become more strategically important.
Stocks have rallied after China’s stimulus announcements in recent months.
The 300 billion yuan for the subsidies comes from an increase in ultra-long special government bonds for 2025. China said last week it is raising its deficit to 4% as it pursues “proactive fiscal policy.”

NEW YORK, NY – SEPTEMBER 19: The Chinese flag flies outside the New York Stock Exchange during the initial price offering (IPO) for Alibaba Group on September 19, 2014 in New York City. The New York Times reported yesterday that Alibaba had raised $21.8 Billion in their initial public offering so far. 
Andrew Burton | Getty Images News 

Also helping sentiment are signs that Beijing appears to be turning more business friendly. Chinese President Xi Jinping held a rare meeting with entrepreneurs last month.
Once businesses are more confident, they can hire more and increase wages. The Chinese premier at the high-level meeting last week vowed more efforts to promote residents’ income growth and ease financial burdens for low-to-middle income groups.
The officials pledged more support for the care of the elderly, children and the broader healthcare system, steps seen critical to bolster the country’s safety net, allowing residents to feel comfortable spending more.
To a certain extent, these measures can help to reduce living costs and release potential consumption, said Pan Xiang, a macro foreign exchange analyst at Nanhua Futures.

Incremental pivot

Economists have long called for a structural re-calibration of the income distribution system and policies seen necessary to stimulating domestic consumption in a meaningful way.
The recent pledges signal that “the door [is] cracking open” yet still “very gradual movement of the leadership toward being comfortable with doing more direct support for consumption,” said Michael Hirson, a fellow at Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.
“We’re not really there yet in terms of a very forceful push,” he added.
Before more support comes, an underdeveloped social safety net, a gloomy job market and low wages have spurred households to save rather than spend, Hirson said.
Household spending accounts for less than 40% of China’s GDP, significantly lower than the international average of roughly 60%, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

EVs, films, tourism

A look at an implementation plan, released Wednesday, from the National Development and Reform Commission reveals how China is thinking about boosting consumption.
The portion describing tasks for 2025 starts with an entire section on boosting consumption and investment. The report calls for efforts to “increase spending power” and encourage the development of products and scenarios that would encourage consumers to spend.
But it’s not a call to support all kinds of shopping.
Top of mind for policymakers is retail sales of “big-ticket items,” according to the report. China also said it would reduce restrictions on real estate transactions and automobile purchases.
Part of the plan includes developing the experience economy — immersive scenarios that combine film, video games, tourism and traditional Chinese culture — similar to the surge in tourists to historical sites associated with last year’s hit video game “Black Myth: Wukong.”

BEIJING, CHINA – JANUARY 15: People queue up in outside a Miniso store to buy co-branded goods featuring characters from the game ‘Black Myth: WuKong’ on January 15, 2025 in Beijing, China. Miniso and ‘Black Myth: WuKong’ launch co-branded products on January 15. 
Yi Haifei | China News Service | Getty Images

Chinese authorities also said they would improve “mechanisms for regular pay increases” along with the system for paid vacation days. Employees in China typically get fewer than 10 paid days off and several public holidays include days that must be made up by working for part of a weekend.
The report also discussed the continued plan for subsidizing consumer good trade-ins and upgrading equipment.
But two parts of the sub-section focused more on investment — developing talent, infrastructure and ecological projects — as well as building up “security capacity” in basic research for tech innovation and domestic food supplies.
China will soon release a more detailed plan for boosting consumption, Zheng Shanjie, head of the National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters Thursday.
Preliminary data indicates a sales boost from China’s initial 81 billion yuan in consumption subsidies announced in January, ahead of the this month’s parliamentary meeting.
Retail sales of new energy vehicles, for which buyers enjoy trade-in subsidies of up to 15,000 yuan, surged almost 80% to 686,000 units in February from a year earlier, data from China’s auto industry body showed on Monday.
Smartphone sales for the week of Jan. 20 to Jan. 26 surged by nearly 65% from the year-ago period to more than 9.5 million units, “and maintained a high level in the following weeks,” Counterpoint Research said in a late February report.
The analysis said subsidies are likely encouraging Chinese consumers to replace their smartphones earlier than planned, especially when artificial intelligence features are gaining prominence. The firm estimates the first-quarter subsidy to generate at least two to three points of additional growth this year in China’s smartphone sales. More

THE SELL-OFF shows no sign of stopping. America’s S&P 500 index dropped by another 3% on March 10th, leaving the world’s most watched stockmarket down by almost 9% since its peak last month. The NASDAQ, dominated by tech firms, has fallen by 13%. It is not quite the bold new era of American growth that President Donald Trump had in mind. More

President Donald Trump has pursued an economic agenda of broad tariffs on U.S. trading partners, including Canada, China and Mexico.
Tariffs aim to protect targeted domestic industries.
They end up costing U.S. jobs on a net basis, after accounting for retaliation and higher production costs for many businesses, economists said.

President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025.
Mandel Ngan-Pool/Getty Images

President Donald Trump has spoken of tariffs as a job-creating behemoth.
Tariffs will “create jobs like we have never seen before,” Trump said Tuesday during a joint session of Congress.

Economists disagree.
In fact, the tariff policies Trump has pursued since taking office would likely have the opposite effect, they said.
“It costs American jobs,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s.
He categorized tariffs imposed broadly as a “lose-lose.”
“There are no winners here in the trade war we’re seemingly being engulfed in,” Zandi said. 

A barrage of tariffs

The Trump administration has announced a barrage of tariffs since Inauguration Day.
Trump has imposed an additional duty of 20% on all imports from China. He put 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, the U.S.’ two biggest trade partners. (Just days after those took effect, the president delayed levies on some products for a month.)
Tariffs of 25% on steel and aluminum are set to take effect Wednesday, while duties on copper and lumber and reciprocal tariffs on all U.S. trade partners could be coming in the not-too-distant future.
There’s a deceptively simple logic to the protective power of such economic policy.
Tariffs generally aim to help U.S. companies compete more effectively with foreign competitors, by making it more expensive for companies to source products from overseas. U.S. products look more favorable, thereby lending support to domestic industry and jobs.

Workers pour molten steel at a machinery manufacturing company which produces for export in Hangzhou, in China’s eastern Zhejiang province on March 5, 2025.
AFP via Getty Images

There’s some evidence of such benefits for targeted industries.
For example, steel tariffs during Trump’s first term reduced imports of steel from other nations by 24%, on average, over 2018 to 2021, according to a 2023 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission. They also raised U.S. steel prices and domestic production by about 2% each, the report said.
New steel tariffs set to take effect March 12 would also “likely boost” steel prices, Shannon O’Neil and Julia Huesa, researchers at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in February.
Higher prices would likely benefit U.S. producers and add jobs to the steel industry’s current headcount, around 140,000, they said.

Tariffs have ‘collateral damage’

While tariffs’ protection may “relieve” struggling U.S. industries, it comes with a cost, Lydia Cox, an assistant economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and international trade expert, wrote in a 2022 paper.
Tariffs create higher input costs for other industries, making them “vulnerable” to foreign competition, Cox wrote.
These spillover effects hurt other sectors of the economy, ultimately costing jobs, economists said.  
Take steel, for example.
Steel tariffs raise production costs for the manufacturing sector and other steel-intensive U.S. industries, like automobiles, farming machinery, household appliances, construction and oil drilling, O’Neil and Huesa wrote.

Cox studied the effects of steel tariffs imposed by former president George W. Bush in 2002-03, and found they were responsible for 168,000 fewer jobs per year in steel-using industries, on average — more jobs than there are in the entire steel sector.
Tariffs are a “pretty blunt instrument,” said Cox during a recent webinar for the Harvard Kennedy School.
They create “a lot of collateral damage,” she added.

Why tariffs are a ‘tax on exports’

Trucks head to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Canada and Detroit, Michigan on March 4, 2025.
Bill Pugliano | Getty Images

Such damage includes retaliatory tariffs imposed by other nations, which make it pricier for U.S.-based exporters to sell their goods abroad, economists said.
Tariffs imposed during Trump’s first-term — on products like washing machines, steel and aluminum — hit $290 billion of U.S. imports with an average 24% tariff by August 2019, according to a 2020 paper published by the U.S. Federal Reserve. Those levies ultimately translated to a 2% tariff on all U.S. exports after accounting for foreign retaliation, it found.
“A tax on imports is effectively a tax on exports,” Erica York, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, wrote last year for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
More from Personal Finance:Medicaid cuts may include work requirementsDOGE layoffs may ‘overwhelm’ unemployment systemWho benefits from Trump tax cuts?
Damage to the U.S. economy from those first-term Trump tariffs “clearly” amounted to “many times” more than the wages of newly created jobs, economists Larry Summers, former Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, and Phil Gramm, a former U.S. senator (R-Texas), wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.
(President Joe Biden kept most of Trump’s tariffs in place.)
U.S. trade partners have already begun fighting back against Trump’s recent tranche of tariffs.
China put tariffs of up to 15% on many U.S. agricultural goods — which are the largest U.S. exports to China — starting Monday. Canada also put $21 billion of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods like orange juice, peanut butter, coffee, appliances, footwear, cosmetics, motorcycles and paper products.
President Trump alluded to the potential economic pain of his tariff policies during his address to Congress.
“There will be a little disturbance, but we are okay with that,” he said. “It won’t be much.”

While many economists don’t yet forecast a U.S. recession, Trump in a Fox News interview on Sunday didn’t rule out the possibility of a downturn as tariffs take effect — though he said the economy would benefit in the long term. If a recession were to happen, it would weigh on protected sectors, too, economists said.
Voters elected President Trump with a mandate to institute an economic agenda that includes tariffs, Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, said in an e-mailed statement.
“Tariffs played a key role in the industrial ascent of the United States stretching back to the 1800s through William McKinley’s presidency,” Desai said.

‘Disappointing results’ of Trump-era tariff policies

There is a historical precedent for the trade war that’s breaking out: The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which triggered a reduction in exports and failed to boost agricultural prices for the farmers it sought to protect, Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, wrote in a 2024 paper.
Economists also believe the Smoot-Hawley tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.
While a nearly century-old economic policy doesn’t necessarily point to what will happen in the modern era, protectionist policies from the post-2017 years have — like Smoot-Hawley — “had disappointing results,” Strain wrote.
Evidence from recent years suggests protectionism may actually hurt the workers it seeks to help, Strain said.

For example, Trump’s first-term tariffs reduced total manufacturing employment by a net 2.7%, Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, economists at the Federal Reserve Board, wrote in 2024. That’s after accounting for a 0.4% boost to employment in manufacturing jobs protected by tariffs, they found.
The 2018-19 trade war “failed to revive domestic manufacturing” and actually reduced jobs in the broad manufacturing sector, Strain wrote.
The share of U.S. employment coming from manufacturing jobs has been falling since the end of World War II, largely because technological advances have increased workers’ productivity, Strain said. It would be more helpful to direct economic policy toward connecting workers to jobs of the future, he said.
“Trade — like technological advances — is disruptive, but attempts to entomb the U.S. economy in amber are not a helpful response,” he wrote. More

For years, American financial companies have fought the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the courts and media.
Now, with the CFPB on life support after the Trump administration issued a stop-work order and shuttered its headquarters, the agency finds itself with an unlikely ally: the same banks that reliably complained about its rules and enforcement actions.
If the Trump administration succeeds in reducing the CFPB to a shell of its former self, banks would suddenly find themselves competing with non-bank financial players, including big tech and fintech firms with far less federal scrutiny than FDIC-backed institutions.
“Payment apps like PayPal, Stripe, Cash App, those sorts of things, they would get close to a free ride at the federal level,” said David Silberman, a veteran banking attorney.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, leaves the U.S. Capitol after a meeting with Republican members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on the issue of debanking on Thursday, February 13, 2025. 
Tom Williams | Cq-roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

For years, American financial companies have fought the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — the chief U.S. consumer finance watchdog — in the courts and media, portraying the agency as illegitimate and as unfairly targeting industry players.
Now, with the CFPB on life support after the Trump administration issued a stop-work order and shuttered its headquarters, the agency finds itself with an unlikely ally: the same banks that reliably complained about its rules and enforcement actions under former director Rohit Chopra.

That’s because if the Trump administration succeeds in reducing the CFPB to a shell of its former self, banks would find themselves competing directly with non-bank financial players, from big tech and fintech firms to mortgage, auto and payday lenders, that enjoy far less federal scrutiny than FDIC-backed institutions.
“The CFPB is the only federal agency that supervises non-depository institutions, so that would go away,” said David Silberman, a veteran banking attorney who lectures at Yale Law School. “Payment apps like PayPal, Stripe, Cash App, those sorts of things, they would get close to a free ride at the federal level.”
The shift could wind the clock back to a pre-2008 environment, where it was largely left to state officials to prevent consumers from being ripped off by non-bank providers. The CFPB was created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis that was caused by irresponsible lending.
But since then, digital players have made significant inroads by offering banking services via mobile phone apps. Fintechs led by PayPal and Chime had roughly as many new accounts last year as all large and regional banks combined, according to data from Cornerstone Advisors.

“If you’re the big banks, you certainly don’t want a world in which the non-banks have much greater degrees of freedom and much less regulatory oversight than the banks do,” Silberman said.

Keep the exams

The CFPB and its employees are in limbo after acting Director Russell Vought took over last month, issuing a flurry of directives to the agency’s then 1,700 staffers. Working with operatives from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, Vought quickly laid off about 200 workers, reportedly took steps to end the agency’s building lease and canceled reams of contracts required for legally-mandated duties.
In internal emails released Friday, CFPB Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez detailed plans to remove roughly 800 supervision and enforcement workers.
Senior executives at the CFPB shared plans for more layoffs that would leave the agency with just five employees, CNBC has reported. That would kneecap the agency’s ability to carry out its supervision and enforcement duties.
That appears to go beyond what even the Consumer Bankers Association, a frequent CFPB critic, would want. The CBA, which represents the country’s biggest retail banks, has sued the CFPB in the past year to scuttle rules limiting overdraft and credit card late fees. More recently, it noted the CFPB’s role in keeping a level playing field among market participants.
“We believe that new leadership understands the need for examinations for large banks to continue, given the intersections with prudential regulatory examinations,” said Lindsey Johnson, president of the CBA, in a statement provided to CNBC. “Importantly, the CFPB is the sole examiner of non-bank financial institutions.”
Vought’s plans to hobble the agency were halted by a federal judge, who is now considering the merits of a lawsuit brought by a CFPB union asking for a preliminary injunction.
A hearing where Martinez is scheduled to testify is set for Monday.

‘Good luck’

In the meantime, bank executives have gone from antagonists of the CFPB to among those concerned it will disappear.
At a late October bankers convention in New York, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon encouraged his peers to “fight back” against regulators. A few months before that, the bank said that it could sue the CFPB over its investigation into peer-to-peer payments network Zelle.
“We are suing our regulators over and over and over because things are becoming unfair and unjust, and they are hurting companies, a lot of these rules are hurting lower-paid individuals,” Dimon said at the convention.
Now, there’s growing consensus that an initial push to “delete” the CFPB is a mistake. Besides increasing the threat posed from non-banks, current rules from the CFPB would still be on the books, but nobody would be around to update them as the industry evolves.
Small banks and credit unions would be even more disadvantaged than their larger peers if the CFPB were to go away, industry advocates say, since they were never regulated by the agency and would face the same regulatory scrutiny as before.
“The conventional wisdom is not right that banks just want the CFPB to go away, or that banks want regulator consolidation,” said an executive at a major U.S. bank who declined to be identified speaking about the Trump administration. “They want thoughtful policies that will support economic growth and maintain safety and soundness.”
A senior CFPB lawyer who lost his position in recent weeks said that the industry’s alignment with Republicans may have backfired.
“They’re about to live in a world in which the entire non-bank financial services industry is unregulated every day, while they are overseen by the Federal Reserve, FDIC and OCC,” the lawyer said. “It’s a world where Apple, PayPal, Cash App and X run wild for four years. Good luck.” More

“A strong dollar is in our national interest.” The simple message from Robert Rubin, who became treasury secretary in 1994, marked a turning point. For decades, American policymakers had complained about how the weak currencies of their country’s trading partners had made life difficult for domestic manufacturers. Since then, they have either repeated Mr Rubin’s maxim, or avoided discussing the appropriate level for the greenback altogether. More

War and peace are notoriously difficult to price. Just now they are even harder to ignore. Three years ago Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent a wave of disruption through financial markets, yanking up commodity prices, choking off gas supplies and fuelling inflation. As the conflict ground on, that wave dissipated. Now America is attempting to force a resolution to the war, investors must try to gauge the consequences of its success or failure. More