More stories

  • in

    Martin Wolf on the best economic books to read this summer

    Stellar: A World Beyond Limits, and How to Get There by James Arbib and Tony Seba (Stellar)Imagine a world without scarcity. It is the one Karl Marx imagined, when private property and the state would wither away. Arbib and Seba update this prophecy to take account of two technological innovations of our era, in electricity generation and storage from solar, wind and batteries, and the combination of artificial intelligence with robots. In this world, they argue, the ills of “extractive” societies — scarcity, coercion, conflict, hierarchy and environmental collapses — will disappear. Is this a plausible future? I leave that question to people better qualified than I am. If it were, it would certainly revolutionise the world.Democracy for a Sustainable World: The Path from the Pnyx by James Bacchus (Cambridge)Bacchus has been a member of the US House of Representatives and twice chair of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization in Geneva, an institution his own country has killed. He also aspires to create an ecologically sustainable and democratic world. His call is wonderfully idealistic: “Combining sortition [lotteries] with right representation, and using the tools of expertise, rules, and interaction” we can create a better and more democratic world. Yes, this is “unrealistic”. But must we resign ourselves to a world of dictatorships and narrow nationalism?Uncertainty and Enterprise: Venturing Beyond the Known by Amar Bhidé (Oxford)Over a long career, Bhidé, now at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, has focused on uncertainty and enterprise. But his aims are not metaphysical, but rather practical: “I aim to stimulate inquiry into neglected questions about the role of uncertainty in human affairs and improve our understanding of how to manage it. I do not offer grand theories or manifestos. Instead I propose some conjectures about the justification of imagined choices illustrated by applications in entrepreneurship.” The results of this inquiry are fascinating.King Dollar: The Past and Future of the World’s Dominant Currency by Paul Blustein (Yale)This excellent book, by one of the world’s leading economic journalists and authors, notes of the role of the dollar that “with great power comes great responsibility”. The first three words are the title of his first chapter, the second three the title of the last. In between, the author argues that “contra the doomsayers’ forecasts . . . the dollar’s global dominance is almost impregnable, and will remain so barring catastrophic mis-steps by the US government”. But, he adds, “the danger of such mis-steps is hardly trivial”. Amen!Capitalism and Its Critics: A Battle of Ideas in the Modern World by John Cassidy (Allen Lane/Farrar, Strauss and Giroux)Cassidy, a staff writer at The New Yorker, is a superb economic journalist. Here he views capitalism through the lenses of its critics over a quarter of a millennium. The latter go from Adam Smith, the Luddites, Thomas Carlyle and Karl Marx to Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty. The big conclusions are three: first, there are a great many critics with legitimate criticisms to make; second, capitalism works because the system has proved so adaptable; and, third, it is the worst possible system except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.Exile Economics: What Happens if Globalisation Fails by Ben Chu (Basic Books)Chu, a BBC journalist, has delivered a powerful attack on what he calls “exile economics”, by which he means the impulse to escape from cross-border economic entanglements that is sweeping across the world. At the heart of this book are demonstrations that self-sufficiency will not necessarily lead to greater security, that openness to trade has brought huge benefits, that imports are far from the main cause of shrinking employment in western manufacturing and that the big mistake was not helping people hit by such economic changes. There are far better alternatives to “exile”. He is so right.Crisis Cycle: Challenges, Evolution and Future of the Euro by John H Cochrane, Luis Garicano and Klaus Masuch (Princeton)What should be learnt from the series of crises and interventions in the Eurozone during the past two decades? This question is addressed by Cochrane of the Hoover Institution, Garicano of the LSE and Masuch, principal adviser at the European Central Bank. Their conclusion is that it needs substantial reforms. These, they argue, should include a credible system for restructuring sovereign debt, replacement of the ECB’s role as a fiscal backstop by an independent European fiscal institution, movement towards European bonds, and a banking union that at last breaks the “sovereign-bank” nexus. The Measure of Progress: Counting What Really Matters by Diane Coyle (Princeton)Coyle of Cambridge university asks whether we measure progress correctly. Her answer is no: we are precisely wrong, not roughly right, as we should be. Thus, we fail to measure improvements in medical treatments in national income, while we do measure many harmful activities. She also asks whether we could measure progress better. “Yes” is the answer. She suggests adding calculations of human, natural, social and intangible capital, as well as comprehensive measures of how time is used. This is an important book. How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle by Ray Dalio (Avid Reader)Dalio is one of the world’s most successful investors. In this book, the founder of Bridgewater argues “that there are big, long-term debt cycles that have unfailingly led to big debt bubbles and busts”. He also sets these cycles within those of “political and social harmony and conflict” and those of “geopolitical harmony and conflict”. These cycles are also influenced by “big acts of nature” and “big new technologies”. Combined, these forces make up “the Overall Big Cycle of peace and prosperity and conflict and depression”. No prizes for guessing where we are now headed.Inflation is About More than Money: Economics, Politics and the Social Fabric by Brian Griffiths (Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics/Institute of Economic Affairs)People hate inflation. They are, as Griffiths, former economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher, argues, also right to do so. Some will argue that the post-pandemic upsurge in inflation hardly matters, since it was brought back to target rates within around three years. But, in those years, the price level jumped by close to 20 per cent in many high-income countries, when it was supposed to rise by about 6 per cent. Such unexpected jumps in prices impose economic costs. More importantly, people want their money to be trustworthy. Yet unexpected “inflation undermines that trust . . . Inflation is a deceit. It is no different from theft.” This is indeed fundamental.Summer Books 2025All this week, FT writers and critics share their favourites. Some highlights are:Monday: Business by Andrew HillTuesday: Environment by Pilita ClarkWednesday: Economics by Martin WolfThursday: Fiction by Maria CrawfordFriday: Politics by Gideon RachmanSaturday: Critics’ picksA Modern Economic History of Japan: Sho Ga Nai (It Is What It Is) by Russell Jones (London Publishing Partnership)Jones, a veteran professional macroeconomist, has had long experience of Japan. In this excellent book, he asks what happened to the “rising sun” of four decades ago? He notes, rightly, that a growth model built on high savings and heavy investment in a globally competitive manufacturing sector runs into diminishing returns. There are lessons in that for China. We can learn other lessons from Japan’s experience, not least that no growth model lasts forever, financial bubbles are dangerous and uncomfortable structural change can be very painful to implement.The Future Boardroom: How to Transform in Turbulent Times by Helle Bank Jorgensen (Barlow Books)Companies are arguably the world’s most important institution. While their focus is on their businesses, they also have huge social, political and ecological effects. The author has worked for years on improving the ability of boardrooms to oversee what their companies are doing. Today, some hope that the complexity she discusses can be wished away. Indeed, some governments are even trying to compel companies to ignore it. But it cannot be done: companies have responsibilities beyond maximising profit in the short run. Boards must recognise them.The World Under Capitalism: Observations on Economics, Politics, History, and Culture by Branko Milanovic (Polity)Milanovic is a renowned expert on global economic inequality. But in this collection of essays he shows that he is a wide-ranging intellectual with a fierce polemical bent. He is an egalitarian. But he is also brilliant at puncturing progressive fantasies. Among the most enjoyable essays in a collection full of them is his evisceration of the idea of “de-growth”. He argues, rightly, that this would mean keeping most of humanity in desperate poverty or requiring average standards of living in the world’s rich countries to be cut by about two-thirds. These are absurd fantasies. Peak Human: What We Can Learn from the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages by Johan Norberg (Atlantic Books)Norberg has been too pessimistic about the costs of tackling climate change. But the argument here is right: humanity is at its most successful when it is open to the world and new ideas. He gives examples of such periods, from Athens to the Anglosphere. The period since the second world war has borne witness to the power of openness. But now, “In a pattern that is familiar from the end of many golden ages, a series of crises . . . has replaced the confident exploratory mindset with a sense that the world is dangerous and that we need to protect ourselves from it.” And so we have Donald Trump!Our Dollar, Your Problem: An Insider’s View of Seven Turbulent Decades of Global Finance, and the Road Ahead by Kenneth Rogoff (Yale)In 2009, Harvard’s Rogoff published This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, co-authored with Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart. It was a warning that financial risks had not been tamed. In this brilliant book, Rogoff warns that the primacy of the dollar is at risk. The book is part history, part autobiography, part analysis and part warning or rather two warnings: first, the US “always looks out first and foremost for its own self-interests”; second, “delivering low inflation year in and year out in a world of burgeoning political and fiscal pressures is no simple task”. His conclusion? The hegemony of the dollar is at risk.Tell us what you thinkWill you be taking any of these books on your summer holiday this year? Which ones? And what titles have we missed? Let us know in the comments belowJoin our online book group on Facebook at FT Books Café More

  • in

    Why the world cannot quit coal

    .css-13hw3ep{margin-bottom:var(–o3-spacing-s);}.css-eh7lb7{margin:0;}Join FT EditOnly .css-79fz17{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}$4.99 per month.css-1h69zf4{margin:0;white-space:pre-wrap;font-family:var(–o3-type-body-base-font-family);font-weight:var(–o3-type-body-base-font-weight);font-size:var(–o3-type-body-base-font-size);line-height:var(–o3-type-body-base-line-height);color:var(–o3-color-use-case-support-inverse-text);}Access to eight surprising articles a day, hand-picked by FT editors. For seamless reading, access content via the FT Edit page on FT.com and receive the FT Edit newsletter. More

  • in

    Trump plans to delay TikTok ban for a third time

    Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeYour guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the worldThe White House has said it will allow TikTok to continue operations in the US for another 90 days, extending a deadline for the popular Chinese-owned social media app to divest a stake in the platform to satisfy American law.“President [Donald] Trump will sign an additional executive order this week to keep TikTok up and running,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday. “As he has said many times, president Trump does not want TikTok to go dark.“This extension will last 90 days, which the administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure.”Last year, Congress passed legislation to force ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese owner, to sell the app or face a ban in the US. Trump has promised to “save” the app and has twice extended the deadline — first from January to April, and then from April to June 19 — after failing to deliver a deal, which requires sign-off from China. Ahead of the April deadline, the White House was closing in on an agreement that would spin off TikTok from ByteDance and create a US company to receive new investment, diluting the stakes of Chinese investors. Under the terms of that deal, investors, including Andreessen Horowitz and Blackstone, would have owned about half of TikTok’s US business, while large existing investors, including General Atlantic, Susquehanna and KKR, would have held about 30 per cent of the new entity. The Financial Times has previously reported that the White House had considered other potential outside investors, including rightwing media star Tucker Carlson.ByteDance told the White House and investors that Beijing was willing to approve the deal, according to one person familiar with the matter. But after Trump announced tariffs on China and other countries on April 2, ByteDance informed the investors that Beijing had rescinded its approval. The White House was waiting for the US-China trade tensions to ease before trying to resurrect the deal, according to the person.In 2020, during his first term as president, Trump moved to block TikTok, writing in an executive order that its data collection “threatens to allow the Chinese Communist party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information”. Trump changed his approach to the platform, however, after he used it to reach younger voters in the 2024 election. In May, Trump told NBC that he had “a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok”. More

  • in

    Trade war looms over voices of global business in China

    Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.At the American Chamber of Commerce’s 110th anniversary ball in Shanghai this month, there were few initial signs that the US-China trade war was weighing on proceedings. But that abruptly changed when US consul general Scott Walker took to the stage.Following a speech from retired NBA star Yao Ming, Walker reeled off a litany of complaints over China’s business environment. These included intellectual property theft, subsidies, China’s nearly $1tn trade surplus with the rest of the world, “arbitrary legal enforcement” and blocked or limited foreign investment. China “remains one of the most closed major economies in the world for both trade and investment”, he said, and America wanted it to open “in a fair way”.The next speaker, Chen Jing, president of the government-affiliated Shanghai People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, could not resist going off script. “To counter the wrongful remarks on China-US trade just made by the consul-general,” he began in Mandarin.Before the interpreter had time to translate, a wave of applause had already broken across the audience, which included many native speakers employed by American companies. Chen recounted praise for Shanghai’s Disneyland on a visit to Disney’s headquarters in Los Angeles two years ago.“Then I went to San Francisco, to Tesla’s gigafactory, and they told me the best Tesla gigafactory in the world is in Shanghai,” he said. “So I want to ask the consul general . . . does this mean that trade is unequal, the business environment in China is not good, and Shanghai does not have equal conditions for the development of US-funded companies?”Compared with the rhetorical clashes of America 2025, such a debate might seem unremarkable in tone, even restrained. But in China, where public discourse is carefully rehearsed, it amounted to an extraordinarily open exchange.It points to the challenges facing the groups that represent international businesses in China. For decades, the foreign chambers have been at the vanguard of globalisation as the country reopened, advocating reform and lobbying for more trade through dialogue and consultation. Each year, they produced in-depth reports on behalf of their members that laid out requests for change, in line with expectations of further internationalisation.They now face an entirely different environment, marked by a more closed mainland and a trade war that has threatened to strand businesses in no man’s land. Although the requests for change continue, there are few signs of overarching convergence between China and the west. Engagement, too, has become more challenging. There have always been limits on the impact of this: many of the requested changes would in effect amount to a reworking of the structure of the economy. But the difficulties are clearer.Carlo D’Andrea, chair of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, says engagement can still work, pointing to the example of “ambiguous” rules on cross-border data transfers that meetings with officials by the European chamber and governments helped to address.His chamber has met with the mayor of Shanghai and leaders of three of its most important districts. But neither the European nor the American chamber has had a direct meeting with Chen Jining, the powerful party secretary of Shanghai and a member of China’s 24-person Politburo in Beijing. In a statement, the American Chamber said this was not indicative of a lack of engagement, given it typically meets with other government officials. The Danish chamber met Chen last August. Simon Lichtenberg, chair, says his organisation does not “publicise” its requirements and seeks meetings with officials which have specific responsibilities for the issues it wants to address.In China’s political system, it is not always straightforward to assess who to lobby, or how changes would be practically implemented. When asked about the effectiveness of the Shanghai American Chamber’s meetings with officials, its chair Jeffrey Lehman, dressed in black tie just ahead of the ball, struck a philosophical tone. “You know Pascal’s wager?’ he replied, in reference to the maxim that it is best to believe in God whether he exists or not.“We can’t know for sure whether the people we’re speaking to have power and influence, but they might, and that possibility is a reason for us to keep doing what we’re doing.”[email protected] More

  • in

    The Fed is likely to keep rates the same but give a forecast that moves markets. What to expect

    While any movement on interest rates seems improbable, the Fed meeting, which concludes Wednesday, will feature important signals that still could move markets.
    Among the biggest things to watch will be the future outlook for interest rates, how officials see inflation trending, and political pressure that has rained on Chair Jerome Powell.
    The meeting comes against a complicated geopolitical backdrop in which the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on inflation has been benign so far but is unclear for the future.

    Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell delivers remarks during the Division of International Finance 7th Anniversary Conference at the Fed on June 02, 2025 in Washington, DC.
    Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images

    Federal Reserve officials get to voice their outlook this week on the future path of interest rates along with the impact that tariffs and Middle East turmoil will have on the economy.
    While any immediate movement on interest rates seems improbable, the policy meeting, which concludes Wednesday, will feature important signals that still could move markets.

    Among the biggest things to watch will be whether Federal Open Market Committee members stick with their previous forecast of two rate cuts this year, how they see inflation trending, and any reaction from Chair Jerome Powell to what has become a concerted White House campaign for easier monetary policy.
    “The Fed’s main message at the June meeting will be that it remains comfortably in wait-and-see mode,” Bank of America economist Aditya Bhave said in a note. BofA said it expects the Fed won’t cut at all this year but will leave open the possibility for one reduction. “Investors should focus on Powell’s take on the softening labor data, the recent benign inflation prints and the risks of persistent tariff-driven inflation.”
    The committee’s “dot plot” grid of individual members’ rate expectations will be front and center for investors.
    At the last update in March, the committee indicated the equivalent of two quarter-percentage-point reductions this year, which is in line with current market pricing. However, that was a close call, and just two participants changing their approach would swing the median forecast down to one cut.
    The meeting comes against a complicated geopolitical backdrop in which the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on inflation has been minimal so far but is unclear for the future. At the same time, Trump and other administration officials have stepped up their urging of the Fed to lower rates.

    On top of that, the Israel-Iran conflict threatens to destabilize the global energy picture, providing yet another variable through which to navigate policy.
    “We expect Chair Powell to repeat his message from the May press conference,” Bhave said. “Policy is in a good place and there is no hurry for the Fed to act.”
    However, the landscape could change quickly.

    Varying economic signals

    While the unemployment rate remains low at 4.2%, the May nonfarm payrolls report showed a continuing if gradual softening in the labor market. The most recent inflation data also indicated that tariffs have done little to affect prices at least on a macro scale, adding another incentive for the Fed to at least think about easing.
    “We’re in a disinflating world,” former Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said in a CNBC interview last week. “If it weren’t for these prospective tariffs that will flow through and are flowing through, I think the Fed would be on their front foot looking to cut rates.”

    As things stand heading into the meeting, markets are pricing in the next cut to come in September, which would be the one-year anniversary of a surprisingly aggressive half-percentage-point reduction the FOMC instituted amid concerns over the labor market. The committee added two more quarter-point moves by the end of the year and has been on hold since.
    In the current climate, “trade tensions have diminished somewhat, inflation has been low, and the hard data have shown only limited signs of softening,” Goldman Sachs economist David Mericle wrote.
    Goldman sees the Fed sticking with its two-cut forecast, but the firm’s economists said they expect ultimately to see only one.
    “We are confident that we are still on track for eventual rate cuts because aside from the tariffs, the inflation news has actually been fairly soft. While an earlier cut is possible, the peak summer tariff effects on the monthly inflation prints will most likely be too fresh for the FOMC to cut before December,” Mericle said.
    Officials also will update their projections for employment, inflation and gross domestic product growth.
    Goldman sees the FOMC taking up the inflation expectation to 3% for all of 2024, 0.2 percentage point higher than March. The firm also sees a slight lowering of GDP growth to 1.5% from 1.7% and a tick higher in the unemployment rate to 4.5%.
    Officials will then use the summer to watch the data and judge from there what it will do later in the year, said Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI.
    “We think the FOMC will maintain its wait-and-see posture at its June meeting Wednesday, underline it still expects to learn a lot more about the evolving outlook over the next several months, and continue to point to September as the next decision point on rates,” Guha said in a note. More

  • in

    House Policy Bill Would Add $3.4 Trillion to Debt, Swamping Economic Gains

    The updated findings from the Congressional Budget Office amounted to the latest dour report card for the president’s signature legislation.House Republicans’ sprawling package to cut taxes and slash federal safety-net programs would add about $3.4 trillion to the debt, according to nonpartisan congressional analysts, who reported on Tuesday that the minor gains in economic growth under the bill would not offset its full fiscal impact.The updated findings from the Congressional Budget Office amounted to yet another dour report card for the president’s signature legislation, which passed the House last month but now faces the prospect of significant revisions to its core components in the Senate.In its current form, the House Republican bill would extend and expand a set of expiring tax cuts enacted by President Trump during his first term. It would pay for some of those expensive components with deep cuts to federal anti-poverty programs, including Medicaid and food stamps.The C.B.O. report issued on Tuesday sought to project the ways the bill would interact with federal spending and the U.S. economy, building on its earlier finding that the House-passed measure carried a roughly $2.4 trillion price tag.The nonpartisan analysts found that the House approach, if signed into law, would deliver a 0.09 percent boost to annual growth rate in the nation’s gross domestic product in the first few years after enactment, compared to current projections.The budget office said that lower taxes would spur some American families and businesses to spend and invest more. But it also determined that the uptick in economic activity would not be sufficient to cover the costs of the legislation. Even after factoring in spending cuts, the proposal would still add nearly $2.8 trillion to federal deficits over the next 9 years, according to the official tally from C.B.O. The figure grows to about $3.4 trillion if the full costs of federal borrowing are included.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Companies Ask Supreme Court to Fast-Track Challenge to Tariffs

    Two toy manufacturers asked the court to greatly expedite their case, in an unusual request.Two toy manufacturers challenging a major piece of President Trump’s tariffs program asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to expedite their case and rule that Congress had not authorized the levies.The request was unusual for several reasons. Petitions seeking review ordinarily come from the losing side, but the companies had won in front of a district court judge. They then sought to leapfrog the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which would ordinarily rule before the justices considered whether to grant review. And they asked the justices to move very quickly, asking that they schedule arguments in September or October.All of this suggests that the court is unlikely to agree to hear the case at this stage.The manufacturers — Learning Resources and hand2mind — argued that the law Mr. Trump relied on, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not authorize tariffs. Until Mr. Trump acted, their companies’ brief said, “no president had ever invoked I.E.E.P.A. to impose a single tariff or duty on goods in the statute’s nearly 50-year history.”In a separate and broader challenge, the Court of International Trade also ruled against the administration’s tariffs program. A different appeals court, the Federal Circuit, is set to hear arguments in that case next month. Both lower court rulings have been paused, allowing Mr. Trump to press forward with his tariffs.Once the appeals courts have ruled, appeals to the Supreme Court are all but certain, and the justices are quite likely to take up one or both of them.The toy companies seek to use an unusual procedure to bypass the D.C. Circuit, “certiorari before judgment.” The procedure used to be rare, mostly reserved for national crises like President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor or President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry.Before 2019, the court had not used it for 15 years, according to statistics compiled by Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University. Since then, he found, the court has used it at least 19 times. More