Politics and Government

More stories

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Minutes Show a Cut ‘Likely’ to Come in September

    by

    Even before a disappointing July jobs report, Federal Reserve officials thought they would probably cut rates at their Sept. 17-18 meeting.Federal Reserve officials held off on cutting interest rates at their July meeting, but minutes from that gathering showed that they were clearly poised to lower them at their meeting in September, just weeks before the presidential election.“The vast majority” of officials thought that “if the data continued to come in about as expected, it would likely be appropriate to ease policy at the next meeting,” according to notes from the meeting released on Wednesday.Days after the Fed’s July gathering, a disappointing employment report showed that employers hired more slowly than expected. And in the weeks since, fresh data have showed that inflation continues to cool.That leaves the Fed primed to cut rates at their next meeting on Sept. 17-18, though just how much they will lower borrowing costs is still an open question. Investors think that a quarter-point reduction is most likely, but they see a half-point cut as a possibility.While the Fed is independent of politics, that move is likely to draw attention to the central bank. A reduction would come just weeks before November’s presidential election, and at a time when the Fed’s policies — especially its effort to fight inflation and its effect on the housing market through mortgage costs — have become a common topic of conversation on the campaign trail.The Fed has held interest rates steady at 5.3 percent, the highest level in more than two decades, since July 2023. At that level, interest rates are hefty enough to discourage many families and businesses from borrowing money, which weighs on demand and helps to cool the economy, making it harder for companies to lift prices.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

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Vies With Allies and Industry to Tighten China Tech Controls

    by

    The Biden administration must navigate the interests of U.S. companies and allied governments as it tries to close off China’s access to advanced chipsThe Biden administration is fighting to overcome opposition from allied nations and the tech industry as it prepares to expand restrictions aimed at slowing China’s ability to make the most advanced semiconductors, which could be used to bolster Beijing’s military capacity.The administration has drafted new rules that would limit shipments to China of the machinery and software used to make chips from a number of countries if they are made with American parts or technology, as well as some types of semiconductors, according to people who have seen or were briefed on a draft version of the rules.The rules are aimed at blocking off some of the newer routes that Chinese chipmakers have found to acquire technology, despite international restrictions.The United States has been pushing allies like Japan and the Netherlands to toughen their restrictions on technology shipments to China, during visits to those countries as well as a Japanese state visit to Washington in April. Those nations are home to companies that produce chip-making machinery, like ASML Holding N.V. and Tokyo Electron Limited. But industry in the United States and other countries has argued the rules could hurt them, and it remains unclear when or if foreign governments will issue limitations.In the meantime, some of the rules that the United States plans to impose would have significant carve-outs, the people said. The rules blocking shipments of equipment to certain semiconductor factories in China would not apply to more than 30 allied countries, including the Netherlands, South Korea and Japan.That has sparked pushback from U.S. firms, who argue that the playing field will be further tilted against them if the U.S. government stops their sales but not those of their competitors.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

    One Obstacle for Trump’s Promises: This Isn’t the 2016 Economy

    by

    Donald J. Trump slapped tariffs on trading partners and cut taxes in his first term. But after inflation’s return, a repeat playbook would be riskier.When Donald J. Trump became president in 2017, prices had risen roughly 5 percent over the previous four years. If he were to win the race for the White House in 2024, he would be entering office at a time when they are up 20 percent and counting.That is a critically different economic backdrop for the kind of policies — tariffs and tax cuts — that the Republican contender has put at the center of his campaign.Mr. Trump regularly blames the Biden administration for the recent price surge, but inflation has been a global phenomenon since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Supply chain problems, shifting consumer spending patterns and other quirks related to pandemic lockdowns and their aftermath collided with stimulus-fueled demand to send costs shooting higher.The years of unusually rapid inflation that resulted have changed the nation’s economic picture in important ways. Businesses are more accustomed to adjusting prices and consumers are more used to those changes than they were before the pandemic, when costs had been quiescent for decades. Beyond that, the Federal Reserve has lifted interest rates to 5.3 percent in a bid to slow demand and wrestle the situation under control.That combination — jittery inflation expectations and higher interest rates — could make many of the ideas Mr. Trump talks about on the campaign trail either riskier or more costly than before, especially at a moment when the economy is running at full speed and unemployment is very low.Mr. Trump is suggesting tax cuts that could speed up the economy and add to the deficit, potentially boosting inflation and adding to the national debt at a time when it costs a lot for the government to borrow. He has talked about mass deportations at a moment when economists warn that losing a lot of would-be workers could cause labor shortages and push up prices. He promises to ramp up tariffs across the board — and drastically on China — in a move that might sharply increase import prices.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

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Debt on Pace to Top $56 Trillion Over Next 10 Years

    by

    Congressional Budget Office projections released on Tuesday show a grim fiscal backdrop ahead of tax and debt limit fights.The United States is on a pace to add trillions of dollars to its national debt over the next decade, borrowing money more quickly than previously expected, at a time when big legislative fights loom over taxes and spending.The Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday that the U.S. national debt is poised to top $56 trillion by 2034, as rising spending and interest expenses outpace tax revenues. The mounting costs of Social Security and Medicare continue to weigh on the nation’s finances, along with rising interest rates, which have made it more costly for the federal government to borrow huge sums of money.As a result, the United States is expected to continue running large budget deficits, which are the gap between what America spends and what it receives through taxes and other revenue. The budget deficit in 2024 is projected to be $1.9 trillion, up from a forecast earlier this year of $1.6 trillion. Over the next 10 years, the annual deficit is projected to swell to $2.9 trillion. As a share of the economy, debt held by the public in 2034 will be 122 percent of gross domestic product, up from 99 percent in 2024.The new projections come as lawmakers are gearing up for a big tax and spending battle. Most of the 2017 Trump tax cuts will expire in 2025, forcing lawmakers to decide whether to renew them and, if so, how to pay for them. The United States will also again have to deal with a statutory cap on how much it can borrow. Congress agreed last year to suspend the debt limit and allow the federal government to keep borrowing until next January.Those fights over tax and spending will be taking place at a time when the country’s fiscal backdrop is increasingly grim. An aging population continues to weigh on America’s old-age and retirement programs, which are facing long-term shortfalls that could result in reduced retirement and medical benefits.Both Democrats and Republicans expressed concern about the national debt as inflation and interest rates soared over the last few years, but spending has been difficult to corral. The C.B.O. report assumes that the 2017 tax cuts are not extended, but that is highly unlikely. President Biden has said he will extend some of the tax cuts, including those for low- and middle-income earners, and former President Donald J. Trump has said he will extend all of them if he wins in November. Fully extending the tax cuts could cost around about $5 trillion over 10 years.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

    How China Pulled So Far Ahead on Industrial Policy

    by

    For more than half a century, concerns about oil shortages or a damaged climate have spurred governments to invest in alternative energy sources.In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter placed solar panels on the roof of the White House as a symbol of his commitment to developing energy from the sun. In the 1990s, Japan offered homeowners groundbreaking subsidies to install photovoltaic panels. And in the 2000s, Germany developed an innovative program that guaranteed consumers who adopted a solar energy system that they would sell their electricity at a profit.But no country has come close to matching the scale and tenacity of China’s support. The proof is in the production: In 2022, Beijing accounted for 85 percent of all clean-energy manufacturing investment in the world, according to the International Energy Agency.Now the United States, Europe and other wealthy nations are trying frantically to catch up. Hoping to correct past missteps on industrial policy and learn from China’s successes, they are spending huge amounts on subsidizing homegrown companies while also seeking to block competing Chinese products. They have made modest inroads: Last year, the energy agency said, China’s share of new clean-energy factory investment fell to 75 percent.The problem for the West, though, is that China’s industrial dominance is underpinned by decades of experience using the power of a one-party state to pull all the levers of government and banking, while encouraging frenetic competition among private companies.China’s unrivaled production of solar panels and electric vehicles is built on an earlier cultivation of the chemical, steel, battery and electronics industries, as well as large investments in rail lines, ports and highways.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

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Europe Wants to Build a Stronger Defense Industry, but Can’t Decide How

    by

    Conflicting political visions, competitive jockeying and American dominance stand in the way of a more coordinated and efficient military machine.France and Germany’s recent agreement to develop a new multibillion-dollar battlefield tank together was immediately hailed by the German defense minister, Boris Pistorius, as a “breakthrough” achievement.“It is a historic moment,” he said.His gushing was understandable. For seven years, political infighting, industrial rivalry and neglect had pooled like molasses around the project to build a next-generation tank, known as the Main Combat Ground System.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago jolted Europe out of complacency about military spending. After defense budgets were cut in the decades that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse, the war has reignited Europe’s efforts to build up its own military production capacity and near-empty arsenals.But the challenges that face Europe are about more than just money. Daunting political and logistical hurdles stand in the way of a more coordinated and efficient military machine. And they threaten to seriously hobble any rapid strengthening of Europe’s defense capabilities — even as tensions between Russia and its neighbors ratchet up.“Europe has 27 military industrial complexes, not just one,” said Max Bergmann, a program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which will celebrate its 75th anniversary this summer, still sets the overall defense strategy and spending goals for Europe, but it doesn’t control the equipment procurement process. Each NATO member has its own defense establishment, culture, priorities and favored companies, and each government retains final say on what to buy.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 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    He Won by a Landslide. Why Is He Fighting for His Political Life?

    by

    Ben Houchen, a regional mayor in the north of England, faces a close re-election race, partly thanks to the broader troubles of Britain’s Conservative Party.The last time Ben Houchen ran to be mayor of Tees Valley, a struggling, deindustrialized region in northeastern England, he stormed to victory with almost 73 percent of the vote.Three years on, Mr. Houchen, a Conservative politician, faces a re-election contest in which even a narrow win would do.As voters in England prepare to vote in Thursday’s local and mayoral elections, the governing Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are trailing badly in the opinion polls to the opposition Labour Party ahead of a general election expected later this year.So Mr. Houchen has campaigned on his own achievements, relying on his personal brand as the poster boy for “leveling up” — the Conservatives’ flagship policy of bringing prosperity to disadvantaged regions of England.But with Britain’s economy stagnating and its health service in crisis, will that be enough to outweigh the backlash facing the broader Conservative Party?“If Houchen loses, given the profile that he has, and given that in mayoral elections people are more likely to vote for the individual, that would suggest that it is actually his Conservative links that have done for him,” said Paul Swinney, director of policy and research at the Center for Cities, a research institute. “Him losing would be bad news for Rishi Sunak.”The result in Mr. Houchen’s region could determine not just his fate, but that of the embattled Mr. Sunak. Victory would give the prime minister something positive to talk about on Friday when results come in and the Conservatives expect losses elsewhere. Defeat could stir panic among Tory lawmakers and possibly prompt a push to replace Mr. Sunak.Leveling UpHeidi McCullagh, second from left, says business has picked up for her sandwich shop and catering company while Mr. Houchen has been mayor.Mary Turner for The New York TimesOnce an area controlled by the left-of-center Labour Party, Tees Valley is part of a swath of England’s formerly industrial North and Midlands where voters switched en masse to the Conservatives in the 2019 general election.Since Mr. Houchen first became mayor in 2017, a vast, derelict steelworks near the town of Redcar has been demolished and cleared for new projects, a failing airport has been saved and civil servants and filmmakers have been lured far from London to the northeast.Many people in the area give him credit for these achievements. Heidi McCullagh, 42, runs a sandwich shop and catering business near the historic Transporter Bridge across the River Tees.“We are 110 percent behind Ben Houchen because he has created so many jobs,” said Ms. McCullagh whose windows display his posters. “We do quite a lot of catering for businesses in the area; it’s definitely picked up,” she said. “Ben Houchen does everything he can to make Tees Valley a better place.”Not everyone agrees. At the heart of his regeneration plan is an ambitious project called Teesworks, where, on the site of the former steelworks, construction vehicles busy themselves on a moonscape-like tract of land.Land clearance on the Teesworks site, near Redcar.Mary Turner for The New York TimesRay Casey and Helen Taylor, members of a group opposing the re-election of Mr. Houchen.Mary Turner for The New York TimesThe idea is to convert this into a hub for low-carbon industries, but critics accuse Mr. Houchen of mishandling things to the financial advantage of two businessmen.The project, which has involved hundreds of millions of pounds in public investment, was initially half publicly owned, but a subsequent deal left the private-sector partners in the venture with 90 percent ownership. (Mr. Houchen declined requests for an interview, but has publicly defended the deal.)An independent review in January found no evidence of corruption but described “issues of governance and transparency” and said a number of decisions had not met “the standards expected when managing public funds.”Last week, Steve Gibson, a former collaborator on the project and the chairman of a major soccer club in the area, accused Mr. Houchen of “giving away everything they had worked for,” an intervention that may boost the chances of Labour’s candidate, Chris McEwan.‘An Emerald City’Hanging a protest banner against Mr. Houchen over a bridge near Redcar last week.Mary Turner for The New York TimesOn a bitingly cold day last week, five activists hung a banner from a road bridge near Redcar.“Honk if you want Houchen out,” the banner read, and a steady flow of motorists sounded their horns as the protesters, wearing masks of Mr. Houchen’s face, cheered and waved.“He promises that Teesside will become an emerald city,” said Ray Casey, a member of a small group that opposes Mr. Houchen, called Teesside Resistance. “It’s always just over the horizon, though — we never get there.”Sipping a beer later, Mr. Casey, 63, said he felt the mayor ran “an operation entirely based on public relations and spin.”Yet no one disputes that investment has come to a region of 304 square miles with a population of around 660,000 people, or that Mr. Houchen has good contacts. Last year he was nominated for a seat in the House of Lords by his ally Boris Johnson, the former prime minister. He also has ties to Michael Gove, the Conservative minister responsible for “leveling up.”In the town of Darlington, a shiny, modern building is now the northern base of the Treasury, Britain’s finance ministry. Rail stations are being spruced up. A film studio has risen from the site of an old bus depot in Hartlepool, a gritty seaside town a long way from Hollywood in every sense.Sacha Bedding, the chief executive of a charity, says the area is so far just “creating the conditions” for real regeneration.Mary Turner for The New York TimesThe Transporter Bridge, a major landmark in the Tees Valley.Mary Turner for The New York TimesThe question is how much this is benefiting local communities.Sacha Bedding, chief executive of the Wharton Trust, a charity based in Hartlepool, said investment was “creating the conditions that will give the area a proper stab” at regeneration, but that little had yet improved in the neighborhood.“The number of people who have fallen into financial insecurity has grown, and people who are working have struggled massively,” said Mr. Bedding, adding that many lacked hope. “When not a lot feels like it has changed, you almost end up with the attitude, ‘Well, what’s the point in voting?’”Sitting on a bench in Darlington, Ryan Walton, 19, said he planned to vote Labour. “Things have improved but not enough,” Mr. Walton said. “It would be better if they broadened their horizons and redeveloped areas where people live.”Green ShootsThe site of the Northern Studios, a regeneration project of television and film studios, in Hartlepool.Mary Turner for The New York TimesIn a fractious televised debate last week, Mr. Houchen defended his record against attacks from Labour’s Mr. McEwan and Simon Thorley of the centrist Liberal Democrats.In a dark suit, white shirt and striped tie, Mr. Houchen was confident and pugnacious, accusing critics of peddling conspiracies. “If you think you can turn around and change fortunes in just a few short years, that just doesn’t happen, but what we are seeing is the green shoots,” Mr. Houchen said when asked whether local people felt better off.For the filmmaking business, some of those green shoots can be seen in a movie called “Upgraded,” parts of which were filmed at Teesside International Airport, which stood in for a New York airport.Teeside International Airport, which Mr. Houchen took into public ownership.Mary Turner for The New York TimesMr. Houchen brought the loss-making airport into public ownership in 2019, an unusual market intervention for a Conservative politician.But in terms of its main business — aviation — Teesside International has yet to break even and offers only a handful of flights on most weekdays.Waiting in a largely deserted departure area before flying to Amsterdam, Derek Muir, 68, praised Mr. Houchen for saving the airport and said he would vote for him because “he gets things done and brings investment into the area.”Looking around the airport, however, he said that the lack of any flights to London was disappointing. “I would like it to be more busy,” he added. More

  • 188 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed Tries to Steer Clear of Politics, but Election Year Is Making It Tough

    by

    Economists are wondering whether political developments could play into both the Fed’s near-term decisions and its long-term independence.Federal Reserve officials are fiercely protective of their separation from politics, but the presidential election is putting the institution on a crash course with partisan wrangling.Fed officials set policy independently of the White House, meaning that while presidents can push for lower interest rates, they cannot force central bankers to cut borrowing costs. Congress oversees the Fed, but it, too, lacks power to directly influence rate decisions.There’s a reason for that separation. Incumbent politicians generally want low interest rates, which help to stoke economic growth by making borrowing cheap. But the Fed uses higher interest rates to keep inflation slow and steady — and if politicians forced to keep rates low and goose the economy all the time, it could allow those price increases to rocket out of control.In light of the Fed’s independence, presidents have largely avoided talking about central bank policy at all ever since the early 1990s. Pressuring officials for lower rates was unlikely to help, administrations reasoned, and could actually backfire by prodding policymakers to keep rates higher for longer to prove that they were independent from the White House.But Donald J. Trump upended that norm when he was president. He called Fed officials “boneheads” and implied that Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, was an “enemy” of America for keeping rates too high. And he has already talked about the Fed in political terms as he campaigns as the presumptive Republican nominee, suggesting that cutting interest rates before November would be a ploy to help President Biden win a second term.Some of Mr. Trump’s allies outside his campaign have proposed that the Fed’s regulatory functions should be subject to White House review. Mr. Trump has also said that he intends to bring all “independent agencies” under White House control, although he and his campaign have not specifically addressed directing the Fed’s decisions on interest rates.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