More stories

  • in

    Harris Now Has an Economic Plan. Can It Best Trump’s Promises?

    A central question in the final stretch of the election is if Vice President Kamala Harris’s proposals will cohere into an economic argument that can top former President Donald J. Trump’s.Vice President Kamala Harris has a plan for the economy: a glossy, 82-page booklet detailing proposals on housing, taxes and health care that her campaign handed out to supporters gathered at a campaign event in Pittsburgh this week.Former President Donald J. Trump has nothing so detailed. The issues section of his campaign website is spare. He has coughed up a string of four- or five-word slogans promising tax cuts, some of which even his advisers cannot fully explain. He has toyed with a tariff as high as 20 percent on every good imported into the United States, promised to deport millions of immigrants to reduce the demand for housing and boasted that he can halve energy prices in a year.Even with such an improvisational, loosely defined agenda, he is still leading Ms. Harris on the economy in polls, though his advantage is shrinking in some surveys. Many economists have warned that Mr. Trump’s promises, if turned into concrete policy, could slow growth, raise consumer prices and balloon the federal deficit.But many voters find Mr. Trump’s punchy promises easy to grasp. His basic message of lower taxes, less regulation and less trade with other countries helped carry him to the White House once before. A majority of Americans fondly remember the economy in the first three years of his administration, before the pandemic and years of elevated inflation.A central question in the final stretch of the presidential race is if Ms. Harris’s more detailed — but in many cases still not fully formed — stack of policy proposals will cohere into an economic argument that can top that.To a remarkable degree in a deeply polarized country, Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump have many of the same stated goals for the economy. Lower costs. Reduce regulations. Cut taxes for the middle class. Incentivize corporations to build their products in the United States.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

    Trump’s Low-Tax, High-Tariff Strategy Could Clash With Economic Realities

    The former president’s efforts to compel companies to remain in the United States had limited success while he was in the White House.As former President Donald J. Trump makes his closing economic argument ahead of the election, he is outlining a vision for a manufacturing renaissance that reprises a familiar pitch: Make goods in America and enjoy low taxes, or face punishing tariffs.Mr. Trump’s pitch combines the type of carrots-and-sharp-sticks approach that he called “America First” during his first term, when he imposed stiff tariffs on allies and competitors while lowering taxes on American firms.During a speech in Savannah, Ga., on Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested he would go far beyond that initial approach and adopt what he rebranded a “new American industrialism.”The former president proposed creating “special” economic zones on federal land, areas that he said would enjoy low taxes and relaxed regulations. He called for companies that produce their products in the United States — regardless of where their headquarters are — to pay a corporate tax rate of 15 percent, down from the current rate of 21 percent. Businesses that try to route cars and other products into the United States from countries like Mexico would face tariffs as high as 200 percent.But Mr. Trump’s vision of a “manufacturing renaissance” comes when Americans are increasingly wary of foreign investment, particularly from Asia. And while he imposed steep tariffs during his presidency, his efforts to keep American companies from shifting production overseas ran into the harsh realities of lower-wage labor and technological advancements in other countries.While Mr. Trump was in office, manufacturing employment was essentially flat before the pandemic and had declined by the time he left office. In January 2021, the Alliance for American Manufacturing described his promises of an industrial resurgence as “mostly rhetoric.”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

    What Trump Has Said About Interest Rates, and Why It Matters

    Federal Reserve officials do not answer to the White House and they insist that they do not take politics into account when they are setting interest rates. But because borrowing costs have a big effect on the economy and the nation’s economic vibe, the central bank’s decision on Wednesday is sure to draw political attention.Former President Donald J. Trump regularly promises to bring interest rates down if he is elected president again — even though the president has little to no direct impact on borrowing costs. While in office he publicly railed against the Fed for taking too long to cut rates, to little avail.And Mr. Trump has remained focused on the Fed as it approaches its first rate cut in more than four years.“You’ll see, they’ll do the interest rate cut and all of the political stuff tomorrow,” Mr. Trump said during a town hall in Michigan this week. “Will he do a half a point? Will he do a quarter of a point? But the reason is that the economy is not good. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to do it.”In fact, Mr. Trump has suggested repeatedly that it would be political of the Fed to cut borrowing costs in the weeks leading up to the election. Rate cuts are “something that they know they shouldn’t be doing,” he told Bloomberg Businessweek earlier this year. At another point he told Fox News that lower rates would “help the Democrats.” He has since suggested that presidents should “have a say” on interest rates, though he later walked the comment back.Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has largely avoided talking about the Fed. While President Biden steers clear of saying what the Fed should do, he has at times tiptoed close to doing so, including earlier this year when he said he “bet” that interest rates were going to come down.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

    A Fed Rate Cut Would Cap a Winning Streak for Biden and Harris on Prices

    Improved data on borrowing costs and price growth has buoyed consumers, but it might be coming too late to significantly affect the presidential raceAfter more than a year of waiting, hoping and assuring Americans that the economy could pull off a so-called “soft landing,” President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris appear to be on the brink of seeing that happen.Inflation has cooled. Economic growth remains strong, though job gains are slowing. Mortgage costs are falling and the Federal Reserve is poised to begin cutting interest rates on Wednesday.And yet, it is unclear whether those developments will significantly alter voters’ predominantly negative perceptions of the economy ahead of the presidential election.Recent weeks have brought a run of good data on consumer prices and interest rates for the administration. The price of gasoline has fallen below $3 a gallon in much of the South and Midwest and is nearing a three-year low nationally. Spiking grocery prices have slowed to a crawl. Mortgage rates are down more than a percentage point from their recent peak. The Census Bureau reported last week that the typical household income rose faster than prices last year for the first time since the pandemic. The overall inflation rate has returned to near historically normal levels, and the Fed is poised to begin cutting interest rates from a two-decade high.The Biden administration, which has taken heat from Republicans and many economists for fueling inflation with its economic policies, has begun to celebrate those developments in bold terms. Officials are claiming vindication for their multi-trillion-dollar efforts to boost households and businesses in their recovery from the pandemic recession.Mr. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers published a blog post on Tuesday highlighting economic and job growth under Mr. Biden that has surpassed projections. Lael Brainard, who heads Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Monday that the American economy has now reached a “turning point.”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

    In Nevada, Economy Tops Issues as Unemployment Remains High

    The state is among a handful that will decide the presidential contest, and workers have felt increased prices at the grocery store and gas station.Sold-out shows along the Strip. Crews constructing a course for a major Formula 1 race. A record number of passengers at Harry Reid International Airport.For much of the past year, Las Vegas, the anchor of Nevada’s economy, has watched in delight as visitors have flocked to town for conventions, football games and summer pool parties, further solidifying its rebound from the doldrums after the pandemic shutdowns.But statewide, the economy is still burdened by high unemployment and higher costs of living — twin pocketbook struggles that animate voters here in one of a handful of states expected to decide the November presidential election.And about a quarter of Nevada voters in a New York Times/Siena College poll last month named the economy as their top issue. It was cited nearly twice as often as any other concern, comparable to findings in other swing states.A topic with particular resonance among Nevada workers — eliminating federal taxation on tips — burst into the national discourse after former President Donald J. Trump told a crowd in Las Vegas that he intended to do away with the practice if elected. He was inspired, Mr. Trump has said, by a conversation with a waitress in the city.His opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, later endorsed the idea during a campaign stop in Las Vegas, but paired the proposal with a promise to raise the federal minimum wage.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

    Trump and Democrats Agree: U.S. Needs a National Wealth Fund for Investments

    Donald Trump has suggested he wants one, and the White House indicated that it has been quietly working on a proposal to set one up.Former President Donald J. Trump said a sovereign wealth fund would generate so much profit that it would help pay down the national debt.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesA Biden-Harris administration fund would be focused on supply chain resilience, technological pre-eminence and energy security, a White House official said.Eric Lee/The New York TimesFormer President Donald J. Trump and the Biden-Harris administration have little common ground on the policy front, but one unexpected area of agreement is the idea that the United States might be ready for a sovereign wealth fund.Such government investment vehicles are popular in Asia and the Middle East. They allow countries like China and Saudi Arabia to direct their budget surpluses toward a wide range of investments and wield their financial influence around the world.While some individual states have their own versions of wealth funds, the United States, which runs large budget deficits, has never pursued one.Last week, Mr. Trump suggested during a speech at the Economic Club of New York that, if elected, he would like to create an American sovereign wealth fund that could be used “to invest in great national endeavors for the benefit of all of the American people.” After Mr. Trump’s remarks, the White House indicated that senior officials had been quietly working for months on a proposal for a sovereign wealth fund that Mr. Biden and his cabinet could review.Despite the newly bipartisan appeal of a national sovereign wealth fund, creating one might not be so simple. It would need the approval of Congress, where lawmakers are likely to be skeptical about authorizing the creation of a fund that could essentially circumvent its own powers to approve federal spending. And then there is the matter of how a nation with perpetual deficits would fund such an investment vehicle.“Establishing a U.S. S.W.F. would raise highly complex technical and conceptual questions and on its face would appear to be a dubious value proposition for America,” said Mark Sobel, a former Treasury official who is now the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “None of the tough questions has been answered so far.”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

    Trump’s Promises to Cut Inflation Are Unrealistic, Many Economists Say

    Economists and analysts are dubious of Trump’s promises to slash gas prices or prod interest rates lower.As he seeks to return to the White House, former President Donald J. Trump has pledged to cut Americans’ energy costs in half in the span of a year, part of a plan to reduce inflation and drive mortgage rates back toward record lows.But economists and analysts — and Mr. Trump’s own record from his first term — suggest that it is unlikely that Mr. Trump can deliver on those promises.Mr. Trump’s vow to dramatically reduce Americans’ cost of living hinges in part on his plans to quickly expand oil and gas drilling and reduce government impediments to power plant construction, which he says would slash energy bills by “more than half.” As prices fall, he regularly states, interest rates will come down, along with mortgage rates.But Mr. Trump has not cited modeling or other economic analysis to support his assertions. Economic research and historical experience suggest that presidents have only a limited effect on locally regulated electric utilities or on the cost of oil, which is a globally traded commodity.“He doesn’t really have the tools to lower oil prices enough to cut gasoline prices in half,” said Steven Kamin, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and former Federal Reserve economist.In all, experts and past evidence suggest that Mr. Trump is over-promising on key economic issues related to prices and interest rates. And that fits with a pattern he established during his earlier campaigns — one in which he emphasizes big, catchy outcomes with little attention to costs or how he might make good on his pledges.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

    For Trump, Tariffs Are the Solution to Almost Any Problem

    The former president has proposed using tariffs to fund child care, boost manufacturing, quell immigration and encourage use of the dollar. Economists are skeptical.It has been more than five years since former President Donald J. Trump called himself a “Tariff Man,” but since then, his enthusiasm for tariffs seems only to have grown.Mr. Trump has long maintained that imposing tariffs on foreign products can protect American factories, narrow the gap between what the United States exports and what it imports, and bring uncooperative foreign governments to heel. While in office, Mr. Trump used the threat of tariffs to try to convince Mexico to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants across the U.S. border, and to sway China to enter into a trade deal with the United States.But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has made even more expansive claims about the power of tariffs, including that they will help pay for child care, combat inflation, finance a U.S. sovereign wealth fund and help preserve the dollar’s pre-eminent role in the global economy.Economists have been skeptical of many of these assertions. While tariffs generate some level of revenue, in many cases they could create only a small amount of the funding needed to pursue some of the goals that Mr. Trump has outlined. In other cases, they say, tariffs could actually backfire on the U.S. economy, by inviting retaliation from foreign governments and raising costs for consumers.“Trump seems drawn to trade tariffs as a bargaining tool with other countries because tariffs have powerful domestic political symbolism, are much easier to turn on and off than financial sanctions and can be tweaked with shifting circumstances,” said Eswar Prasad, a trade economist at Cornell University.“The irony is that using tariffs to punish countries that use unfair trade practices or are trying to reduce their dependence on the dollar is likely to end up hurting the U.S. economy and consumers,” he said.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