More stories

  • in

    Yellen Rebukes Chinese Lending Practices in Call for Debt Relief

    In an interview, the Treasury secretary also highlighted progress at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ahead of annual meetings this week.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen rebuked China’s “opaque” lending practices and urged global financial institutions and other creditors to accelerate debt relief to low- and middle-income countries in an interview on Monday.Her comments came ahead of this week’s annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where global economic policymakers are gathering in Washington at a pivotal moment for the world economy. Inflation has eased, but war in the Middle East has threatened to jolt energy markets. High interest rates are dogging poorer economies, which have struggled to pursue critical development initiatives given their mounting debt burdens.“It’s a substantial burden and can impede their investments in things that will promote sustainable development or dealing with pandemics or climate change,” Ms. Yellen said of the debt burdens of low- and middle-income countries.The I.M.F. and the World Bank have faced backlash in recent years for moving too slowly in their efforts to help struggling economies and for pushing nations to enact economic reform measures, such as sharp spending cuts, that have brought resistance and social unrest.The Treasury secretary will hail signs of progress at multilateral institutions like the monetary fund and the World Bank in a speech on Tuesday that highlights an expansion of lending capacity and faster approval of new projects under the direction of the Biden administration.Global debt continues to be a problem, however, and the United States has been pushing for a broader international relief initiative that goes beyond efforts to aid countries that are on the brink of defaulting on their loans.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

    The Best Books About the Economy to Read Before the 2024 Election

    Voters are forever worried about the economy — the price of homes and groceries, the rise and fall of the stock market, and, of course, taxes — but the economic policies that affect these things often seem unapproachable. Donald Trump wants to cut taxes and raise tariffs. Kamala Harris wants to raise taxes on high-income households and expand the social safety net. But what does that mean? And what are they hoping to achieve?Part of what makes economic policy difficult is the need to understand not just the direct impact of a change but also its many indirect effects. A tax credit to buy houses, for example, might end up benefiting home sellers more than home purchasers if a surge in demand drives up prices.The mathematics and jargon that economists use in journals facilitate precise scientific communication, which has the indirect effect of excluding everyone else. Meanwhile, the “economists” you see on TV or hear on the radio are more often telling you (usually incorrectly) whether the economy will go into recession without explaining why.But some authors do a good job of walking the line between accessibility and expertise. Here are five books to help you crack the nut on the economy before Election Day.The Little Book of EconomicsBy Greg IpThe best way to understand things like the causes of recessions and inflation and the consequences of public debt is to take an introductory economics course and do all the problem sets. The second-best way? Read “The Little Book of Economics.” Don’t be fooled by its compact form and breezy writing: This book, by the Wall Street Journal chief economics commentator Greg Ip, manages to pack in just about everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask about the gross domestic product.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

    How Is the Economy for Black Voters? A Complex Question Takes Center Stage.

    The 2024 election could be won or lost on the strength of the Black vote, which could in turn be won or lost based on the strength of the American economy. So it is no surprise that candidates are paying a lot of attention — and lip service — to which of the past two administrations did more to improve the lives of Black workers.Former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican candidate, makes big claims about the gains Black workers made under his watch, saying that he had the “lowest African American unemployment rate” and “the lowest African American poverty rate ever recorded.” But those measures improved even more under the Biden administration, with joblessness touching a record low and poverty falling even further.“Currently, Black workers are doing better than they were in 2019,” said Valerie Wilson, a labor economist whose work focuses on racial disparities at the liberal-leaning advocacy organization EPI Action.That may sound like an unambiguous victory for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, especially when paired with a recent increase in homeownership rates for Black families and the fact that the Black unemployment rate dipped in September.But even with those notable wins, the economy has not been uniformly good for all Black Americans. Rapid inflation has been tough on many families, chipping away at solid wage growth. Although the labor market for Black workers was the strongest ever recorded for much of 2022 and 2023, the long shadow of big price increases may be keeping people from feeling like they are getting ahead.In fact, nearly three in four Black respondents rated the economy as fair or poor, a recent New York Times/Siena College poll of Black likely voters found. And that is notable, because Black voters do tend to prioritize economic issues — not just for themselves, but also for the overall welfare of Black people — when they are thinking about whether and how to vote.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 Tariff Plans Would Fuel Inflation, Janet Yellen Will Warn

    The Treasury secretary plans to criticize former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals in a speech.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen plans to warn in a speech on Thursday that the economic policies being proposed by former President Donald J. Trump would fuel inflation and harm businesses, raising alarm about the risks of blanket tariffs.The critique, which is set to be delivered in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, comes less than a month before the presidential election. Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have outlined starkly different views about how they see America’s role in the global economy. Although Ms. Yellen is not expected to mention Mr. Trump by name, she will argue that the broad tariffs the former president and some Republicans in Congress support would damage the U.S. economy.“Calls for walling America off with high tariffs on friends and competitors alike or by treating even our closest allies as transactional partners are deeply misguided,” Ms. Yellen plans to say in her speech, which was obtained by The New York Times. “Sweeping, untargeted tariffs would raise prices for American families and make our businesses less competitive.”Mr. Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign products during his presidency, but his plans if he is re-elected would dwarf those moves. On previous occasions, Mr. Trump suggested imposing tariffs of 10 to 20 percent on most foreign items, as well as a tariff of 60 percent or more on goods from China, in addition to other levies.This week, Mr. Trump suggested he might impose across-the-board tariffs of as much as 50 percent to force foreign companies to produce in the United States to avoid the levies.“The most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “It’s my favorite word.”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 Brags About His Math Skills and Economic Plans. Experts Say Both Are Shaky.

    In a combative interview, the former president hinted at even higher tariffs as an economic magic bullet.Former President Donald J. Trump has been offering up new tax cuts to nearly every group of voters that he meets in recent weeks, shaking the nerves of budget watchers and fiscal hawks who fear his expensive economic promises will explode the nation’s already bulging national debt.But on Tuesday, Mr. Trump made clear that he was unfazed by such concerns and offered a one-word solution: growth. Despite the doubts of economists from across the political spectrum, Mr. Trump said that he would just juice the economy by the force of his will and scoffed at suggestions that his pledges to abolish taxes on overtime, tips and Social Security benefits could cost as much as $15 trillion.“I was always very good at mathematics,” Mr. Trump told John Micklethwait, the editor in chief of Bloomberg News, in an interview at the Economic Club of Chicago.Faced with repeated questioning about how he could possibly grow the economy enough to pay for those tax cuts, Mr. Trump dismissed criticism of his ideas as misguided. He professed his love of tariffs and insisted that surging output would cover the cost of his plans.“We’re all about growth,” Mr. Trump said, adding that his mix of tax cuts and tariffs would force companies to invest in manufacturing in the United States.The national debt is approaching $36 trillion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected last week that Mr. Trump’s economic agenda could cost as much as $15 trillion over a decade. Economists from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank, estimated last month that if Mr. Trump’s plans were enacted, the gross domestic product could be 9.7 percent lower than current forecasts, shrinking output and dampening consumer demand.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

    Meet Michelle Bowman, the Fed Official Cited by JD Vance

    Michelle Bowman, a Trump-appointed Fed official recently cited by JD Vance, has been gaining prominence.When Senator JD Vance wanted to back up the assertion he made during the vice-presidential debate that new immigrants are exacerbating America’s housing affordability crisis, he cited a Federal Reserve study. Except it wasn’t a study. It was a speech by Michelle Bowman, a Fed governor appointed by former President Donald J. Trump.Ms. Bowman’s name is likely little known outside Washington. But that may be about to change, as Ms. Bowman positions herself as a prominent conservative voice at the central bank ahead of a possible Trump presidency.Ms. Bowman, 53, was first nominated to the Fed’s seven-person Board of Governors by Mr. Trump in 2018. A former state bank commissioner of Kansas, she had previously worked in community banking and as an adviser in the Department of Homeland Security during the George W. Bush administration. She filled the governor spot on the Fed Board that is earmarked for community bankers.Unlike many Fed officials, she is not a doctoral economist with a string of coastal schools behind her name. Ms. Bowman holds a degree in advertising and journalism from the University of Kansas and a law degree from Washburn University. Given her limited macroeconomic experience, she has never been a closely watched player when it comes to the Fed’s interest rate decisions. Her speeches have long focused on nitty-gritty banking issues.But Ms. Bowman’s criticism of the Fed’s approach to bank rules over the last two years — as well as her recent and rare move to push back on the central bank’s half-point interest rate cut — has raised her public profile.In September, Ms. Bowman voted against the central bank’s decision to lower interest rates sharply. That stood out, because Fed governors hardly ever dissent on economic policy: Hers was the first “no” vote by a governor since 2005.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

    How Kamala Harris’s Economic Plan Has Been Shaped by Business Leaders

    The vice president has repeatedly incorporated suggestions from business executives into her economic agenda.When two of Vice President Kamala Harris’s closest advisers arrived in New York last month, they were seeking advice. The Democratic nominee was preparing to give her most far-reaching economic speech, and Tony West, Ms. Harris’s brother-in-law, and Brian Nelson, a longtime confidant, wanted to know how the city’s powerful financiers thought she should approach it.Over two days, the pair held meetings across Wall Street, including at the offices of Lazard, an investment bank, and the elite law firm Paul, Weiss. Among the ideas the attendees pitched was to provide more lucrative tax breaks for companies that allowed their workers to become part owners, according to two people at the meetings. The campaign had already been discussing such an idea with an executive at KKR, the private equity firm.A few days later, Ms. Harris endorsed the idea during her speech in Pittsburgh. “We will reform our tax laws to make it easier for businesses to let workers share in their company’s success,” she said.The line, while just a piece of a much broader speech, was emblematic of Ms. Harris’s approach to economic policy since she took the helm of the Democratic Party in July. As part of a bid to cut into former President Donald J. Trump’s polling lead on the economy, her campaign has carefully courted business leaders, organizing a steady stream of meetings and calls in which corporate executives and donors offer their thoughts on tax policy, financial regulation and other issues.The private feedback has, in sometimes subtle ways, shaped Ms. Harris’s economic agenda over the course of her accelerated campaign. At several points, she has sprinkled language into broader speeches that business executives say reflects their views. And, in at least one instance, Ms. Harris made a specific policy commitment — to pare back a tax increase on capital gains — after extended talks with her corporate allies.This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen campaign officials, policy experts, donors, lobbyists and business leaders.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

    Fed Officials Debated Whether a Big Rate Cut Was Smart in September

    Freshly released minutes from the central bank’s September meeting show that policymakers were divided on how much to cut rates.Federal Reserve officials were divided over how much to lower interest rates in September, minutes from their last meeting showed, although most officials favored the large half-point rate cut that central bankers ultimately made.“Noting that inflation was still somewhat elevated while economic growth remained solid and unemployment remained low, some participants observed that they would have preferred” a quarter point reduction, according to the minutes from the Sept. 17 and 18 gathering released on Wednesday. And “a few others indicated that they could have supported such a decision.”While one Fed governor, Michelle Bowman, did vote against the Fed’s big rate cut in favor of a smaller move, the fresh minutes showed that she was not alone in her misgivings. They suggested that the merits of a smaller move were debated.“A few participants” thought that a smaller move “could signal a more predictable path of economic normalization,” the minutes showed.The revelation that there was a spirited discussion about how much to cut rates at the Fed’s last meeting underscores what an uncertain juncture the central bank is facing. Officials are trying to calibrate policy so that it is cooling the economy enough to wrangle inflation fully, without slowing it so much that it plunges America into a recession. But that is an inexact science.The Fed’s ultimate decision — to start of its rate-cutting campaign with a big reduction — came in response to a few economic trends. Inflation has been cooling substantially, job gains had slowed, and the unemployment rate had recently moved up. Those factors suggested that it might be time to remove the Fed’s foot from the economic brakes by lowering rates decisively.Now, though, it looks increasingly unlikely that Fed officials will make another large rate cut this year.Hiring picked up in September, data released last week showed, and the unemployment rate ticked back down. When that is combined with recent evidence of solid consumer spending and healthy household balance sheets, risks of a big economic pullback now seem less pronounced.Given the progress, Fed officials have been signaling that the economic projections that they released after their September meeting are probably a good guide for the rest of 2024. Those suggested that policymakers will cut rates at both their November and December meetings, but by only a quarter point each time.The next big question facing the Fed is when it will stop shrinking its balance sheet of bond holdings. Policymakers bought bonds in huge sums during the early part of the 2020 pandemic, swelling their holdings. They have been shrinking their balance sheet steadily by allowing securities to expire without reinvesting them.Officials appear inclined to stick with that plan, at least for now, based on the minutes.“Several participants discussed the importance of communicating that the ongoing reduction in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet could continue for some time even as the committee reduced its target range for the federal funds rate,” the minutes showed. More