Tag: trump tariffs
When Scott Bessent Claims Trump Is Making Life Affordable, Who Believes Him?

When Scott Bessent Claims Trump Is Making Life Affordable, Who Believes Him?

When it comes to the economy, the thing American households care most about by far these days is affordability, aka the cost-of-living, aka what things cost.

Note that while, of course, inflation is related to this concern, it is by no means the same thing. Telling people who want lower prices that they’ve got slower inflation is a slight-of-hand that they interpret as gaslighting. They want lower prices; you’re (falsely, as shown below) claiming that you’re delivering slower-growing prices.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been on a campaign to convince people that life is a lot more affordable under his boss, despite the fact that this is false and people know it’s false. The fact that his boss and party are refusing to reconsider their policy to make health-coverage premiums rise sharply for tens of millions of Americans just makes their affordability falsehoods that much more transparent.

First, here’s Sec’y Bessent on Face the Nation last Sunday:

MARGARET BRENNAN: [Americans] are seeing prices still high on furniture, energy, gardening, lawn care, apparel. Do you expect these things to cool off and when?
SEC. BESSENT: Well, it is cooling off because the core inflation number that you referenced was 0.2% which is down the- from the previous sequence over the previous months. And you listed the things that are up, but we’re seeing plenty of things that are down, whether it’s energy and rents.

The gas price is down, as I’ll show in a moment, and that’s certainly a price people notice, but electricity prices are way up. CPI rents are up, not down, though the Zillow rent index is down $50 over both the past month and the past year. Rental inflation is, in fact, consistently down as shown in the figure below. It started falling in the spring of 2023, but again, that just means average rents are growing more slowly. Electricity prices are not just up, they’re accelerating (figure), in part due to data-center demand, meaning consumers in states like mine (VA) are getting hit with spillovers from insatiable data-center energy draws. No one’s loving that, either.

Gas is down—the figure shows the per gallon price from AAA—to about where it was in late 2024. You might think that boosted people’s economic vibes back then but it failed to do, much as it’s failing to do so now. Consumer sentiment is at or below recessionary levels.

Bessent went on to correctly point out that the mortgage rate is down, from about seven percent when Trump took office to just above six percent now, which is good news for home buyers and refi-ers. But while housing prices have flattened, they’re not coming down and they’re up by more than 50 percent since the pandemic (Case-Shiller index). When more than a third of Americans are “housing cost burdened,” meaning it takes at least 30 percent of their income to pay rent or mortgage, dismissing housing affordability is not your best play.

But, as is their wont, Bessent doubled down on X:

Inflation is down?? Yearly CPI inflation was ~2% in April and its ~3% now. We’ve got a pocketful of receipts on this one! As noted, some prices are down, but the rise in the average price level, i.e., inflation, is not in question. In every inflation report, you’ll always find some prices down and more prices up, but to claim “inflation is down” when it’s up over the past few months is not credible.

Moreover, tariffs are part of the reason inflation is up. I’ve shown this for goods prices in a recent post, but here’s the latest update from Cavallo et al, who have been tapping their unique dataset of five major retailers (the vertical line is when Trump’s tariffs were introduced):

Closer to home, and I mean your home and my home, where the day does not begin without an excessively large cup of coffee, Trump’s 50 percent tariff on Brazilian coffee is partially responsible for that price rising 19 percent over the past year (it’s not just tariffs; droughts have pushed up both coffee and beef costs). Some commentators responded to Bessent’s tweet above with pictures of what they were paying for groceries.

With all these mostly-up price movements going on in the background, the Trump administration and Congressional Rs voted to make health coverage a lot more expensive for over 20 million people by ending subsidies that were offsetting that cost.

Given those facts on the ground, Mr. Sec’y, here’s some free advice: Stop trying to convince people life is more affordable than they believe to be the case. You’ve got to know that average prices almost always go up, unless there’s a deep depression upon the land. So, BS’ing people that they can have their old prices back is, as noted, just feckless gaslighting.

Instead, you need to explain what you’re doing to make life more affordable, which has two broad policy thrusts: supporting real income growth and helping to offset the high costs of key sources of price pressures, including housing, groceries, health care, child care, utilities (e.g., electricity) costs. Neale Mahoney and I explain the policy framework and give some policy examples here; Chao and Konczal go deep here.

But before you can pursue policies to help with affordability, you’ve got to stop making the problem worse. That means unwinding tariffs and restoring health coverage subsidies.

On the income side, you’ve also got to start worrying about the unusually low-hire job market, which, unlike the booming stock market, is where the people most concerned about affordability get their income. For them, it’s paychecks, not portfolios.

So, when the Wall Street Journal reports the following…:

American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink them through layoffs—without harming their businesses. Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy that many still describe as uncertain.

…you need to get the team thinking about ways to help restart the job-growth engine, which, for the record, isn’t tariffs, deportations, or Fed harassment. It is, in part, restored business and consumer confidence, less chaos and uncertainty, and standing up policies that nudge AI-use to upweight labor complementarity and down-weight labor substitution. I grant you, this is hard policy work, but it’s the only honest way forward.

I know—free advice, worth what you pay for it. But I learned much of the above the hard way. And for all the endless noise your boss generates, all the breaking of norms and laws, at the end of the day, affordability, as prosaic as may sound relative to reshaping everything from trade to immigration to the rule-of-law to the White House itself, is what people really need your help with.

Telling them that’s what you’re doing when in fact you’re doing the opposite won’t cut it.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

Donald Trump's 'Love' Is Still Driving American Farmers Into Ruin

Donald Trump's 'Love' Is Still Driving American Farmers Into Ruin

At a 2018 press conference in New York City, Trump said of American farmers, "I love them, and they voted for me, and they love me. ... And they said, 'We don't care if we get hurt, he's doing the right thing.'"

During his 2025 joint address to Congress, Trump said, "Our new trade policy will also be great for the American farmer — I love the farmer."

Hardly any sector has suffered from Trump's trade wars more than agriculture. Soybeans were hardest hit.

Before the first trade war in the first Trump administration, China was the biggest foreign market for U.S. soybeans, taking about 30 percent of total production. Soybean exports to China fell from $12.3 billion in 2017 to $3.1 billion in 2018.

Joe Biden came into office, and exports rose in 2022 to a record $16.4 billion. But farmers didn't vote for Biden's successor in 2024. They voted again for Trump, even though he campaigned with a promise for Trade War II, singling out China.

And come "Liberation Day" on April 2, he launched it with heightened ferocity. China retaliated, targeting U.S. agricultural products. This year, just as American soybean farmers anticipate a bumper crop, exports to China are down to about zero.

Other American farm products have also suffered greatly. They include corn, beef, tree nuts, and pork.

The political mystery endures. "It's somewhat understandable that Trump appealed to rural voters in 2016. After all, he kept saying he loved farmers. The first trade war undoubtedly took them by surprise, though he did bail them out with $23 billion in aid, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

But why did they vote for him a second time? Trump received an even larger percentage of their support while promising another trade war. Almost 78 percent of voters in farming-dependent counties supported him in 2024. The reasons were probably part cultural — rural Americans tend to be more socially conservative — and Trump's inflation argument also hit home. Under Biden, prices were rising for fertilizer, fuel, and equipment.

But even if this latest trade war ended tomorrow, growers of commodity crops like soybeans would still face lasting damage. They've spent decades cultivating buyers for their products in China and elsewhere. China is looking for new suppliers, and once those relationships are cemented, it will be hard to win them back.

China has turned to Brazil and Argentina for soybeans — Australia for beef. It's investing in port projects in Peru and Brazil to ensure a reliable supply of farm products from South America. Trump is talking about another big bailout of farmers, but once replaced, Americans have lost long term. No magic wand can bring their export markets back to their former glory.

The trade war has also further raised the farmers' prices, especially for fertilizer. Much of it comes from trade-war target Canada.

One doubts that other business interests would have been as accommodating to Trump's ruinous policies as farmers were after getting whacked the first time around.

Heartland grumbling has turned into louder protest. But no matter. Trump is presumably not running again for president. He no longer needs their vote — or rural scenery for campaign backdrops. And he certainly doesn't yearn for their love. He's a city boy, and the company he favors hails from crypto, tech, and Wall Street.

How did Trump pull it off, abusing farmers while convincing them, like battered wives, that he still loved them? That took considerable talent, reminiscent of his much-quoted remark, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters."

Thing is, people on Fifth Avenue are doing just fine. It's the farmers who are bleeding.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Why Tariffs Trump Promised (But Didn't Deliver) Haven't Harmed U.S. Economy More

Why Tariffs Trump Promised (But Didn't Deliver) Haven't Harmed U.S. Economy More

A threatened tariff that is never implemented does not hurt the economy as much as a threatened tariff that is actually implemented. That simple point seems to have eluded Matthew Lynn, a financial columnist whose Washington Post column’s title told readers, “Economists were wrong about tariffs. They need to figure out why.”

While I agree that economists do tend to over-react to tariffs, and oversell the benefits of lowering them, the simple reason economists were wrong is that the tariffs Trump threatened on April 2, “Liberation Day,” were never implemented.

The tariffs Trump promised us on April 2 averaged well over 20 percent. The current nominal effective tariff rate is 17.9 percent, as calculated by the Yale Budget Lab. The reason for emphasizing “nominal” is that this is the rate we would be paying if companies actually paid the tariff rates Trump puts down on paper for a specific country and item. But the actual rate that companies end up paying is often much less than this.

As Trump advertises, he likes to make deals. So, if CEOs head down to Mar-a-Lago bearing gifts, they can get lower tariff rates or even exemptions. Apple CEO Tim Cook led the way with his gift of a gold medallion to Trump on national TV. As a result, Apple is exempt from Trump’s 100 percent tariff on semi-conductors as well as his tariff on smartphones. With other companies (generally large companies) making similar deals, the effective tariff rate is far below the nominal rate.

We can easily calculate the effective tariff rate by looking at how much money the government is collecting in tariffs. According to the Treasury Department, it took in $30 billion in August, an increase of $23 billion from last August. Annualizing that gap, the increase in tariffs comes to $276 billion, an amount equal to about 8.5 percent of current goods imports. That is the actual increase in the tariff rate.

That will still be a hit to trade, but far less than the hit from the tariffs Trump advertised on April 2nd. If economists can be blamed in projecting out the impact of the April 2nd tariffs, it is for failing to recognize that Trump is a corrupt blowhard, and what he says on any given day has little to do with what he actually does. Hopefully, economists have learned their lesson here.

Of course, just because the tariffs ended up being far lower than advertised doesn’t mean they aren’t having a negative impact on the economy. Trump has hit the country with a massive tax increase, probably the largest ever seen. The increase is equal to 0.9 percent of GDP. Taking that over a 10-year budget horizon, as is generally done, it comes to $3.1 trillion. In other words, it’s real money.

And tariffs are taxes like any other tax. Donald Trump may think they have some mystical quality, but Donald Trump’s imagination doesn’t affect the economy. A tax increase of $276 billion pulls money out of consumers’ pockets and will slow the economy.

We are already seeing evidence of a weaker labor market, the unemployment rate had risen to 4.3 percent in August, up from 4.0 percent in January. (Trump won’t let us see the September jobs report, which was prepared before the shutdown.) This weakness will grow over time. Remember, many of these tariffs were originally delayed. Also, some tariff increases have the effect of pulling consumption forward, such as the ending of the de minimis exemption which led to a big surge in on-line sales in August. But there is no doubt that the tariffs are pulling money out of the economy and slowing growth, as economists predicted.

The other more important point about the harm tariffs do to the economy, as opposed to something like a sales tax, is that they are erratic, since Trump takes pride in changing them all the time. This both makes it difficult to make long-term investment plans and also enables businesses to get special privileges due to their bribes and access. This will hurt longer term growth since companies aren’t succeeding because they are innovative or efficient, but because they are friends with Donald Trump.

I suppose the Washington Post under its new leadership didn’t think it could make this point on its opinion page, but that is the reality.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Yes, Republicans Are Happy To Raise Taxes -- On Poor And Working People

Yes, Republicans Are Happy To Raise Taxes -- On Poor And Working People

Here’s the latest fiscal data from Congressional Budget Office, a first look at fiscal year 2025 outlays and receipts (the table shows the latter):

The solid job market contributed to higher income and payroll taxes, but you’ll note that the largest percentage changes occurred for corporate taxes, down 15 percent, $77bn, and import taxes, up 153 percent, $118bn.

According to CBO, the decline in corporate receipts partly reflects early impacts of the Trump/Republican budget bill, in this case larger deductions for investments. The “customs duties” are, of course, the tariffs.

Two points.

First, contrary to ancient lore, clearly Republicans raise taxes. It’s just a matter of whose taxes they raise.

Now, as someone who is worried about our longer-term fiscal outlook—I didn’t used to feel that way, but the combination of rising interest rates1 and bipartisan disregard for the outlook flipped me—I’m the last person to blanketly condemn a tax increase.

But, and here’s the second point, why would you do so on the most vulnerable taxpayers, which is who tariffs mostly hit, versus the wealthy, which is who corporate taxes mostly hit? That there’s one of them rhetorical questions.

Here’s the distribution of corporate taxes from the excellent ITEP:

Note that 84% of the benefits of a corporate tax break accrue to the richest 20%, and 29% to the top 1%.

Here’s the tariff impact on household income, from Yale Budget Lab via Axios:

The “tax incidence” of tariffs falls more on middle- and low-income households, as imports are a larger share of their consumption baskets relative to higher-income households. Thus, tariffs are a regressive tax.

Because corporate taxes fall mostly on shareholders, who tend to have higher incomes, the corporate tax is considered to be progressive.

So, yes, we need more tax revenue. The CBO data show that the FY25 deficit will amount to ~6 percent of GDP, way too high for an economy that spent much of that year near full employment. In fact, the disconnection of revenue flows to the US Treasury from economic growth is a foundational fiscal problem, one born largely of decades of high-end tax cuts.

When I was in the Biden administration, I and many other revenue seekers always bridled at our policy of “not one penny!” of tax increases on households under $400,000. But the idea that you’d address this revenue shortfall by taxing the purchases of working class families already in the relentless grip of the affordability squeeze while cutting far more taxes for the wealthiest households makes no sense on either fiscal or fairness grounds. And I’m not even getting into the cuts in the health coverage of low- and middle-income households to partially offset the cost of those high-end cuts.

Speaking of health coverage, remember these tables and figures, and more importantly, the $4 trillion in debt-financing for their budget bill, when you hear the Rs squawking about not being able to pay for the restoration of the tax credits to help pay for health coverage, the terms Ds are demanding to end the shutdown.

At least for now, Ds are winning that fight, which makes a lot of sense to me, as we are in the middle of one of those moments where it’s crystal clear as to who is fight for whom.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World