Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
“American consumers and businesses bore roughly 93 percent of the cost of Trump’s tariffs, according to one analysis by Moody’s. The U.S. Trade Commission concluded in 2023 that American companies and consumers “bore nearly the full cost” of the tariffs Trump levied on steel, aluminum, and many goods imported from China.”
https://reason.com/2024/12/04/peter-navarro-should-not-have-power-over-u-s-trade-policy-or-anything/
“Trump can’t influence the Federal Reserve much — for right now.
When it comes to interest rates, which are basically how much it costs to borrow money, Trump can complain they are too high (or too low) like any other American, but the Fed’s leaders are the only government officials with the power to adjust those rates. The Fed has lowered interest rates this year as inflation has declined, but it kept rates fairly high for the last few years, in part to fight pandemic-era inflation. Even with the lower rates, however, many Americans are still finding it too expensive to borrow money so they can make big purchases like a home.
Forcing or pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates won’t necessarily fix high borrowing costs for Americans; the interest rates set by the Fed are actually short-term costs that banks pay to each other to borrow money. The Fed’s decisions influence the cost of borrowing, but there are a lot of other factors that go into consumer credit.”
…
“Trump might try to meddle in the Fed’s affairs is by trying to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Trump appointed Powell, but was highly critical of Powell’s decision-making during his first term, and reportedly looked into whether he could fire the Fed chair.
Powell has said he will serve through the rest of his term, which doesn’t end until 2026, but has declined to say whether he would stay on for a third term.
Legally, Trump cannot force Powell to resign or fire him. Members of the Fed’s Board of Governors, which Powell is part of as the Fed chair, can only be fired for wrongdoing or job performance reasons, not differences in policy. Trump could try to fire Powell claiming he’s performing his job poorly, but that decision would probably embroil the president-elect in a drawn-out legal battle”
…
“Because the Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress, it would take congressional action to make any changes to how it works. Congress has made some changes over the decades, but there’s no signal right now that most lawmakers are willing to challenge the independence of the institution.”
…
“come May 2026, Trump will be able to have some congressionally authorized say in Fed policy. That’s when he’ll be required to appoint a Fed chair for a new four-year term, who’ll then have to undergo Senate confirmation. That may be Powell, or it could be someone more compliant with Trump’s idea of what the Fed should be.”
https://www.vox.com/donald-trump/386048/trump-federal-reserve-powell-interest-rates-congress-inflation
“For millions of families, a spike in health care costs might be around the corner because crucial subsidies are set to expire at the end of next year. Some families will see their premiums rise by thousands of dollars; others might lose their insurance altogether.
In 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act, which included a provision that enhanced the premium tax credit — a piece of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that subsidized the cost of premiums for some lower- and middle-income families. The Biden-era enhancements, which essentially expanded the number of people who qualify for the tax credit, were originally set to expire at the end of 2022, but Congress extended them through 2025 when it passed the Inflation Reduction Act. (For families at or slightly above the poverty line, the enhanced tax credit subsidizes the full premium. For people making more than 400 percent of the poverty line — people who were previously ineligible for this subsidy — it caps their premiums to 8.5 percent of their income.)
The enhanced premium tax credits contributed to a record number of insured people in the United States. In February 2021, before Congress expanded the premium tax credits, 11.2 million people were enrolled in health coverage through ACA marketplaces. By 2024, that number shot up to 20.8 million people.
There are many reasons for the dramatic increase in marketplace coverage — including the fact that millions of people were disenrolled from Medicaid coverage after Covid emergency measures lapsed and had to turn to other forms of insurance, including the marketplace — but the enhanced premium tax credit played a critical role. Its expansion was the main reason so many more people were able to enroll in health care coverage from the ACA marketplace, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
If Congress allows the enhanced premium tax credits to expire, millions of people will see a noticeable rise in out-of-pocket expenses. Many will likely lose their coverage, and that’s without considering how much more will be at stake if Medicaid gets slashed as well. For low-income families, particularly those who live just above the poverty line, that could be a nightmare.”
https://www.vox.com/policy/387424/enhanced-premium-tax-credit-health-care-marketplace-aca
Trump’s proposals will be net inflationary.
His plans increase the deficit, which is inflationary.
Large and broad tariffs are inflationary.
A massive crackdown on illegal immigration will also be inflationary as without cheap labor, making products will be more expensive or won’t happen here at all–particularly agricultural goods and housing.
Trump wants to end the independence of the Federal Reserve. Trump has been in favor of lower interest rates, which will increase inflation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7s8QizovG8
“Start with that $30 toaster made overseas. Now, slap a 10 percent tariff on it, so that consumers must pay $33 to buy it. That means the Treasury Department collects $3 in new revenue, but it also means that domestic toaster-makers can sell their wares for $32 and undercut the imported models.
If tariffs cause consumers to switch to those domestic-made toasters, Cass acknowledges that consumers are out two bucks. This is what economists call a “deadweight loss” and it’s one of the major reasons why tariffs harm the economy.
Cass, the head of American Compass and a prominent proponent of the conservative moment’s shift toward central planning, wants to focus on the benefits of those higher prices. “The share of the $32 purchase price that would once have gone to a Chinese factory and its workers now goes to an American firm and its workers instead,” he argues. “It pays American taxes and supports American families in American communities.”
All of that for just $2 more. Wow, what a great deal!
Unfortunately, Cass is wrong about the math and wrong about the underlying economics.
Tariffs can, of course, be used to make foreign-produced goods (like toasters) more expensive. That doesn’t mean that manufacturing firms will radically redesign their supply chains to produce more toasters in the United States. And if they did do that, those new toasters wouldn’t cost a mere $2 more than the ones available at Home Depot now. Cass is making several wild logical leaps here, and offers no evidence to substantiate this claim of a hypothetical $32 American-made toaster.
How much would that toaster actually cost? More than $250.
That’s the figure offered by Ed Gresser, the former assistant U.S. Trade representative who is currently the director of trade and global markets for the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Unlike Cass, Gresser understands how tariffs and trade work.
More importantly, he also shows his work. Because there are no kitchen appliance manufacturers making toasters in the United States right now, he examined the prices of toasters made in other wealthy, western countries like Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. At the lowest end, those toasters cost the equivalent of $250, and some would be significantly pricier.
“In sum, ‘developed’ high-income countries do make home toasters. But they are profitable at prices about ten times those you’d find in mainstream U.S. retail outlets.,” writes Gresser. “So to achieve Vance’s apparent goal, mainstream toaster prices would probably have to rise to Neiman Marcus levels, say $300 each.””
…
“there would be far more toaster-buying consumers than toaster-making workers—and the consumers would be far worse off. Indeed, the workers would be worse off too, since they become consumers as soon as they clock out for the day.
…
“Now, imagine what would happen if you told them that the price of jeans would have to increase tenfold, as would be the case with toasters. I suspect that Cass—and Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio), who is making a version of this same argument on the campaign trail—is relying on faulty math and bad economics because he’s aware that the real numbers would be unpalatable to just about everyone.”
https://reason.com/2024/09/27/how-much-would-an-american-made-toaster-actually-cost/
“The most generic definition of a commodity is something of value that’s bought and sold. A not insignificant segment of the left uses this generic definition when they say we should “decommodify” housing—it should not be something that’s bought and sold like a normal product.
Hear Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) decry the “privatization” of real estate development at a recent event promoting her Homes Act. That bill, jointly authored with Sen. Tina Smith (D–Minn.), would get the federal government back into the business of building and operating public housing units.
Their debate remarks notwithstanding, there’s no indication that Vance and Walz want to go so far as to completely end private housing markets.
Rather, they want to stop certain types of people from buying and selling housing—corporate speculators in Walz’s case, illegal immigrants in Vance’s. (In past remarks, Vance has also said we should squeeze corporate investors out of the housing market.) Once we get rid of the demand of Wall Street and illegal immigrants for housing, there’ll be more left for normal, decent Americans, the thinking goes.
As I wrote on Tuesday, that’s a mistaken attitude. There’s plenty of evidence that corporate investors and immigrants lower the cost of housing. The former provides the capital, the latter the labor, to get needed housing built.
There’s also no reason to think that a free market would transmute rising demand into ever higher prices. There’s not some fixed number of housing units. Increased demand might raise prices in the short run. But higher prices also encourage more homebuilding. That brings prices back down.
If it was profitable for developers to sell homes at $300,000 a unit and then more immigrants or speculators swoop in and buy houses, pushing the price up to $400,000, developers will respond by building more housing until the price falls back down to $300,000. If they were making money producing homes at that price, there’s no reason they’d suddenly stop just because demand increased.
Over time, capitalist innovation will lower production costs such that more and more housing is available at a lower price. This is what it actually means to make something into a “commodity” and we see examples of it everywhere in the economy.
There are more people and more demand than ever. Yet, somehow the price of common commodities and mass-produced consumer products keeps falling.
Real prices falling in the face of ever-rising demand is what it actually means to “commodify” something.”
…
“With zoning codes limiting how much new housing can be built at one time, the size of home-building firms has fallen, reducing economies of scale and construction productivity. Building codes dictating how homes have to be built has further helped to close off innovative construction methods.
Those regulatory restrictions on new supply never went away, with the result being that the price of housing has risen in tandem with rising demand. Additionally, new technology that promised to automate construction tasks has repeatedly failed to take off.
Rather than becoming a commodity, home-building has stayed a cottage industry (no pun intended). Real prices continue to rise and housing affordability has become an issue of national concern debated by candidates for federal office.
In this context, Walz and Vance have decided to double down on the zero-sum nature of the housing market. They say we need to decommodify housing by preventing the wrong people from buying a fixed stock of housing.
This is exactly backwards. Housing supply is fixed by regulation, not nature. If we stripped away regulations on homebuilding, supply would rise and prices would fall.
We’ve failed to make housing a commodity and that’s exactly the problem.”
https://reason.com/2024/10/03/contra-j-d-vance-and-tim-walz-housing-should-be-a-commodity/
“The Republican presidential nominee’s threat to impose new tariffs on nearly all imports into the United States would make video game consoles 40 percent more expensive, according to an analysis published this month by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), an industry group best known for its annual Las Vegas conference showcasing the latest tech for home and personal use.
The report assumes that Trump can carry out his threat to hit all imports from China with a 60 percent tariff, along with a baseline tariff of 10 percent or 20 percent on all other imports. (Trump has been unclear about which level he’d prefer, and recently suggested a “thousand percent tariff.”)
If that happens, the retail price of video game consoles will increase by nearly $250, according to the CTA. Retail price would also grow for laptops (up $357), tablets (up $201), smartphones (up $213), and televisions (up $48).”
…
“The theory behind Trump’s push for more tariffs is that making imports more expensive will spur more domestic manufacturing. Instead of importing Xboxes and PlayStations from China, those products would be made in the United States, his supporters claim.
But hold on. If Trump’s tariffs are sufficient to drive consumer technology manufacturing out of China, those jobs won’t all shift to the United States—they’ll go to other countries instead. If that happens, consumers in the U.S. will still bear the cost of the universal tariffs on their game consoles and smartphones.
CTA does project a 31 percent increase in domestic production of video game consoles—but that would not be enough to offset the other consequences. Ultimately, the group comcludes, the economy would shrink by an estimated $4.9 billion, due to the combination of higher costs and lower consumer spending power.
The vastly increased availability and affordability of tech like TVs and video game systems shows what free trade can achieve. Americans should be cautious about taking it for granted.”
https://reason.com/2024/10/14/trumps-proposed-tariffs-would-add-nearly-250-to-the-price-of-a-new-video-game-console/
How the Cost of Housing Became So Crushing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKlU-TZ27U
Is the NFL ripping you off with monopolistic power?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTflMK9gufo
“The U.S. government has limited influence over those global prices, which are shaped by market and geopolitical factors. Gas prices dropped during the early months of the pandemic, for example, because millions of people stayed home and dramatically reduced their gas consumption. But as the Bureau of Labor Statistics documented, prices surged as society reopened and the economy started to rebound.
While energy prices have consistently been higher under Biden than they were during Trump’s first term, they have dropped from their heights in 2022, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent global prices soaring. As the Agriculture Department noted in February, fuel and oil costs saw significant declines in 2023 and are expected to decline again in 2024, thanks to drops in global energy prices. U.S. oil prices in the past few days have dropped to their lowest level in two years as OPEC+ says it will increase its own oil production later this year and fuel demand in China looks weaker.
And it’s not clear green-lighting more domestic drilling would have much impact on energy costs. For one thing, the U.S. is already producing record amounts of oil and gas, not to mention renewable energy like solar, wind and hydropower. The Biden administration has also approved more permits to drill for oil on federal land than many of its predecessors, even as it moves to restrict how much federal land is available for drilling.
Several economists also told POLITICO that while energy costs are a factor in every part of the food supply chain, they’re just one of many inputs companies consider when setting prices.”
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2024/food-cost-price-harris-trump-biden/