News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The US has been living on credit cards for decades now. The rest of the world has supported it because the most important thing for everyone is stability. With trade agreements getting ripped up, and nonsense tariffs everywhere, supporting Americas consumption habits is not necessarily in the world's interests anymore.
Canada alone holds almost $500 billion in US debt. Europe and Japan hold another $2.5 trillion in US debt. America is picking fights with people who can bankrupt them.
Quite true! Our economy has been held together with duct tape, hope, and the money printer going brrrrr for the better part of two decades now.
People forget that something like the TSA was essentially a jobs program to boost Bush's weak economy.
I remember working in TV and getting very upset at my coworkers defending Bush and Henry Paulson asking for $700 billion to bail out the banks, telling them that if we didn't solve these problems the hard way at the time they would grow and fester and become harder and harder to fix without complete disaster. I often wonder if my coworkers recall that conversation the way I do.
Some material bits here - the US can't run out of dollars so they can repay all of this debt, since it's denominated in US dollars. The foreign countries can't force the US to give them dollars in place of the bonds they hold, as far as I'm aware, since those bonds have predefined maturity dates. The US only has to pay their value in dollars as they come due. Which they can always pay. So bankruptcy from foreign debt isn't on the cards. What foreign countries could do is not buy new US debt with the dollars the US pays them as bonds mature. That would leave the above mentioned dollars in international circulation and therefore devalue the dollar. And that would have implications on what the US can buy from other countries. Arguably this is the intended goal of Bessent and Miran. Although they were hoping to achieve it by getting other countries to appreciate their currencies against the dollar via Bretton Woods-style agreements.
You are correct. "Bankrupt" is a little strong. But selling existing bonds back into the market while the U.S. is trying to issue new debt would not be great for America. I think dollar devaluation is 100% in the cards.
It's already down like 8% ytd
There's also the issue that the US needs to sell bonds at higher and higher yields just to convince them it's worth the risk.
As far as I understand it (not an economist), that might lead to a debt spiral.
Yeah that's a related effect as far as I understand, but it depends on how the domestic debt market reacts, as in whether it absorbs the difference. Also it depends on whether the US government continues the policy of issuing debt when creating dollars. They could just stop doing that. They don't need debt to finance spending, they've just historically done so. That said I don't know if they'd actually do that since they're ideologically opposed to this sort of monetary policy.
Depending on the type of bond you absolutely can turn it in for dollars early.
Oh. Is that the kind of bonds the US government issues?
The us issues many different kinds of bonds some you can't sell for 6 months at which point you can turn them in for cash at any point or wait forbthem to fully mature
They can certainly issue new dollars to pay them, but if they flood the market with new dollars, the value of the dollar drops, and inflation rises and market loses even more confidence in the value of the dollar.
The value of having a stable economy with stable dollar was ability to issue bonds on that amount. Nobody wants to get Russian ruble bonds atm. That isn't quite the case for the USA, but the market of buyers has shrunk.
The reduction in value of the dollar relative to other currencies would occur pretty certainly and that's something some in the Trump admin want because it would make US exports cheaper and therefore they expect it to reduce trade imbalance. Whether the extra dollars result in inflation is an open question. Increasing money supply does not automatically produce inflation. Inflation only occurs if the economy is at absolute capacity, that's no more additional units of goods and services could be produced or rendered. This is rarely the case. In this case we're talking about new dollars appearing outside of the US. Unless the US cannot export more units of goods and services than they do today, the prices of those goods and services wouldn't increase as a result of the extra dollars. Instead the extra dollars would allow other countries to buy more goods and services from the US. E.g. more MS Azure cloud contracts, more OpenAI service contracts, more soybean, etc. That's what Bessent wants. Whether these countries would do that or decide to just stash the dollars, or burn them, or use them to trade with other countries is an open question.
Firstly, the value of the dollar decreasing will increase the cost, in dollars, of all imports. The tariffs on top will add to this inflation.
Printing money doesn't automatically lead to inflation but in a recession environment where less is being produced, it certainly does. The quantitative easing and money printing workdwide, due covid, led to the crazy inflation we saw. Certainly supply was a problem, but a reduction in trade between 2 giant economies is also going to cause those kinds of bottlenecks.
Add loss of faith in the dollar and this multiplies. Trump is destroying the dollars purchasing power which leads to inflation. All the while he's killing jobs in public sector and private sector at the same time.
Yes
Disagree on two points. Depending on what the cause of a recession is, printing may or may not produce inflation. If a recession isn't caused by a shortage of some real resource (e.g. oil) or reduced production capacity (e.g. physical destruction, mass death), printing money while there's slack in production capacity does not cause inflation, it increases production via increased aggregate demand. The pandemic was a perfect example of having reduced production but no reduction in production capacity. The monetary stimulus kept aggregate demand from collapsing and production rapidly increased close to capacity once we reopened. That leads to the second point of disagreement. A few good analyses I've seen on this clocked stimulus overshooting at causing up to a quarter of the inflation we saw while the rest was caused by the significant increase in oil prices and corporate price gauging (record profits and all that). The outlets I've seen claiming it was mostly due to spending have typically been ideologically driven. Take that as you will. I won't change my mind on this as I believe I've seen enough information on it. No hard feelings. ☺️
More for some items, less for others. It's going to increase prices of imported goods as you said in your first point. It won't increase the prices of domestically produced items. Of course many domestically produced items have imported components. Those that have more are going to go up to more than those that have less. And anywhere in-between. It's probably impossible to accurately gauge the result but inflation is definitely going to occur as a result of the devaluation of the dollar within the US. With that said, and you're not gonna like this, Trump would be able to offset that by printing money to increase wages to compensate for that. And that likely won't cause additional inflation because the production capacity would remain unchanged. In fact he'd have to do it to avoid a decrease in the aggregate demand due to the reduction in real wages from the devaluation. Now I highly doubt his people are competent enough to do this and to do it right, as they could easily over or undershoot. 😂 They might even be ideologically opposed to doing it.
But don't get me wrong, on the whole I think it's going to be a shit show and they won't be able to pull off what they're trying to do and the US is gonna go into a dumpster fire stage. From the horribly targetted tariffs and the other damage unrelated to the trade war they're doing. If anything I'd be losing more confidence in the US because of the latter, since tariffs can be reversed more easily than say the long term effects of destroying education on their labor force among other things.
The purpose of tariffs is to reduce supply, and allow local producers to increase costs without facing competition. So, supply will be affected, no matter what.
Add money with reduced supply and you get inflation. Already countries are looking to increase trade with each other in lieu of trade with the USA. China on particular has been talking to all the Asian producers to reassure and warn against demaking with the USA. They are now the trustworthy partner.
The recession is going to come from a loss of commodities. From a loss of trade, including the components essential for domestic production. Those prices are going to rise. Jobs will be lost. All the while, all exporters to the USA will increase their prices in response to USD fall on value so that their margins in their currency remain the same.
Sure, the falling dollar, in normal circumstances would make American products more attractive, but all other countries are now imposing tariffs on the USA in response. Some, like the EU, have not done it across the board, but they will ramp up. China and USA have effectively planned to cease trade. America doesn't have the high tech supply chain they need to compete with Chinese products internationally.
As the recession will lead to job losses, wages will have downward pressure, not up, like in every other recession.
The fact that you remain unwilling to listen and have made up your mind to remain I'll informed os a poor decision.
I think you're mistaking change in price with its potential effect. And I think that hides some insight. Tariffs do nothing to supply. They increase the prices of the imported goods. As a result of the increased prices, you expect people to buy less. I think you call this effect reduced supply. That's not a change in the supply though. It's a change in the demand for the good. The supply is unchanged. The supply chain was able to produce and import 10 (or more) units prior to the tariffs, and the US consumer bought 10. Today the consumer can afford only 5, but the supply chain can still produce and import 10. Price rises decrease demand when the demand is elastic. Now you could just shortcut that and say tariffs decrease the availability of a good in the economy since less is purchased but that's not the same as tariffs reducing supply. And that's important for the following reason. If on one hand tariffs increase prices and on the other the government cuts taxes (increases the money supply) by an equivalent amount, people would be able to afford the new, higher price of the tariffed good and again buy the 10 units that can be supplied, effectively nullifying the tariff effect. In such a scenario, the amount of tariffed imported goods in the economy would remain unchanged compared to untariffed state.
The way we'd express this scenario in terms of inflation is that there would be short term inflation (increase in prices with the application of the tariffs) and then "wages would have caught up" (in my example by leaving higher disposable income after lower taxes). A process similar to the one economists are talking about post-COVID inflation. The inflation rate has decreased in most places but the price levels are higher and people are poorer. People began demanding higher wages to cover for the higher prices - which is the wages catching up part.
Now this kind of thing would be largely pointless for local manufacturers since the effective prices of the competing imports haven't increased. It would achieve lowering the value of the dollar though, which would theoretically make American exports cheaper and therefore reduce trade balance. Again, I don't think they'll manage to do this, especially since they're only talking about the tariff part of the scheme, and since there's nothing currently preventing trade partners from moving away from the dollar... Also they could've just subsidized the industries they want to grow... And maybe tariff only their competitors once there's enough production capacity in the US...
Sorry, I
Should have specified. These tariffs are designed to reduce supply. Tariffs of 125% are designed to get foreign sellers to abandon the market. That is what has happened reducing supply.
They are also triggering boycotts overseas, reducing demand.
You're thinking it's a zero sim game in terms of production and pricing, when elastic. When prices rise, outside of their control, producers seek other markets or produce different products.
Yeah over some period that could (likely would) occur and increasing the aggregate domestic demand wouldn't necessarily restore the amount available imported goods in the economy, and it could indeed result in additional inflation. That makes sense but it's gonna take a bit for supply chains to reshuffle. I think you're right that it's already beginning to happen.