From Amazon To Walmart, 2020 Candidates Take On Big Corporations By Name - NPR

Enlarge this image

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a 2015 rally to push for a raise to the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Andrew Harnik/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Andrew Harnik/AP

Bernie Sanders may not have his usual adoring crowds at his Wednesday campaign stop. That's because he'll be speaking to Walmart shareholders at their annual meeting.

The Vermont senator and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate will present a proposal aimed at giving workers representation on the company's board, echoing a policy he is reportedly working on. (Elizabeth Warren has released a similar policy.)

On Tuesday afternoon, Sanders released a statement criticizing Walmart for issues beyond worker representation on the board.

"It is time for Walmart to pay all of its workers a living wage, give them a seat at the table, stop blocking them from joining a union and allow part-time employees to work full-time jobs," he said.

It's not just Sanders; this is an example of a tactic that has gained traction in the 2020 presidential race, of candidates calling out specific companies in their campaigning and their policies.

Sanders is presenting the resolution on behalf of Cat Davis, a Walmart worker and shareholder, and a leader of the group United for Respect, which aims to protect workers' rights at large corporations.

The proposal would require that the board include hourly associates on its lists of potential new members. Sanders will have three minutes to present the resolution, and it will be put to a vote on Wednesday. The resolution is not expected to pass.

Candidates vs. corporations

Sanders in 2018 already took aim at Walmart with the Stop WALMART Act — "WALMART" here standing for "Welfare for Any Large Monopoly Amassing Revenue from Taxpayers." That bill would have stopped large employers from undertaking stock buybacks unless they take particular steps to boost workers, like paying them at least $15 an hour.

He's introduced another bill with a pointed acronym, the Stop BEZOS Act (That is, "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies") — a title aimed at Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. That bill would tax large employers for the social safety net programs, like food stamps, that their workers use.

Technology firms have also come under scrutiny among candidates, as they are under scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in March released a plan to break up big tech companies, with the aim of allowing smaller companies to thrive. In her unveiling, she called out particular companies by name.

"My administration will make big, structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition — including breaking up Amazon, Facebook, and Google," Warren wrote in a March Medium post. Since then, Sanders and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have voiced support for her plan.

In addition, strikes at the grocery store chain Stop and Shop drew support from candidates including Warren, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Vice President Joe Biden. Similarly, strikes at McDonald's restaurants have drawn support from multiple candidates.

Rising populism on display

Democratic candidates did take aim at corporations in the 2016 campaign — Bernie Sanders took aim at McDonald's for its wages. Both he and Hillary Clinton did join striking Verizon workers in 2016.

"We were always struggling with, 'How do you make policy tangible?'" said Amanda Renteria, political director for the 2016 Clinton campaign. "And that's a really easy way to do so. People know what Walmart is. People have a conception about it."

But Clinton rarely referenced specific companies negatively on the 2016 campaign trail.

"That really wasn't her style," said Renteria.

It's a tactic that relatively few major candidates have made central to their campaigns in recent years. But the willingness to aggressively call out big companies was arguably long in coming.

"I feel like the political moment we're in is really an outgrowth of really the worker militancy that started in 2012, 2013," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, an advocacy group that grew out of Sanders' 2016 presidential run.

He's talking about walkouts among fast food workers and other low-wage workers that took place in those years (at the time, he was at worker-advocacy group Good Jobs Nation).

Those walkouts themselves had a variety of even older potential causes, he added – long-building inequality; a long, slow recovery from the Great Recession; and the subsequent Occupy Movement, for example.

But whatever the path, the culmination is a political atmosphere where anger is a dominant emotion — and something President Trump has modeled, as well as liberal figures.

"We have been in a populist moment over the last six, seven years," Geevarghese said. "I think Occupy, the strike wave, those are all symbols of that. But I also think Donald Trump is a symbol of the populist wave, at least when it comes to his willingness to go after companies like GM, companies like Carrier."

For her part, Renteria credits Sanders and Warren with having popularized tough anti-corporate rhetoric as a campaign strategy. But she also cautions that it might not work for everyone.

"For somebody like Elizabeth Warren, she has been in this space since the beginning of her career, and so for her it's just validating her brand," Renteria said.

That means calling out Amazon or Walmart seems authentic for candidates like Sanders, Warren and Trump. It might not have for a candidate like Hillary Clinton, and could be a stretch for other Democrats running in 2020.

"I think if other candidates were to take a look at this and go, 'Wow, I can do it too. It makes whatever policy I'm working on more concrete,' that could backfire," Renteria said.

In addition, there's the simple possibility that this kind of rhetoric could create powerful corporate enemies for a candidate at a time when unlimited money is pouring into the coffers of superPACs.

But then, an event like the Walmart shareholders' meeting does allow a candidate to have a media moment that an ordinary policy release might not create. And that's particularly important in a field of about two dozen candidates.

Walmart is one of NPR's financial sponsors.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/05/729735727/from-amazon-to-walmart-2020-candidates-take-on-big-corporations-by-name

2019-06-05 11:38:54Z
52780309120907

From Amazon To Walmart, 2020 Candidates Take On Big Corporations By Name - NPR

Enlarge this image

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a 2015 rally to push for a raise to the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Andrew Harnik/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Andrew Harnik/AP

Bernie Sanders may not have his usual adoring crowds at his Wednesday campaign stop. That's because he'll be speaking to Walmart shareholders at their annual meeting.

The Vermont senator and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate will present a proposal aimed at giving workers representation on the company's board, echoing a policy he is reportedly working on. (Elizabeth Warren has released a similar policy.)

On Tuesday afternoon, Sanders released a statement criticizing Walmart for issues beyond worker representation on the board.

"It is time for Walmart to pay all of its workers a living wage, give them a seat at the table, stop blocking them from joining a union and allow part-time employees to work full-time jobs," he said.

It's not just Sanders; this is an example of a tactic that has gained traction in the 2020 presidential race, of candidates calling out specific companies in their campaigning and their policies.

Sanders is presenting the resolution on behalf of Cat Davis, a Walmart worker and shareholder, and a leader of the group United for Respect, which aims to protect workers' rights at large corporations.

The proposal would require that the board include hourly associates on its lists of potential new members. Sanders will have three minutes to present the resolution, and it will be put to a vote on Wednesday. The resolution is not expected to pass.

Candidates vs. corporations

Sanders in 2018 already took aim at Walmart with the Stop WALMART Act — "WALMART" here standing for "Welfare for Any Large Monopoly Amassing Revenue from Taxpayers." That bill would have stopped large employers from undertaking stock buybacks unless they take particular steps to boost workers, like paying them at least $15 an hour.

He's introduced another bill with a pointed acronym, the Stop BEZOS Act (That is, "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies") — a title aimed at Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. That bill would tax large employers for the social safety net programs, like food stamps, that their workers use.

Technology firms have also come under scrutiny among candidates, as they are under scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in March released a plan to break up big tech companies, with the aim of allowing smaller companies to thrive. In her unveiling, she called out particular companies by name.

"My administration will make big, structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition — including breaking up Amazon, Facebook, and Google," Warren wrote in a March Medium post. Since then, Sanders and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have voiced support for her plan.

In addition, strikes at the grocery store chain Stop and Shop drew support from candidates including Warren, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Vice President Joe Biden. Similarly, strikes at McDonald's restaurants have drawn support from multiple candidates.

Rising populism on display

Democratic candidates did take aim at corporations in the 2016 campaign — Bernie Sanders took aim at McDonald's for its wages. Both he and Hillary Clinton did join striking Verizon workers in 2016.

"We were always struggling with, 'How do you make policy tangible?'" said Amanda Renteria, political director for the 2016 Clinton campaign. "And that's a really easy way to do so. People know what Walmart is. People have a conception about it."

But Clinton rarely referenced specific companies negatively on the 2016 campaign trail.

"That really wasn't her style," said Renteria.

It's a tactic that relatively few major candidates have made central to their campaigns in recent years. But the willingness to aggressively call out big companies was arguably long in coming.

"I feel like the political moment we're in is really an outgrowth of really the worker militancy that started in 2012, 2013," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, an advocacy group that grew out of Sanders' 2016 presidential run.

He's talking about walkouts among fast food workers and other low-wage workers that took place in those years (at the time, he was at worker-advocacy group Good Jobs Nation).

Those walkouts themselves had a variety of even older potential causes, he added – long-building inequality; a long, slow recovery from the Great Recession; and the subsequent Occupy Movement, for example.

But whatever the path, the culmination is a political atmosphere where anger is a dominant emotion — and something President Trump has modeled, as well as liberal figures.

"We have been in a populist moment over the last six, seven years," Geevarghese said. "I think Occupy, the strike wave, those are all symbols of that. But I also think Donald Trump is a symbol of the populist wave, at least when it comes to his willingness to go after companies like GM, companies like Carrier."

For her part, Renteria credits Sanders and Warren with having popularized tough anti-corporate rhetoric as a campaign strategy. But she also cautions that it might not work for everyone.

"For somebody like Elizabeth Warren, she has been in this space since the beginning of her career, and so for her it's just validating her brand," Renteria said.

That means calling out Amazon or Walmart seems authentic for candidates like Sanders, Warren and Trump. It might not have for a candidate like Hillary Clinton, and could be a stretch for other Democrats running in 2020.

"I think if other candidates were to take a look at this and go, 'Wow, I can do it too. It makes whatever policy I'm working on more concrete,' that could backfire," Renteria said.

In addition, there's the simple possibility that this kind of rhetoric could create powerful corporate enemies for a candidate at a time when unlimited money is pouring into the coffers of superPACs.

But then, an event like the Walmart shareholders' meeting does allow a candidate to have a media moment that an ordinary policy release might not create. And that's particularly important in a field of about two dozen candidates.

Walmart is one of NPR's financial sponsors.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/05/729735727/from-amazon-to-walmart-2020-candidates-take-on-big-corporations-by-name

2019-06-05 10:50:36Z
52780309120907

Questions loom over Fed efforts to make sure the 'roof isn't leaking' - Yahoo Finance

The Federal Reserve is listening carefully for recommendations on better achieving its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability, but expectations are tempered for what the Fed may ultimately do at the conclusion of its review process.

At a conference in Chicago, Fed officials heard from academics and other stakeholders with no shortage of ideas on how to best tweak the central bank’s monetary policy strategies. The review covered a lot of ground: from the way the central bank aims at its 2% inflation target, the metrics that it uses when evaluating maximum employment, and the available toolbox of “unconventional” policies during the next crisis.

“When things are strong is when you really need to make sure your roof isn’t leaking,” University of Michigan professor of public policy Susan Collins told Yahoo Finance on Tuesday. “This public conference is partly about that.”

Although it appears that a lot of changes are on the table, some say the Fed may ultimately end up on nothing more than some slight tweaks to its current monetary policy framework.

Average-inflation targeting

In particular focus is the Fed’s approach to inflation, where the central bank has persistently undershot the 2% inflation target that it adopted in 2012. Since then, readings of core personal consumption expenditures (the Fed’s preferred reading of inflation), have only touched or breached 2% once.

Policymakers have proposed variations of dynamic inflation targeting, ranging from a “nominal GDP targeting” strategy that targets spending levels to a temporary price-level targeting that allows the Fed to overshoot inflation when interest rates are near-zero.

Yet the expectation is that the Fed will ultimately land on something less radical: an average-inflation targeting scheme where the Fed would state its intention to aim for inflation above 2% to compensate for periods when inflation is below 2%.

Jerome Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve speaks during a conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on June 04, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. The conference was held to discuss monetary policy strategy, tools and communication practices. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

“Ultimately, our sense is that this conference will generate a considerable amount of headlines, but the likeliest tangible impact will be a fuller consideration of a shift to average-inflation targeting,” Compass Point’s Isaac Boltansky wrote in a conference preview note on June 3.

For his part, Powell has lowered expectations for the degree of expected change out of this review, saying in March that the process will more likely produce “evolution rather than revolution.”

Deutsche Bank wrote May 30 that they would characterize the review as “refining, rather than reinventing the wheel.” They are even more skeptical of a change in approach to inflation than Boltansky, writing that they do not believe the Fed will make any explicit commitment to make-up for a shortfall of inflation.

Being ‘bolder’ on inflation could be helpful

Collins said that while the Fed is listening to a wide variety of views, a lot of potentially helpful changes have been taken off the table.

One example: raising the 2% inflation target.

Some have criticized the 2% target for being arbitrary, sparking worries that the Fed may have given itself too little room on prices without providing proof for why 2% is the magic number.

“Some of us think that being a little bolder there would be helpful,” Collins told Yahoo Finance. But Collins said the Fed tends to stay away from making dramatic changes outside of crises, when it is forced to do so.

One paper presented at the conference suggested a 3% inflation target, for example. But the Fed has made it clear that it is going to keep its 2% target, and instead tweak its methodology for getting to that target.

The conference hosted a number of other papers, some with more modest suggestions and others with more dramatic proposals for change. For example, a discussion on Fed communications included a recommendation from University of California, Berkeley Professor Jón Steinsson to simply add a link to the Fed’s yearly statement on longer-run goals to its regular policysetting meeting statements to remind market participants that the Fed thinks beyond the short-run. Yet another paper on maximum employment from University of Maryland professors Katharine Abraham and John Haltiwanger challenged the Fed to come up with a whole new way to measuring the labor market beyond the currently available unemployment and unemployment gap statistics.

Modifying the dot plots

In question is also the Fed’s dot plots, which project the policymakers’ estimates for where the federal funds rate will be in the future. Although Powell has criticized the dot plots for being a “source of confusion” to markets at times, discussants at the conference Tuesday appeared to advocate for keeping them but making modifications to the way the Fed shares them.

A paper from Brandeis’s Stephen Cecchetti and New York University’s Kermit Schoenholtz recommended that the Fed release a “matrix” that links projections for growth, unemployment, inflation, and interest rates to each FOMC participant.

Some in the room worry that such a disclosure would push the public to place too much emphasis on the Fed chair’s plot points.

Deutsche wrote that the dot plot is “unlikely to be eliminated,” writing that if the central bank does end up near zero interest rates again, it will need the plots again to offer forward guidance to the public.

In the mean time, the Fed is still working its way through its “Fed Listens” tour, which involves conferences across the country.

The Fed has said it will announce the findings of its review in the first half of 2020.

—

Brian Cheung is a reporter covering the banking industry and the intersection of finance and policy for Yahoo Finance. You can follow him on Twitter @bcheungz.

• Why this week is a big deal for the Fed

• Fed: Tight labor market 'did little' to narrow economic disparities

• The 'naked' short: how it helps an IPO from plummeting on day one

• Regulator tells banks to watch out for leveraged loans

• Congress may have accidentally freed nearly all banks from the Volcker Rule

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, SmartNews,LinkedIn, YouTube, and reddit.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-conference-chicago-monetary-policy-framework-092419489.html

2019-06-05 09:24:00Z
52780307955932

Fed relief; Oil supply; Renault's decision - CNN

Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Tuesday that he's closely monitoring developments on trade. President Donald Trump's trade wars with Mexico and China have in recent days spooked markets, increasing attention on the Fed.

"As always, we will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion," Powell said at a monetary policy conference in Chicago.

Powell did not say whether a rate cut was needed. But his comments suggest the central bank is now considering a move to support the economy.

US stock futures indicate that gains will extend into Wednesday. The Dow is set to rise 80 points, or 0.3%. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 could jump 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively.

This optimism is global. Japan's Nikkei leaped 1.8% on Tuesday, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng index rose 0.5%.

Britain's FTSE 100 and Germany's DAX increased 0.3% in early trading. The CAC 40 in France advanced 0.5%.

US stocks on Tuesday logged their best day since January. The Dow closed up 512 points, or 2.1%. The S&P 500 also ended 2.1% higher. The Nasdaq climbed 2.7%, erasing earlier losses on concerns about increased tech regulation.

Before the Bell newsletter: Key market news. In your inbox. Subscribe now!

2. Oil inventory: Data on US crude inventories will be released Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. ET.

Prices for US oil have been hammered recently by reports of excess supply. They've dropped more than 14% in the past month.

That's boosting anxiety amid fears that global economic growth is slowing, which could eat into demand for energy.

The World Bank on Tuesday cut its global economic growth forecast for 2019 to 2.6%.

3. Renault's decision: Renault's board will meet again Wednesday to consider a merger pitch from Fiat Chrysler.

If completed, the merger would create the world's third largest carmaker and lower the cost of developing new technologies. Investors want to know how the deal would affect Renault's existing alliance with Nissan (NSANF) and Mitsubishi Motors.

Renault's board said Tuesday that it had met to review the proposal "in detail" and will "continue to study with interest the opportunity of such a combination."

Shares of Fiat Chrysler (FCAU) in Milan fell 0.6% in early trading. Renault (RNLSY) stock rose 0.3%.

Want more markets? Watch CNN's "Markets Now" digital live show Wednesday at 12:45 p.m. ET.

4. Coming this week:
Wednesday — EIA crude oil inventories; US services data; American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) and Campbell Soup (CPB) earnings
Thursday — ECB and Reserve Bank of India rate decisions; Europe's GDP growth estimate; Beyond Meat (BYND) earnings
Friday — US jobs report

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

2019-06-05 09:16:43Z
52780307955932

Mark Karpeles: My New Business Will 'Make Japan Blockchain Leader' - Bitcoinist

The former CEO of defunct cryptocurrency exchange Mt. Gox, Mark Karpeles, wants to start a new Blockchain business in Japan.

---

Karpeles’ Blockchain Gift To Japan

Those were the plans Karpeles reportedly told the press in comments June 5, as he appeals a conviction for data manipulation as part of the Mt. Gox legal proceedings.

While details are sparse, the Associated Press (AP) claims he plans to use the “same computer technology” for the project, which Karpeles did not refer to specifically.

According to the AP, the 34-year-old Frenchman “wants to make Japan a leader in Blockchain technology.”

His words come following a turbulent few months for Mt. Gox. Japanese prosecutors had originally demanded Karpeles be found guilty of embezzlement and serve ten years in jail. He subsequently dodged those charges, instead being convicted of data manipulation and reportedly getting a two-and-a-half-year suspended sentence.

Lawyers are fighting even that charge, they revealed last month, as Karpeles has consistently protested his innocence throughout the exchange’s almost six-year legal debacle.

In 2013, funds totally 850,000 bitcoins disappeared from Mt. Gox, with suspicion falling on Karpeles regarding security and interaction with user money.

In 2018, as part of the rehabilitation proceedings, he publicly stated he would not be interested in claiming a ‘glut’ of 160,000 coins as a result of exchange rate fluctuations since the time users lost their funds.

“I don’t want this. I don’t want this billion dollars,” he wrote during a Reddit AMA session.

From day one I never expected to receive anything from this bankruptcy. The fact that today this is a possibility is an aberration and I believe it is my responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Karpeles Faces Refreshed Japanese Crypto Sector

While it remains to be seen what kind of project is now in the offing, it would not be a stretch to imagine another exchange-related endeavor.

As Bitcoinist reported, Japan’s domestic exchange sector is booming, with strict licensing and regulatory monitoring designed to ensure further significant breaches of consumer trust do not occur.

Mt. Gox was just the first in a series of Japanese exchange implosions, 2018 seeing over $500 million in altcoins leave fellow platform Coincheck, which has now relaunched under a new owner.

The sector has since gained interest from global corporations including Yahoo! Japan, which launched its newly-acquired exchange, Tao Tao, on May 30.

Just prior, a Japanese Blockchain fund revealed it was pumping $200 million into the operator of South Korean exchange Bithumb.

What do you think about Mark Karpeles’ plans? Let us know in the comments below!

---

Images via Shutterstock

The Rundown

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://bitcoinist.com/japan-mark-karpeles-crypto-business-bockchain/

2019-06-05 07:32:46Z
CBMiRWh0dHBzOi8vYml0Y29pbmlzdC5jb20vamFwYW4tbWFyay1rYXJwZWxlcy1jcnlwdG8tYnVzaW5lc3MtYm9ja2NoYWluL9IBAA

Congressional hearings signal growing antitrust problems for big tech - Ars Technica

Enlarge / The European Commission is investigating potentially false claims that Facebook cannot merge user information from the messaging network WhatsApp, which it acquired in 2014. Warsaw, Poland, on December 21, 2016. (Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

NurPhoto | Getty Images

The House Antitrust Subcommittee will conduct a series of hearings on the growing power of big technology companies, Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) announced on Monday. It's the latest sign of growing interest in antitrust action against the largest technology companies—especially Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple.

"After four decades of weak antitrust enforcement and judicial hostility to antitrust cases, it is critical that Congress step in to determine whether existing laws are adequate to tackle abusive conduct by platform gatekeepers or whether we need new legislation to respond to this challenge," Cicilline said in a press release.

The announcement came shortly after news about a deal between the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, which share responsibility for antitrust enforcement. Under the deal, the Justice Department will focus on investigating Google and Apple, while the FTC will be responsible for Facebook and Amazon. The Justice Department has reportedly begun an investigation of Google; it's not known if the agencies have begun investigating the other firms.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon stock all saw big declines on Monday.

These companies have become so large that it's difficult to predict which concerns will ultimately attract the attention of officials in Congress and the executive branch. Facebook runs the world's largest social network and owns Instagram and WhatsApp. Google dominates the search business and also owns YouTube and Android. Amazon leads in the cloud computing and e-book markets and owns retailers from Whole Foods to Zappos. If a company uses its dominance in one market to prop up its product in another market, that could run afoul of antitrust laws.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/06/congressional-hearings-signal-growing-antitrust-problems-for-big-tech/

2019-06-04 17:19:00Z
52780307956168

Powell, Eyeing Trade War, Suggests Fed Could Turn to Interest Rates if Needed - The New York Times

CHICAGO — Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome H. Powell, eyeing the potential for President Trump’s trade war to inflict damage on the United States economy, said that the central bank is prepared to act to sustain the economic expansion if needed.

“We do not know how or when these issues will be resolved,” Mr. Powell said of ongoing trade disputes between the United States, Mexico, China and other nations. “We are closely monitoring the implications of these developments for the U.S. economic outlook and, as always, we will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near our symmetric 2 percent objective.”

Mr. Powell did not explicitly say that the Fed will cut interest rates but his comments send a signal that the central bank is watching Mr. Trump’s trade wars warily, ready to fend off any economic damage.

“He’s making a point to say to the markets that, ‘We can act if necessary,’” said John Briggs, a bond market strategist at NatWest Markets in Stamford, Conn. “I think the markets are taking some comfort, at least, by the idea that he’s moving in the right direction.”

While the Fed has been closely monitoring Mr. Trump’s trade dispute with China, Europe and other governments, Mr. Powell’s comments were his first since the president said that he would escalate his dispute by imposing tariffs on all Mexican goods.

Mr. Trump, speaking in London on Tuesday, said he was ready to punish Mexico with tariffs next week for failing to curb the flow of migrants across the Southern border.

“I think it’s more likely that the tariffs go on, and we’ll probably be talking during the time that the tariffs are on, and they’re going to be paid,” Mr. Trump said.

The decision to impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on Mexico — combined with growing concern over a prolonged trade war with China — has sent markets tumbling. They have gyrated as investors, bond markets and Wall Street analysts grow increasingly alarmed by the potential slowdown in growth that could result from expanded tariffs. The worsening outlook for trade over the last month has been accompanied by signs of weakness in global markets. Prices of key industrial commodities such as crude oil and iron ore have slipped.

After hitting a high on April 30, the S&P 500 was down nearly 7 percent through the close of trading on Monday. Yields on safe government bonds have tumbled worldwide, in a sign that investors see a weakening outlook for inflation and economic growth. And yields on some long-term Treasury securities are now below those of short-term bills, an unusual occurrence known as an “inversion of the yield curve,” which, in the past, has heralded recession.

Against that backdrop, investors have grown increasingly expectant that the Fed will abandon its “patient” stance and move to cut interest rates in the coming months. Fed funds futures markets are now placing a probability of more than 50 percent on the Fed reducing interest rates at its meeting at the end of July. Earlier in May, the market was putting less than 20 percent odds on such a move.

Mr. Powell’s comments on Tuesday slightly buoyed investors, who have already pinned their hopes on rate cuts this year.

Yields on short-term Treasury notes declined slightly after his comments were released. And stocks, which had been up before the speech was released, climbed further. The S&P 500 was up more than 1.5 percent by midday.

Taken with his colleagues’ recent statements, Mr. Powell’s speech signals that the Fed isn’t yet ready to lock in coming rate cuts. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President Charles Evans said in a CNBC interview earlier Tuesday that he’s “comfortable” with where rates are at the moment. Mary Daly, head of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, also reiterated a call for patience during an interview with CNBC.

Officials are watching trade warily, however. In a speech on Monday, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, James Bullard, said that a cut in interest rates “may be warranted soon” in order to stoke inflation and “provide some insurance in case of a sharper-than-expected slowdown” in growth.

“The main story from Powell for near-term policy, in my view, is that this debate about whether the next move is a hike or a cut is effectively over,” Neil Dutta, an economist at Renaissance Macro Research, wrote in a note to clients following the speech. “They are no longer holding open the possibility of a hike.”

The president’s actions on trade have left the Fed in a tough spot. Growth remains above its longer-run trend and the job market is strong, which would argue against rate cuts. Plus, trade disputes could be resolved quickly, removing a major obstacle to continued expansion. But inflation is already low, and if a global slowdown drags on the United States economy, Fed rates are still historically low — which could argue for quick, decisive action, since the central bank’s recession-fighting ammunition is limited.

Mr. Trump himself has been pushing the Fed to cut rates, even contrasting the central bank with China’s.

“China is adding great stimulus to its economy while at the same time keeping interest rates low. Our Federal Reserve has incessantly lifted interest rates, even though inflation is very low, and instituted a very big dose of quantitative tightening,” Mr. Trump said in a tweet on April 30. He said that the economy would go up like a “rocket” if the central bank cut rates.

That also raises an optical problem for the central bank, which is independent of the White House. A move to cut rates could look political, even if it arose from a change in the economic landscape. Officials have reiterated time and again that they will make policy decisions based on the economic outlook, and that politics will not influence them in either direction.

After the Fed raised rates nine times since 2015, investors late last year began to grow concerned that monetary policy might be too tight, potentially risking the start of a recession. That helped send stock markets sharply lower, with the S&P 500 losing nearly 14 percent in the last three months of 2018.

Then, in early January, the central bank abruptly shifted its tone away from previous plans to continue lifting interest rates this year, and instead emphasized that it would remain patient, flexible and attuned to signals being sent by financial markets.

Some analysts question whether fresh Fed cuts would stimulate a similar reaction now. A decade into an economic expansion, lower interest rates might not measurably improve the outlook for corporate profits, the economy or the stock market, they say.

“This is just the reality of it,” said Michael Wilson, U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley. “The Fed has done everything they can do to extend the cycle. And it might not be enough.”

Analysts have altered their forecasts for Fed policy in recent days and are now predicting as many as three rate cuts as concerns grow that the central bank will need to take drastic action to prop up the economy. JPMorgan and Evercore ISI now project a total of two interest-rate cuts starting in September, and Barclays predicts three cuts. That is up from previous estimates for either no cuts or a single rate cut for 2019.

Mr. Powell also focused on longer-run challenges facing the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee, saying that rates near zero have “become the pre-eminent monetary policy challenge of our time.”

Against that backdrop, the Fed is concerned that inflation has been coming in below its objective for low and stable 2 percent price gains. The shortfall leaves it with even less room to cut interest rates, which include inflation, in a downturn.

“My F.O.M.C. colleagues and I must — and do — take seriously the risk that inflation shortfalls that persist even in a robust economy could precipitate a difficult-to-arrest downward drift in inflation expectations,” Mr. Powell said. He said that looking for ways to change the Fed’s policy strategy to strengthen its inflation-targeting credibility is “at the heart of the review.”

The central bank is also reviewing its approach to communication and its tool kit for combating economic downturns, and is expected to reach and report conclusions sometime in early 2020.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/business/economy/powell-fed-trade-wars.html

2019-06-04 16:41:15Z
52780307955932