The Baltimore home of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) was burglarized early Saturday morning, according to CBS Baltimore.
The break-in at Cummings’ residence on the 2000 block of Madison Avenue occurred at around 3:40 a.m. according to police. It is unclear whether anything was taken from the property.
According to Fox News, the reported break-in came around four hours before President Trump blasted Cummings over Twitter for representing a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”
….As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place
“If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place,” the president added.
Congressional security officials are investigating whether the break-in was a random crime or if there is a threat “nexus” tied to Cummings due to Trump’s comments. However, a source with knowledge of the investigation told Fox News there was “no skullduggery” when asked if the break-in had any relation to the president’s remarks.
Fox News has obtained a memo sent to House offices the day before the break-in regarding Congressional security over the August recess. The memo from House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving reminds lawmakers of “the significance of maintaining an enhanced security awareness in your district.” –Fox News
“Members and staff should always remain vigilant of their surroundings and immediately report anything unusual or suspicious to the relevant law enforcement or police entity,” wrote Irving. “I also recommend a notification to the USCP [U.S. Capitol Police] or my office so that we may coordinate any review with the relevant law enforcement agency.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KoRSqe Tyler Durden
It’s called interest-rate repression. Or more poetically, financial repression. It’s where central banks manipulate interest rates down to where investments with little credit risk, such as Treasury securities, FDIC-insured savings accounts and CDs, pay little or no interest, or pay less interest than the rate of inflation. People such as savers and retirees, and institutions such as pension funds, that depend on this cash flow have lost their income stream. In addition, the purchasing power of their principal is getting gradually wiped out by inflation.
How much money are we talking about? In the US alone, this interest rate repression impacts nearly $40 trillion. This includes savings products, Treasury securities, municipal bonds, and high-grade corporate debt. $40 Trillion with a T. A 2% reduction across the board cuts this income by $800 billion a year. And this has had an impact.
Central banks have accomplished this interest-rate repression by pushing short-term rates to zero or below zero, and by buying bonds and other assets to push long-term rates down too. These were emergency measures during the Financial Crisis that have become the “new normal,” as it has been called. This new normal has been going on for over a decade now.
Other central banks, including the ECB and the Bank of Japan, pushed their policy rates below zero. This, in addition to vast asset buying binges by those central banks, produced $13 trillion in negative yielding bonds. But that’s a different universe of idiocy that we’re not going to get into today. We’re going to stick to US conditions.
To the Fed’s credit, it is the only major central bank that has raised its policy-rate target a bit, from near-zero to a range between 2.25% and 2.5%, which are still historically low rates. But it is under immense pressure by Wall Street and by the White House to cut rates again.
So now we have this situation where short-term Treasury yields are low, and long-dated Treasury yields are even lower.
How much money are we talking about here? Let’s see. There are $22 trillion in Treasury securities. They’re held by individuals and institutions, including insurance companies, pension funds, and the Social Security Trust Fund.
Then there is high-grade corporate debt. The category of triple-A to single-A-rated debt is about $3.3 trillion. These yields have been pushed down too.
Then there are $3.8 trillion in municipal bonds outstanding. Many of them trade below US Treasury yields. For example, the GO bonds of California, which is not exactly a paragon of fiscal rectitude. During trading last Thursday, the California 10-year yield was 1.76%. This was about one-third of a percentage point below the US Treasury 10-year yield of 2.08% on the same day.
Then there are $9.4 trillion in savings products, mostly savings accounts and CDs at banks. There are also about $3 trillion in checking accounts, payroll accounts, etc., but they’re not included here. These are just savings products.
So let’s add these categories up: They amount to $39 trillion.
A 1% reduction in interest spread across the board of just these four categories amounts to nearly $400 billion a year, that the holders of these products are being deprived of.
For example, the Social Security Trust fund, which holds $2.9 trillion in Treasury securities. Its investments earned an average effective interest rate in 2018 of 2.9%. That is down from 5.1% in 2008. And down from over 6% in 2003 and prior years. And it will fall further as some of the remaining higher-yielding long-dated securities from years ago mature and are replaced with new securities at lower yields.
Everyone talks about the Social Security Trust Fund, and what to do when it becomes insolvent as more claims will be drawn on it than money will be paid into it. It hasn’t shrunk yet, and reached a new record in June, thanks to rising contributions. But it will eventually start to shrink. And no one is talking about the Fed’s role in this shrinkage, namely the interest rate repression.
For the Social Security Trust Fund, the difference between earning 2.9% and 5% is $62 billion a year, that the fund is not earning in interest.
This is playing out across the public and private pension fund universe. To dodge the curse of low interest rates, pension funds are chasing yield, and have aggressively increased their allocations to risky assets, such as stocks and alternative assets, such as private equity investments, and high-yield assets such as junk bonds and leveraged loans and Collateralized Loan Obligations or CLOs. During the next downturn, when these high-risk assets will take a hit, this move could widen by an enormous margin the pension crisis.
The clear beneficiaries of these central-bank policies are the borrowers – just about all borrowers except consumers borrowing on their credit cards, whose interest rates have remained sky-high. These borrowers are being subsidized by current and future retirees, by savers, by fixed-income investors, and ultimately by federal and state taxpayers when they’re called upon to bail out the pension funds.
A 2% difference in yields across the board takes nearly $800 billion a year in income from savers, current and future retirees, and fixed income investors, and hands this money to borrowers.
This is a gigantic sucking sound, to use Ross Perot’s immortal phrase, as this money gets transferred from these people and entities over here to those people and entities over there.
In addition, there is the side-effect that these low yields essentially force fixed-income investors to try to make up for this enormous loss of income by loading up on risk. So they’re chasing yield wherever they can find it, meaning that in the process, they’re bidding up prices of risky assets, thereby lowering their yields too, further inflating the already enormous asset bubbles. Institutional investors, like insurance companies and pension funds, are a big force behind this.
The other thing that is happening is that savers and fixed-income investors are having their cash flows gutted by this interest rate repression. This has been one of the major issues in the economy. Many of these people spend every dime of this interest income. When interest rate repression laid waste to their income streams, they in turn reduced their consumption. They had less money to spend, and they spent less.
It’s interesting to note that 2018 was the year that produced 2.9% economic growth in the US, the highest growth since the Financial Crisis. And this happened when interest rates were rising, and income streams of these people were rising due to higher interest rates on savings products and Treasuries, and these people spent this additional money they earned, and they felt better and were more confident of the future, and thus contributed more by spending more.
The best way for the Fed to stifle economic growth is to pull the rug out again from under these consumers and gut their income by cutting interest rates.
According to this nutty strategy, the Fed would lower interest rates to stimulate inflation: In other words, it would target those savers and fixed income investors from both sides: First, cutting their incomes and then also cutting the purchasing power of this income.
Low rates are considered a stimulus, but for whom? For Wall Street and asset prices or for the real economy? Countries with negative interest rate policies, such as Japan, and the countries of the Eurozone are now being dogged by low and declining economic growth, despite, or likely because of the low interest rates and the destruction of cash flows.
Over the long term, and that’s what we’re talking about here – it’s been over a decade – interest rate repression is not a stimulus. It just creates asset bubbles. And it removes an enormous amount of income from people who would actually spend this income, and so they spend less, and this reduction in spending dogs the economy.
You can listen to and subscribe to my podcast on YouTube.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Zseegy Tyler Durden
Do you believe in an elite cabal of untouchable oligarchs guiding the course of history via false flags, perpetual war, and covertly funded militant groups? Do you share these beliefs online?
You might just be engaging in domestic terrorismaccording to the FBI.
A May 30 intelligence bulletin posted by the bureau’s Phoenix field office describes “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists” as a growing threat, reports Yahoo News.
Does the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory peddled by leading Democrats and amplified by the MSM for over two straight years count?
Apparently not, as the document singles out QAnon – “a shadowy network that believes in a deep state conspiracy against President Trump, and Pizzagate, the theory that a pedophile ring including Clinton associates was being run out of the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant (which didn’t actually have a basement),” according to the report.
The report points to the case of Edgar Maddison Welch, who opened fire in the Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant at the center of Pizzagate. Welch, who worked for his father’s film company – “Forever Young Productions” – walked through the door with an AR-15, “shot off the lock to an inside door, sending a bullet into a computer tower,” and told authorities he was there to ‘rescue children‘ (by shooting at a door they might be behind) according to the Washington Post.
“The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts,” reads the FBI document, which adds that conspiracy theory-driven extremism is likely to increase during the 2020 presidential election cycle.
The FBI said another factor driving the intensity of this threat is “the uncovering of real conspiracies or cover-ups involving illegal, harmful, or unconstitutional activities by government officials or leading political figures.” The FBI does not specify which political leaders or which cover-ups it was referring to.
President Trump is mentioned by name briefly in the latest FBI document, which notes that the origins of QAnon is the conspiratorial belief that “Q,” allegedly a government official, “posts classified information online to reveal a covert effort, led by President Trump, to dismantle a conspiracy involving ‘deep state’ actors and global elites allegedly engaged in an international child sex trafficking ring.” –Yahoo News
Nevermind that ‘global elite’ hobnobber Jeffrey Epstein is currently sitting in a jail cell, accused of literal child sex trafficking, and may have been the subject of an attempted hit last week.
FBI Director Christopher Wray has addressed domestic terrorism on multiple occasions over the past several weeks – though he hasn’t mentioned conspiracy theories.
In a contentious hearing last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray faced criticism from Democrats who said the bureau was not focusing enough on white supremacist violence. “The term ‘white supremacist,’ ‘white nationalist’ is not included in your statement to the committee when you talk about threats to America,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said. “There is a reference to racism, which I think probably was meant to include that, but nothing more specific.” –Yahoo News
After coming under fire for identifying “black identity extremists,” Wray told lawmakers that the FBI eliminated separate categories for black identity extremists and white supremacists – saying that the agency is instead focusing on “racially motivated” violence in general.
“I will say that a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence,” he added.
told Congress the bureau now “classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism,” a term the bureau uses to classify both pro-choice and anti-abortion extremists.” data-reactid=”38″ type=”text”>In May, Michael C. McGarrity, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, told Congress the bureau now “classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism,” a term the bureau uses to classify both pro-choice and anti-abortion extremists.
The new focus on conspiracy theorists appears to fall under the broader category of anti-government extremism. “This is the first FBI product examining the threat from conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists and provides a baseline for future intelligence products,” the document states. –Yahoo News
The FBI says that while conspiracy theory-driven violence is not new, it’s gotten worse as the world has become more connected in an “increasingly partisan political landscape in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election,” according to the report.
“The advent of the Internet and social media has enabled promoters of conspiracy theories to produce and share greater volumes of material via online platforms that larger audiences of consumers can quickly and easily access,” reads the FBI document, which says it’s intent is to “inform discussions within law enforcement as they relate to potentially harmful conspiracy theories and domestic extremism.”
A Princeton University history professor recently claimed that President Donald Trump is worse than an infamous 1960s segregationist.
Kevin M. Kruse, a Princeton history professor, recently wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, titled, “The Real Problem With Trump’s Rallies.” Kruse compared Trump to former Alabama Democrat Gov. George C. Wallace, who coined the phrase “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” and whom Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. branded “perhaps the most dangerous racist in America.”
“As governor, he embodied the cause of segregationist resistance,” Kruse writes about Wallace, describing the politician as “literally standing in the schoolhouse door to block the first black students at the University of Alabama and figuratively standing against what he called the ‘civil wrongs bill.’”
The professor outlines what he deems the similarities between Wallace and Trump.
“He’s claimed some of Mr. Wallace’s specific phrases as his own — most notably the call for ‘law and order’ — and more generally has stoked the same fires of resentment and racism,” he writes.
“By articulating their audiences’ hatred, both men effectively encouraged them to act on it,” Kruse says, comparing violence at the two men’s rallies.
After Kruse compares Trump to Wallace, he points out a difference between them, stating that:
“it shows how Mr. Trump remains a greater danger and poses a graver threat to peaceful political discourse, especially as we enter a presidential election campaign.”
Kruse says that Trump “has used his rallies to single out specific enemies,” citing the president’s remarks about figures like Megyn Kelly during the 2016 election cycle, as well as his recent statements regarding Democrat Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib.
Kruse, however, is not the first professor to take aim at the president.
Campus Reform recently reported on University of Michigan professor David Morse, who posted an opinion piece on his experience teaching a course called “Values & Ethics: Lying and Public Policy,” whose syllabus dedicates a whole lecture to the president. In an op-ed, Morse mentions how each student is required to propose a lie that propagates a specific political agenda.
Simmons University professor Rachel Gans-Boriskin also made comments targeting Trump supporters, implying the Mueller report’s ineffectiveness stemmed from a lack of “rational analysis” ability by those who voted for Trump.
Yale professor Bandy X. Lee joined in taking aim at the president, claiming that when Trump says he is not racist, he shows himself to be “the most racist person I have ever met.” Lee made other remarks in June, saying Trump must be “immediately contained” and have certain powers taken away, including the power to wage war and control nuclear weapons.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SYHVU6 Tyler Durden
The University of Florida (UF) has agreed to change a campus policy and pay $66,000 to the school’s Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter on campus as part of a settlement with the student organization.
YAF sued the school in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida last December, alleging the school violated students’ First and 14th Amendment rights. “The old policy unfairly taxed conservative students to underwrite the expression of leftist speakers on campus,” YAF spokesman Spencer Brown wrote in a statement released Thursday.
UF had required all students to pay an annual activity fee, yet failed to give student groups equal access to the funds. Some campus groups automatically received annual money from this fund and could use it to bring speakers to campus, whereas others had to petition the school prior for funds prior to specific events. UF also gave the student government discretion to approve and deny funding, and YAF argued the body was not objective when deciding which groups to fund.
“This past year, the University of Florida denied UF YAF funding to host Dana Loesch and Andrew Klavan,” Brown wrote in a statement last December.“That denial … speaks loudly to the University of Florida’s true intention to prevent conservative ideas being heard on campus.”
The group’s lawsuit argued that UF students “are entitled to the viewpoint-neutral distribution of the Student Activity Fees they have paid and will be required to pay, or to the repayment of fees they have paid and to be exempt from paying such fees in the future.”
The school opted to settle with YAF and change its student activity and event policy.
“Thankfully, in response to this lawsuit, the University of Florida recognized the errors embedded within its policies by adopting changes that no longer force YAF members to pay into a system that funds opposing viewpoints and discriminates against their own,” Caleb Dalton of Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented YAF, said in a statement.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yBru6F
via IFTTT
A ‘tidal wave’ of child sexual abuse lawsuits are expected to hit New York State courts this month, as a new law which takes effect on August 14 will allow accusers one year to sue over past sexual abuse claims, regardless of when they occurred.
The Child Victims Act, signed by NY Governor Andrew Cuomo in February, is expected to expose decades-old misconduct at churches, schools, hospitals, youth clubs and more, according to Reuters, citing lawyers for alleged victims.
Under the law signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo in February, New York has gone from one of the toughest states to bring a case because of its strict statute of limitations to one of the easiest, potentially unleashing decades of unresolved claims.
“It’s going to be a tidal wave of litigation,” said lawyer Mitchell Garabedian, best known for representing victims of child abuse by Roman Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of Boston.
Cases will cut across society, illustrating the systemic nature of the abuse, victims’ lawyers said, although they expect many of the lawsuits to be against Catholic organizations and the Boy Scouts of America. –Reuters
“We believe victims, we support them, we pay for counseling by a provider of their choice, and we encourage them to come forward,” said the Boy Scouts of America in a statement.
New York State Catholic Conference spokesman Dennis Poust, meanwhile, said that church leadership dropped their opposition to the law once it was broadened to include public institutions – saying “All survivors deserve to be heard.”
Lawyers for victims say they are teaming up to maximize resources, while connecting with old clients whose cases were previously barred by the state’s statute of limitations. Nearly 100 people have signed up with one New York law firm alone, according to lawyer Jeff Anderson who specializes in clergy sex abuse cases.
After several states made it easier to sue, TV ads soliciting child sex abuse lawsuits spiked to more than 1,700 in both March and April, up from just 46 in January, according to X Ante, a consulting firm that tracks lawyer ad spending.
“If you were abused in a scouting program you are not alone,” said an ad by San Diego, California-based AVA Law Group, which X Ante said was one of the most frequently broadcast. “Come forward. New laws may allow you a path to significant financial compensation.”
However, victims and advocates often say the money is secondary, and many sue to expose perpetrators, hold organizations accountable and to further the healing process. –Reuters
While the Boy Scouts of America have acknowledge that abuse occurred – apologizing and reporting the accused to law enforcement, the Archdiocese of New York has paid out $65 million in compensation to 325 people over the last two years. Just one person rejected an offer according to the church.
Those who accept settlements waive their right to sue, causing some victims’ rights advocates to call out institutions for silencing accusers (with loads of money willingly taken).
“I think the potential is huge for all kinds of things coming to the surface like we’re seeing with Epstein,” said attorney James March, who represents some of the victims.
Other lawyers for alleged victims say that insurance policies will cover the majority of claims, however both the NY Archdiocese and the Boy Scouts of America are currently in ongoing disputes over insurance coverage.
Coordinating scores of lawsuits against an organization could also be difficult, although few New York cases are expected to go to trial.
Many lawyers said they expect organizations to file for bankruptcy, which would stop the litigation and create one forum where all the claims can be settled at once. –Reuters
“Bankruptcy is the way to go,” said lawyer Tim Kosnoff, who is intimately familiar with cases against the Boy Scouts. “Most clients come out of it pretty satisfied.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2yHe75j Tyler Durden
The University of Florida (UF) has agreed to change a campus policy and pay $66,000 to the school’s Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter on campus as part of a settlement with the student organization.
YAF sued the school in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida last December, alleging the school violated students’ First and 14th Amendment rights. “The old policy unfairly taxed conservative students to underwrite the expression of leftist speakers on campus,” YAF spokesman Spencer Brown wrote in a statement released Thursday.
UF had required all students to pay an annual activity fee, yet failed to give student groups equal access to the funds. Some campus groups automatically received annual money from this fund and could use it to bring speakers to campus, whereas others had to petition the school prior for funds prior to specific events. UF also gave the student government discretion to approve and deny funding, and YAF argued the body was not objective when deciding which groups to fund.
“This past year, the University of Florida denied UF YAF funding to host Dana Loesch and Andrew Klavan,” Brown wrote in a statement last December.“That denial … speaks loudly to the University of Florida’s true intention to prevent conservative ideas being heard on campus.”
The group’s lawsuit argued that UF students “are entitled to the viewpoint-neutral distribution of the Student Activity Fees they have paid and will be required to pay, or to the repayment of fees they have paid and to be exempt from paying such fees in the future.”
The school opted to settle with YAF and change its student activity and event policy.
“Thankfully, in response to this lawsuit, the University of Florida recognized the errors embedded within its policies by adopting changes that no longer force YAF members to pay into a system that funds opposing viewpoints and discriminates against their own,” Caleb Dalton of Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented YAF, said in a statement.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yBru6F
via IFTTT
In the new age of censorship, bias, manipulation, and propaganda, Americans have somewhat started to fall for it all a little less. Now, average Americans think of the media as more destructive than banks and corporations – and that trend isn’t likely to reverse anytime soon, as the government continues to use the media to push their agenda.
Based on the conclusions to a RAND Corporation study, the mainstream media is actively sowing discord in American society, award-winning journalist Chris Hedges tells RT. The media is focusing on making two sides hate each other instead of reporting on the facts, and the majority of the public is unaware and doesn’t care that their minds are being manipulated by their own emotional responses. –SHTFPlan
This should not come as a surprise to anybody. A recent survey has revealed that most Americans believe that the news media, more than any other institution, have a negative impact on their country. The findings are hardly surprising, according to media analyst Lionel. Considering most the “news” is full of propaganda and mind manipulation tactics, it is refreshing to see Americans balk at the media.
Conducted by the Pew Research Center, the poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe that the media has a damaging effect on the United States – making them more loathed than other often-demonized institutions such as banks (39 percent) and large corporations (53 percent), according to a report about the poll done by RT.
“The media are not here to provide information… so that you can make intelligent decisions. No, that’s not what the media are. The media are corporate tools,” Lionel said.
And it isn’t just the media taking a beating, but all of the establishment including corporations and government. It seems like Americans, whether they want to admit it or not, are finally realizing they don’t want to be controlled and enslaved. It’s a good sign that humanity is awakening to what those in power are doing to the rest of us.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YEHRhz Tyler Durden
Tariffs on Chinese-made goods have cost Americans more than $20 billion, and President Donald Trump is apparently ready to hike that tax bill again.
Unhappy with the progress that’s been made towards a trade deal with China, Trump on Thursday announced plans to hit about $300 billion worth of Chinese imports with a 10 percent tariff starting on September 1, 2019. Combined with the existing tariffs of 25 percent on about $250 billion worth of Chinese-made goods, the new tariffs will effectively cover all goods imported from China.
“Our representatives have just returned from China where they had constructive talks having to do with a future Trade Deal,” Trump wrote on Twitter. Apparently, the talks were not constructive enough. Trump singled out China’s refusal to buy more American agricultural goods, failing to mention that American firms were exporting those same goods to China in higher quantities before Trump launched his trade war.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had gained about 300 points during the day’s trading, plunged by more than 500 points in the hour after Trump’s tweets announcing the new tariffs.
The announcement marks the end of a lull in the trade war. After a series of escalations throughout 2018, Trump earlier this year had backed away from plans to impose tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese-made goods Americans import starting on March 1. He’d also lifted the steel and aluminum tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and he seemed to have reconsidered earlier threats to put tariffs on imported cars. Although the existing tariffs continued to act as a drag on the economy—business investment, in particular, has fallen dramaticallysince the start of the trade war—there was reason to hope the “Tariff Man” had recognized his trade war isn’t making America great.
Thursday’s announcement could be another bluff, of course. If it’s not, lots of American businesses will take another hit.
“Raising tariffs by 10 percent on an additional $300 billion worth of imports from China will only inflict greater pain on American businesses, farmers, workers and consumers, and undermine an otherwise strong U.S. economy,” said Myron Brilliant, executive vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a statement.
The new round of tariffs will hit many consumer goods previously spared from the trade war—in earlier volleys, the Trump administration had mostly targeted industrial goods and items used for manufacturing. The list of items targeted with the new tariffs includes home electronics like speakers and televisions; baby equipment like strollers and cribs; recreational items including tents, fishing equipment, and bicycles; as well as clothing, shoes, and books.
Jonathan Gold, a spokesman for Tariffs Hurt The Heartland, an anti-tariff group, accused the president of “doubling down on a failing strategy.”
“Nobody wins in a trade war, and raising tariffs further on American businesses and consumers will only result in slower economic growth, more farm bankruptcies, fewer jobs, and higher prices,” Gold said.”It’s time for the administration to come up with a real strategy, put a stop to harmful tariffs and finally deliver the trade deal Americans were promised.”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Yzllm3
via IFTTT
Tariffs on Chinese-made goods have cost Americans more than $20 billion, and President Donald Trump is apparently ready to hike that tax bill again.
Unhappy with the progress that’s been made towards a trade deal with China, Trump on Thursday announced plans to hit about $300 billion worth of Chinese imports with a 10 percent tariff starting on September 1, 2019. Combined with the existing tariffs of 25 percent on about $250 billion worth of Chinese-made goods, the new tariffs will effectively cover all goods imported from China.
“Our representatives have just returned from China where they had constructive talks having to do with a future Trade Deal,” Trump wrote on Twitter. Apparently, the talks were not constructive enough. Trump singled out China’s refusal to buy more American agricultural goods, failing to mention that American firms were exporting those same goods to China in higher quantities before Trump launched his trade war.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had gained about 300 points during the day’s trading, plunged by more than 500 points in the hour after Trump’s tweets announcing the new tariffs.
The announcement marks the end of a lull in the trade war. After a series of escalations throughout 2018, Trump earlier this year had backed away from plans to impose tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese-made goods Americans import starting on March 1. He’d also lifted the steel and aluminum tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and he seemed to have reconsidered earlier threats to put tariffs on imported cars. Although the existing tariffs continued to act as a drag on the economy—business investment, in particular, has fallen dramaticallysince the start of the trade war—there was reason to hope the “Tariff Man” had recognized his trade war isn’t making America great.
Thursday’s announcement could be another bluff, of course. If it’s not, lots of American businesses will take another hit.
“Raising tariffs by 10 percent on an additional $300 billion worth of imports from China will only inflict greater pain on American businesses, farmers, workers and consumers, and undermine an otherwise strong U.S. economy,” said Myron Brilliant, executive vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a statement.
The new round of tariffs will hit many consumer goods previously spared from the trade war—in earlier volleys, the Trump administration had mostly targeted industrial goods and items used for manufacturing. The list of items targeted with the new tariffs includes home electronics like speakers and televisions; baby equipment like strollers and cribs; recreational items including tents, fishing equipment, and bicycles; as well as clothing, shoes, and books.
Jonathan Gold, a spokesman for Tariffs Hurt The Heartland, an anti-tariff group, accused the president of “doubling down on a failing strategy.”
“Nobody wins in a trade war, and raising tariffs further on American businesses and consumers will only result in slower economic growth, more farm bankruptcies, fewer jobs, and higher prices,” Gold said.”It’s time for the administration to come up with a real strategy, put a stop to harmful tariffs and finally deliver the trade deal Americans were promised.”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Yzllm3
via IFTTT
