SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
paul krugman
Economists Warn Trump Attack on Fed Will Further Jack Prices for Working Families
"Confidence that the Fed will respond wisely to future periods of macroeconomic stress... will evaporate," warned one economist.
Aug 29, 2025
Economists are warning that US President Donald Trump's efforts to meddle with the Federal Reserve are going to wind up raising prices even further on working families.
Michael Madowitz, principal economist at the Roosevelt Institute, said on Wednesday that the president's efforts to strong-arm the US central bank into lowering interest rates by firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook would backfire by accelerating inflation.
"The administration's efforts to politicize interest rates—an authoritarian tactic—will ultimately hurt American families by driving up costs," he said. "That helps explain why Fed independence has helped keep inflation under 3%, while, after years of political interference in their central bank, Turkey's inflation rate is over 33%."
Heidi Shierholz, the president of the Economic Policy Institute, said that the president's move to fire Cook "radically undermines what Trump says his own goal is: lowering U.S. interest rates to spur faster economic growth."
She then gave a detailed explanation for why Trump imposing his will on the Federal Reserve would likely bring economic pain.
"Presidential capture of the Fed would signal to decision-makers throughout the economy that interest rates will no longer be set on the basis of sound data or economic conditions—but instead on the whims of the president," she argued. "Confidence that the Fed will respond wisely to future periods of macroeconomic stress—either excess inflation or unemployment—will evaporate."
This lack of confidence, she continued, would manifest in investors in US Treasury bonds demanding higher premiums due to the higher risks they will feel they are taking when buying US debt, which would only further drive up the nation's borrowing costs.
"These higher long-term rates will ripple through the economy—making mortgages, auto loans, and credit card payments higher for working people—and require that rates be held higher for longer to tamp down any future outbreak of inflation," she said. "In the first hours after Trump's announcement, all of these worries seemed to be coming to pass."
Economist Paul Krugman, a former columnist for The New York Times, wrote on his personal Substack page Thursday that Trump's moves to take control of the Federal Reserve were "shocking and terrifying."
"Trump's campaign to take over monetary policy has shifted from a public pressure to personal intimidation of Fed officials: the attack on Cook signals that Trump and his people will try to ruin the life of anyone who stands in his way," he argued. "There is now a substantial chance that the Fed's independence, its ability to manage the nation's monetary policy on an objective, technocratic basis rather than as an instrument of the president's political interests and personal whims, will soon be gone."
The economists' warnings come as economic data released on Friday revealed that core inflation rose to 2.9% in August, which is the highest annual rate recorded since this past February. Earlier this month, the Producer Price Index, which is considered a leading indicator of future inflation, came in at 3.3%, which was significantly higher than economists' consensus estimate of 2.5%.
Data aggregated by polling analyst G. Elliott Morris shows that inflation is far and away Trump's biggest vulnerability, as American voters give him a net approval of -23% on that issue.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Art of the Stupid Deal': Trump's Japan Trade Pact Bashed by Automakers, Unions, Economists
“American workers are once again being left behind,” said the United Auto Workers.
Jul 25, 2025
President Donald Trump this week announced that he had cut a deal with Japan that would lower tariffs on Japanese cars to 15%, which was a cut from the 25% tariffs that he'd originally placed on them.
However, many of the parties whom Trump claimed he was trying to help are not happy with the deal, including major automakers and unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers.
Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council that represents America's "Big Three" automakers, told The Associated Press this week that the deal Trump struck with Japan leaves U.S. automakers "at a disadvantage" compared to their Japanese competitors given that "this is a deal that will charge lower tariffs on Japanese autos with no U.S. content."
The United Autoworkers (UAW) similarly blasted the deal, saying it makes clear that "American workers are once again being left behind."
"This deal hands a win to transnational automakers that rely on low-road labor practices: Substandard wages, excessive temps, and union-busting," said UAW in a press statement. "Now, those same companies stand to benefit from lower tariffs, while unionized automakers—who could quickly create tens of thousands of good jobs using existing capacity—are left with fewer incentives to do so. Once again, American workers are being forced to suffer the consequences."
As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained on his Substack page on Friday, these stakeholders have good reason to feel burned by what he calls Trump's "art of the stupid deal."
In the first place, the current arrangement leaves in place 25% tariffs on car components produced in Canada and Mexico, both of which are vital parts of the American manufacturing chain. Trump has also left in place 50% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, which will further drive up U.S. automakers' input costs and leave them at a disadvantage with Japanese competitors who can still access foreign steel and aluminum at much cheaper prices.
"Overall, the interaction between this Japan deal and Trump's other tariffs probably tilts the playing field between U.S. and Japanese producers of cars, and perhaps other products, in Japan's favor," Krugman explained. "If this sounds incredibly stupid, that's because it is."
Krugman then speculated that "Trump's negotiators probably had no idea what they were doing, and didn't realize that in their frantic rush to conclude a deal they were agreeing to tariffs that would be highly unfavorable to U.S. manufacturing." He added that negotiators were under so much pressure due to the ridicule he's faced for "having made big promises about his ability to negotiate trade deals, then coming up empty month after month."
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers appeared on MSNBC earlier this week and outlined why Trump's Japan deal was still a net loss for American consumers even though Trump was lowering the earlier tariffs he had set on Japanese cars.
"If you began by saying that [the] tariff on Japan has gone from 25% to 15%, it would feel like he'd negotiated a great deal," Wolfers said. "That's not what happened here."
He then explained that tariffs on Japanese goods before Trump took office were just 2%, which means that "the biggest thing Trump has done is he's raised taxes on Americans who import goods from Japan from 2% to 15%."
Keep ReadingShow Less
2% Wealth Tax on Just 3,000 Billionaires Could Raise $250 Billion a Year: Nobel Economists
"Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible."
Jul 07, 2025
Seven Nobel laureates on Monday published an op-ed advocating for "a minimum tax for the ultrarich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth," in the French newspaper Le Monde.
"They have never been so wealthy and yet contribute very little to the public coffers: From Bernard Arnault to Elon Musk, billionaires have significantly lower tax rates than the average taxpayer," wrote Daron Acemoglu, George Akerlof, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz.
Citing pioneering research from the E.U. Tax Observatory, the renowned economists noted that "ultrawealthy individuals pay around 0% to 0.6% of their wealth in income tax. In a country like the United States, their effective tax rate is around 0.6%, while in a country like France, it is closer to 0.1%."
Although the "ultrawealthy can easily structure their wealth to avoid income tax, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of tax justice," the strategies for doing so differ by region, the experts detailed. Europeans often use family holding companies that are banned in the United States, "which explains why the wealthy are more heavily taxed there than in Europe—though some have still managed to find workarounds."
The good news is that "there is no inevitability here. Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible," argued the economists, who say that taxing the overall wealth of the ultrarich, not just income, is the key.
The wealth tax approach, they wrote, "is effective because it targets all forms of tax optimization, whatever their nature. It is targeted, as it applies only to the wealthiest taxpayers, and only to those among them who engage in tax avoidance."
💡 "One of the most promising avenues is to introduce a minimum tax for the ultra-rich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth."Seven Nobel laureates in economics advocate for the Zucman tax in their latest op-ed.Read the full @lemonde.fr article 👇www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...
[image or embed]
— EU Tax Observatory (@taxobservatory.bsky.social) July 7, 2025 at 8:05 AM
The anticipated impact would be significant. As the op-ed highlights: "Globally, a 2% minimum tax on billionaire wealth would generate about $250 billion in tax revenue—from just 3,000 individuals. In Europe, around $50 billion could be raised. And by extending this minimum rate to individuals with wealth over $100 million, these sums would increase significantly."
That's according to a June 2024 report that French economist and E.U. Tax Observatory director Gabriel Zucman prepared for the Group of 20's Brazilian presidency—which was followed by G20 leaders' November commitment to taxing the rich and last month's related proposal from the governments of Brazil, South Africa, and Spain.
"The international movement is underway," the economists declared Monday, also pointing to recent developments on the "Zucman tax" in France. The French National Assembly voted in favor of a 2% minimum tax on wealth exceeding €100 million, or $117 million, in February—but the Senate rejected the measure last month.
The economists urged the European country to keep working at it, writing that "at a time of ballooning public deficits and exploding extreme wealth, the French government must seize the initiative approved by the National Assembly. There is no reason to wait for an international agreement to be finalized—on the contrary, France should lead by example, as it has done in the past," when it was the first country to introduce a value-added tax (VAT).
"As for the risk of tax exile, the bill passed by the National Assembly provides that taxpayers would remain subject to the minimum tax for five years after leaving the country," they wrote. "The government could go further and propose extending this period to 10 years, which would likely reduce the risk of expatriation even more."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular