Investors
Thought They Had Trump Figured Out. They Were Wrong.
On Tuesday,
President Trump sent markets into another tailspin by announcing additional
tariffs on Canada, suggesting a falling stock market is no longer the bulwark
investors had hoped.
Ben
Casselman Colby Smith
By Ben
Casselman and Colby Smith
March 11,
2025
Updated 4:17
p.m. ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/business/economy/trump-stock-market-economy.html
President
Trump made a lot of promises on the campaign trail last year. Investors and
business leaders enthusiastically cheered some, like lower taxes and relaxed
regulation, and expressed wariness about others, like tariffs and reduced
immigration.
But when Mr.
Trump won the election, there was little sign of that ambivalence: Stock prices
soared, as did measures of business optimism.
Investors at
the time offered a simple explanation: They believed Mr. Trump, backed by a
Republican-controlled Congress, would follow through on the parts of his agenda
that they liked and scale back the more disruptive policies like tariffs if
financial markets started to get spooked.
It is
increasingly clear they were wrong.
In his first
weeks in office, Mr. Trump has made tariffs the central focus of his economic
policy, promising, and at times imposing, steep penalties on allies as well as
adversaries. He has threatened to curb subsidies that businesses had come to
rely on. And he has empowered Elon Musk’s efforts to slash the federal
bureaucracy, potentially putting tens of thousands of federal workers out of
jobs and cutting off billions of dollars in government grants and contracts.
Most
surprising, at least to the optimists on Wall Street: Mr. Trump has so far been
undeterred by signs of cracks in the economy or by plunging stock prices.
“The idea
that the administration is going to be held back by a self-imposed market
constraint should be discounted,” said Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at the
accounting firm RSM.
Sure enough,
on Tuesday, as financial markets seemed to be settling down after days of steep
losses, Mr. Trump hit them with another shock, escalating his trade war with
Canada. Major stock indexes immediately fell sharply on the news, with the
S&P 500 ending the day down almost 1 percent.
Far from
being deterred by warnings that his policies are creating economic damage, Mr.
Trump in recent days has embraced it, telling a Fox News interviewer on Sunday
that the economic turmoil reflected a necessary “period of transition” and
refusing to rule out a recession.
Asked about
whipsawing financial markets on Tuesday, Mr. Trump told reporters: “Markets are
going to go up and they’re going to go down but, you know what, we have to
rebuild our country.”
That
followed comments from Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, who
said that the stock market reaction was a “snapshot of a moment in time.”
“Look, the
president is unwavering in his commitment to restore American manufacturing and
global dominance and I think he doubled down on that with his new statement” on
Canada’s tariffs, she said.
Other
members of his administration have echoed that message, describing
tariff-induced price increases and cuts in government spending as a harsh but
necessary medicine to restore the economy to health.
Scott
Bessent, the Treasury secretary, told CNBC last week that the economy needed a
“detox period” after becoming “addicted to this government spending.”
Most
economists, however, dismiss the idea that the economy was in need of such
shock therapy, or that Mr. Trump’s policies would be helpful if it did.
“It’s an
effort to give the pain and the uncertainty that we’re going through at the
moment some broader meaning and encourage us that we’re going to get to a
better place,” said Nathan Sheets, a former Treasury official who is now global
chief economist at Citigroup, of the administration’s new message. “But the
bigger question is, are we really going to get to a better place?”
The answer,
according to Mr. Sheets and others, is “no.” Tariffs are likely to drive up
prices and slow down growth. Tighter immigration policy could do the same.
Government layoffs could drive up unemployment, while cuts to federal
investments in research and development could leave the U.S. economy less
productive in the long term.
“It seems we
are going to create pain, see what doesn’t heal, and then treat the injury,”
said Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University.
A ‘shock
factor’ for businesses
Economists
disagree about how much damage the new administration’s policies have done. The
economy entered the year with significant momentum, and most forecasters
believe there is enough of a cushion to avoid a recession, if Mr. Trump doesn’t
further escalate his trade wars.
But the
uncertainty of the past six weeks has been enough to cloud what had until
recently looked like a sunny economic outlook. In surveys, consumers say they
have become less optimistic about their finances and more worried about higher
prices. Businesses, too, have become less confident and are delaying investment
decisions.
“There is a
shock factor in the business community that we are seeing right now,” said
Thomas Simons, chief U.S. economist at the investment banking firm Jefferies.
Businesses are slowing hiring and putting off buying products and equipment,
Mr. Simons said. “It certainly seems like right now, you’d want to take a
breath and let some of the dust settle before you make that decision.”
The idea
that Americans must endure short-term pain for long-term gain is not entirely
new for Mr. Trump. In his first term, he praised farmers who were the
collateral damage in his trade war with China, describing them as “patriots”
making a sacrifice for the greater good.
But Mr.
Trump, in his first term, also tried to offset that damage with billions of
dollars in aid for farmers.
This time,
the costs associated with Mr. Trump’s policies are potentially much broader,
and they are coming in a much different economic context, when Americans have
been scarred by years of high prices and elevated borrowing costs.
Consumer
surveys show that Americans have begun to anticipate higher prices as a result
of tariffs. That could pose a political problem for Mr. Trump, and also an
economic one: If consumers come to expect faster inflation, it could make it
more difficult for policymakers at the Federal Reserve to counteract a slowdown
in the economy through lower interest rates.
Some Fed
officials are expressing concern that the combination of slowing growth and
stubborn price pressures could put the central bank in a bind.
“That’s a
stagflationary impulse,” Austan D. Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago, said in an interview last week. “There isn’t a generic answer
to what you’re supposed to do.”
Mr. Bessent
and other members of the Trump administration have argued that the economy they
inherited was not as strong as it appeared. In a speech in Washington last
month, he argued that growth was being effectively propped up by government
spending, and that the economy needed to be weaned off that support.
“The
previous administration’s overreliance on excessive government spending and
overbearing regulation left us with an economy that may have exhibited some
reasonable metrics but ultimately was brittle underneath, and heading for an
unstable equilibrium” he said, according to Reuters.
But Jared
Bernstein, who served as chairman of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s
Council of Economic Advisers, said Mr. Bessent and other members of the Trump
administration were simply looking for someone to blame now that economic data
has begun to worsen.
“They
inherited an economy that was and remains the strongest among all the advanced
economies, and they squandered their inheritance in a mere six weeks with
policy chaos that’s tanking business and consumer confidence along with
markets,” Mr. Bernstein said.
Government
statistics support the notion that the economy was solid when Mr. Trump took
office, even excluding the role of government. Government spending played a key
role in propping up the economy during the Covid pandemic, both at the end of
Mr. Trump’s first term and early in the Biden administration. But it fell later
in Mr. Biden’s term, while private-sector hiring, investment and spending
remained healthy.
Ben
Casselman is the chief economics correspondent for The Times. He has reported
on the economy for nearly 20 years. More about Ben Casselman
Colby Smith
covers the Federal Reserve and the U.S. economy for The Times. More about Colby
Smith
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário