logo
The Era of Thrash

The Era of Thrash

The Atlantic25-05-2025

'It almost feels like we're trying to rebuild everything from scratch,' Michael Wieder told me.
The company he co-founded, Lalo, sells sleekly designed baby gear, much of it made in China. In his first weeks in office, Donald Trump increased the tariff rate on most of the company's imported goods by 20 percentage points. In April, he jacked the rate up to 145 percent. Lalo had to stop bringing in products from overseas: Paying the tariff could have bankrupted the company. Trump dropped the rate down to 30 percent this month, but Wieder anticipates falling sales and a year of disruption.
Ask any corporate executive or entrepreneur about the past five months, and they will tell you a story like Wieder's. Companies are struggling with unstable tariff rates, bond-market swings, canceled federal contracts, rising import costs, and visa challenges. They're unsure about the economic outlook. They're unsure about tax rates. They're unsure about borrowing costs. Last week, Moody's downgraded American debt, meaning it has less confidence in the country's growth and capacity to manage its deficits.
This is a year of chaos, so dramatic in its upheaval that it sometimes obscures how weird things have been, and for how long. Over the past half decade, businesses have contended with a pandemic, a recession, an inflationary spiral, and a trade war. They have negotiated swift changes in consumer behavior and input prices and interest rates, as well as significant shifts in policy more broadly, from Joe Biden's New Deal Lite to Donald Trump's autarkic austerity. John Lettieri, the president of the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington-based think tank, calls it 'the era of thrash.'
The American economy has weathered that chaos. Despite reams of studies indicating that uncertainty dampens investment and slows growth, today corporate profits are high, the jobless rate is low, productivity has climbed, and new businesses are blossoming. But that resilience may be wearing off, and we may have reached the end of our ability to withstand the disruptions.
Is this spell of uncertainty so unusual? Even after talking with a dozen business owners and experts in recent weeks, I came away unsure. A lot seemed to have happened since COVID. Then again, reciting five years of major events might feel like singing the lyrics to 'We Didn't Start the Fire' regardless of which five years you picked.
As it turns out, economists have ways of measuring uncertainty, by looking at newspaper coverage, stock-market gyrations, and corporate communications. Those measures show that, sure enough, the first half of the 2020s has proved remarkably unstable and destabilizing. 'We've been through a period of elevated uncertainty,' Steven Davis, of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, told me. Right now, we are in 'a big surge, relative to what was already a higher-than-average base.'
Economists also have ways of measuring the impact of such periods on businesses and the economy writ large. Uncertainty about a country's growth path reduces consumption and investment, depressing industrial production. Uncertainty about inflation reduces bank lending, cutting down on business expansion and formation. Uncertainty about tariffs weakens supply chains and limits the number of businesses joining a market. The economies of countries with stable policy environments tend to grow faster than those of unstable countries.
Given that research, you'd think that the past five years would have been dull ones for entrepreneurship and growth. The opposite is true. Americans are forming roughly a million more businesses a year now than they were before the pandemic, despite higher borrowing costs. Corporate profits are fatter than they were before the pandemic. Stock prices—a measure of investor optimism about future earnings—have been volatile, but are up 96 percent over the past five years.
'My biggest takeaway from the last five years of a one-after-another series of different kinds of shocks and uncertainties is an appreciation for the astonishing resilience of the U.S. economy,' Lettieri told me, a note of awe in his voice.
Business experts pointed to a few reasons that the chaos leading up to 2025 did not strangle investment or damage growth. For some firms, the coronavirus crisis provided an opportunity by disrupting stodgy markets and upending consumer behavior. Lalo, for instance, benefited from the surge in interest in ordering online, which let it compete with big-box stores that otherwise might have boxed it out. (Now chains such as Target carry the brand.) The pandemic 'played to our benefit,' Wieder told me, and the company managed to navigate the surge in inflation and borrowing costs that followed it.
That was, in large part, because the broader governmental response to the pandemic proved to be such a boon for firms and individuals. The Federal Reserve pushed borrowing costs to close to zero. The Trump and Biden administrations spent roughly $4 trillion on support to families and companies, canceling student loans, sending out checks, covering payroll, supporting the parents of young children, and shoring up the coffers of state and local governments. Even as interest rates rose, the private-credit markets remained robust. 'It's easier to absorb an uncertainty shock when underlying economic conditions are strong than when they're weak,' Davis said. From 2020 to 2024, the underlying economy proved notably strong.
Today's uncertainty is far more intense and widespread than many businesses anticipated. Wieder and his co-founder had braced for some turbulence when Trump reclaimed the White House. They assumed tariffs on Chinese imports would rise, increasing costs on young families—even if goods like strollers and car seats were excluded from tariffs, as they were during Trump's first term. They hoped to preempt consumer sticker shock by lowering prices in advance. 'It was a really big bet for us,' Wieder said. 'We were protecting our consumer and trying to get ahead of it.' But there was no getting ahead of what followed.
The economy is more vulnerable and less resilient than it was a couple of years ago. Interest rates are higher, personal-debt levels have climbed, job growth is slowing, and inflation remains an issue. 'A lot of lending was made during a time of very easy credit,' Diane Swonk, the chief economist at the accounting firm KPMG, told me. 'Now many of those businesses and consumers are being squeezed. Loans that were once renewed easily are now being denied or subjected to far stricter standards.'
The political instability of the country, whipsawing between two polarized parties, has also left businesses shaky. And now the White House is proactively destabilizing the policy environment, ignoring court orders and usurping Congress's authority over spending. When it comes to tariffs, the Trump administration is making 'arbitrary executive decisions that are in some cases probably unlawful, and perhaps even unconstitutional,' Davis noted. During the pandemic, the country had a democratic government that made reasonable choices in response to a horrific tragedy. Now it has a more and more despotic government making bad choices for no reason. The past five years didn't prepare us for this.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers

UPI

time10 minutes ago

  • UPI

Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers

President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."

Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.

Politico

time13 minutes ago

  • Politico

Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.

President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store