Latest news with #PacificResearchInstitute
Canada Standard
6 days ago
- Business
- Canada Standard
Trump doubles steel, aluminum tariffs to 50 pct amid legal challenges
"With the 50 percent tariff, not only is American steel going to be less internationally competitive but so are the multitude of American industries that depend on steel as a necessary input," said Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. NEW YORK, June 4 (Xinhua) -- The United States started to raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25 percent to 50 percent starting from Wednesday, according to an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday. Trump announced the decision last Friday during a visit to a U.S. Steel plant in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. Trump justified the action by claiming that higher tariffs on imported steel and aluminum would address national security threats and improve the competitiveness of domestic industries. The new tariffs will remain in effect unless such actions are expressly reduced, modified, or terminated, according to the order. Trump invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code; as well as section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 in the order. For now, steel and aluminum imports from the United Kingdom will continue to be subject to a 25 percent tariff, given the economic deal reached between the United States and the United Kingdom on May 8. However, on or after July 9, the U.S. secretary of commerce may adjust the applicable rates of duty and construct import quotas for steel and aluminum consistent with the U.S.-UK deal, or the secretary may increase the applicable rates of duty to 50 percent if the United Kingdom is found not to be complying with the deal, according to the order. "With the 50 percent tariff, not only is American steel going to be less internationally competitive but so are the multitude of American industries that depend on steel as a necessary input," said Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The new rate on imported steel will almost certainly enlarge the profits of domestic steel companies while U.S. manufacturers and American households will pay dearly for the bonanza to steel barons, wrote Hufbauer in an opinion piece on Monday. The tariffs make it more expensive for domestic auto manufacturers to produce here, and "it's an economically inconsistent, illiterate policy that seems to be hiding under the national security justifications," said Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. "They've never given any justification why 25 percent is the right number, let alone why 50 percent is," Winegarden was quoted by a report on No business leader should make massive upfront investments in heavy industry if they don't believe that the same policy will last for a few years, according to Felix Tintelnot, professor of economics at Duke University. The European Commission criticized the new U.S. tariff measures, warning that the move could prompt swift European retaliation. "The EU is prepared to impose countermeasures, including in response to the latest U.S. tariff increase," the commission's spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The U.S. action undermines the EU's ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated agreement with the United States, according to the statement. "This isn't trade policy, it's a direct attack on Canadian industries and workers," said Marty Warren, United Steelworkers National Director for Canada, in a recent statement. Thousands of Canadian jobs are on the line, and Canada needs to respond immediately and decisively to defend workers, added Warren.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Wants To Make the Country's Most Expensive Gas Even More Expensive
California Gov. Gavin Newsom released his revised state budget proposal for FY 2025–2026 on Wednesday. After having a roughly balanced budget in January, the state must now "close an estimated $12 billion shortfall to balance the budget" because of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have "driven a downgrade in both the economic and revenue forecasts" and increased spending for the state's Medicaid program. Despite this shortfall, Newsom's budget calls for maintaining or extending expensive government programs, including the state's cap-and-trade program, which was set to expire in 2030. Launched in 2013 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the state, the program sets a GHG emissions cap for "covered entities," which includes electricity generators, oil refineries, and manufacturing facilities. Entities must comply with this annual cap either by voluntarily reducing their GHG emissions or by purchasing allowances (essentially permits to emit 1 ton of carbon dioxide equivalent) at quarterly auctions. Most of the money generated from these auctions goes to the California Climate Investments program, which has funded $12.8 billion worth of environmental and energy projects since 2014. The California Air Resources Board estimates that these projects have prevented over 1,000 premature air pollution-related deaths. At the same time, cap-and-trade has been prohibitively expensive for consumers. While some auction funds go toward utility bill rebates, the program has increased energy costs for Californians. The state's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that it adds 23 cents per gallon to gas prices, which could increase to 74 cents per gallon if the state decides to pursue more aggressive GHG reductions. The state currently has the highest gas prices in the country. Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, tells Reason that the program is a "bad tradeoff." Compared to when California launched the cap-and-trade program, "total energy related CO2 emissions in California is down 6.2%. This is around the national average (5.4% decline). It is way behind states like West Virginia that saw a 14% decline." While some Climate Investment money has funded environmentally beneficial projects like wetland restorations, the program has mostly prioritized funding for politically preferential projects and social programs. State law mandates that 25 percent of auction revenues ($7.4 billion since 2014) go toward California's high-speed rail project, which, after nearly two decades has yet to transport a single passenger. In his budget proposal, Newsom calls for "at least $1 billion annually" to be provided for the project. Another 20 percent of program revenues ($2.2 billion since 2014) are mandated to fund the state's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. The program has over 13,000 affordable housing units under contract and has reduced GHG emissions in the state at a price of $4,100 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The state's urban tree plantings, meanwhile, have reduced GHG emissions in California for a cost of $54 per metric ton of CO2. The program's ineffectiveness is further compounded by the underlying policy issues that stymie environmental progress in the Golden State. Despite throwing $1.5 billion toward wildfire prevention through the cap-and-trade and additional money in annual budgets, the state continues to experience damaging and expensive wildfire seasons because of stringent environmental regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Getting a restoration project approved "often involves years of analysis, public comment, and litigation before projects can even begin," writes Shawn Regan, vice president of research at the Property and Environment Research Center, in City Journal. These delays increase fire risk and put more people in harm's way. "In 2020, for example, the Berry Creek area in California was devastated by the North Complex Fire while critical thinning projects were mired in CEQA reviews. The fire killed 16 people," explains Regan. State and private land managers in California have set a goal to conduct prescribed burns on 400,000 acres annually by this year, reports The New York Times. In 2023, the most recent year in which data are available, federal and state agencies and private property owners completed prescribed burns on close to 260,000 acres. As California has looked to reduce its energy sector emissions through renewable energy projects and mandates—which have forced Californians to pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country—the state has made it illegal to build clean and reliable nuclear power plants. The state's remaining nuclear power plant—Diablo Canyon—generates about 9 percent of California's electricity and is scheduled to shut down in 2030 unless state lawmakers step in. In a little over a decade, California's cap-and-trade program has increased energy costs for the state's residents while doing little to significantly reduce GHG emissions. With a $12 billion budget shortfall, it could be time for California lawmakers to reevaluate the program. "There are simply better ways to reduce emissions without imposing such a large cost on the state," says Winegarden. The post Gavin Newsom Wants To Make the Country's Most Expensive Gas Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S.-China trade talks will shed light on the end goal for tariffs
The U.S. and China are set to begin trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland. Both sides will first want to make sure the other is serious about negotiating a future deal. Possible topics for discussion include lowering the current tariff rates of more than 100% and a litany of non-tariff trade barriers. This weekend's trade talks between the U.S. and China are an opening salvo in what is shaping up to be long and drawn-out negotiations between the world's two largest economies. Delegations from both countries are set to meet in Geneva, Switzerland, over the weekend for the first time since trade tensions escalated to fever pitch last month. After announcing widespread tariffs on virtually all of its trading partners, the U.S. then backtracked, pausing them for every country except China, which was singled out with 145% tariffs. China immediately responded with its 125% tariffs on U.S. imports. Part of the impetus for the talks was a mutual recognition that the current tariff levels had severely limited trade between the U.S. and China. 'The current tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. are so high that they essentially shut down direct trade between the countries,' said Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow for economics at the free market think tank the Pacific Research Institute. The weekend's trade talks will include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and China's vice premier for economic policy He Lifeng. Both sides have telegraphed the meeting would be focused on easing tensions. Chinese officials framed the summit as an opportunity to 're-engage the U.S,' while on the U.S. side the operative word was 'de-escalation.' Despite the exorbitantly high tariffs the two countries had placed on each, the talks would include several other topics as well. 'De-escalation means reducing these tariffs but also preventing the broadening of this trade war beyond tariffs—we have already seen non-tariff retaliatory measures like rare earths export controls, canceled orders for Boeings, antitrust investigations of Google,' University of Kansas professor Jack Zhang, an expert in the political economy of East Asia, told Fortune. 'The danger is for the trade war to threaten other economic linkages beyond trade to flows of investment, technology, or even people.' But neither side was entirely conciliatory once the talks were agreed to. The U.S. stuck to its message that China was worse off than it was during the trade war. President Donald Trump said his tariffs had left China with 'with absolutely no business.' Meanwhile, Chinese government officials warned the U.S. to negotiate in good faith, with China's commerce ministry saying the U.S. needed to 'show sincerity' during the talks. 'If you say one thing and do another, or even attempt to continue to coerce and blackmail under the guise of talks, China will never agree, let alone sacrifice its principled position and international fairness and justice to seek any agreement,' a ministry statement said. A looming question from the U.S.'s side of the negotiating table is over the role of tariffs themselves. Since Trump took office in January, different factions have emerged among administration officials over the specific purpose tariffs play. One group views tariffs as a central part of a new, more protectionist U.S. trade policy. The other side is composed of more traditional free-traders that see tariffs as a tool to gain leverage during broader trade negotiations with other countries. 'That group seems to be leading trade policy at the moment and is well-represented in the U.S. delegation in Geneva,' said University of Michigan political science professor Iain Osgood, referring to Bessent and Greer's role in this weekend's summit. Regardless of which side wins out, the presence of a disagreement is not without consequences going into a negotiation. 'The tendency to see tariffs as a magical means to achieve drastically different strategic ends led to the bargaining failures,' Zhang said. He added that differences of opinion between members of the delegation made an already challenging negotiation harder because the U.S. can't commit to a specific set of narrow conditions for lifting tariffs. How exactly talks will unfold remains to be seen. On Wednesday, Bessent said that during this weekend's meetings the two sides would decide what to discuss. Some of the possible topics for discussion include export controls on specific products—rare earths from China and semiconductors from the U.S.—and Trump's decision to end the de minimis loophole, which exempted shipments below a certain value from duties. Topics could also extend beyond trade matters including TikTok's future ownership, curtailing fentanyl trafficking, and CK Hutchinson's control of major shipping canals, experts said. Given that these are some of the very first official conversations, the talks will help establish what the two countries are willing to negotiate. That is a critical initial step, but one that is more likely to yield symbolic gestures rather than concrete resolution to the dispute, according to experts. 'The likely scenario will be for the two sides to signal toughness while gauging the other's willingness and sincerity to engage in serious negotiations,' Zhang said. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
I'm an Economist: Here's Why I Believe Trump's Economic Moves May Lead to a Recession
President Donald Trump's aggressive economic policies, including sweeping tariffs and confrontational trade strategies, are raising alarms among economists about a potential recession. Learn More: Trump Isn't Ruling Out a Recession This Year — What Could That Mean for Your Wallet? Try This: The New Retirement Problem Boomers Are Facing GOBankingRates spoke to economists about the risks associated with Trump's moves that may lead to recession. Early Warning Signs Economists say the clearest signs of recession often show up in overlooked places. These lagging indicators suggest that while prices may remain high, the real economy is already slowing down beneath the surface. One thing to watch is freight volumes — less cargo coming in and high prices on the shelf could indicate front-loaded inflation with more negative economic impacts to come. Another early warning sign is an uptick in business credit usage. Smaller businesses that run out of liquidity to cover their expenses sometimes turn to credit just to cover their operating costs. If they can't catch up, this lack of liquidity can lead to job cuts. Be Aware: 4 Mistakes the Upper Middle Class Are Making With Their Money in the Trump Economy Escalating Tariffs Strain Stability President Trump's aggressive stance on tariffs led to a 0.3% contraction in the U.S. economy during the first quarter of 2025, marking the first decline in three years. 'The tariffs are upending the global trading system and current manufacturing chains that have generated tremendous prosperity for the U.S. and helped promote widespread affordability until the recent inflation surge,' said Wayne Winegarden, an economist at the Pacific Research Institute. 'The interruption to this trading system will diminish the long-term growth potential of the U.S.' Erratic Decisions Erode Confidence Trump's unpredictable shifts in economic policy and sudden reversals on imposing sweeping tariffs have created an uncertain climate for businesses and investors. 'While there are issues and imbalances in the global system that need to be addressed, the problem with the current administration's policies is an inherent inconsistency among the different objectives they seemingly want to achieve,' said Davide Accomazzo, a finance instructor at Pepperdine University's Graziadio Business School. Accomazzo continued, 'Trying to lower inflation is inconsistent with high tariffs, and a lower dollar is inconsistent with the need to stabilize the bond market and guide interest rates lower.' Escalating Global Tensions Trump's imposition of tariffs up to 145% on Chinese imports has triggered a retaliatory response from Beijing, including 125% tariffs on U.S. goods and restrictions on critical mineral exports.
Fox News
07-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
California's green new scam could cost you $20,000
California has long fancied itself a beacon of environmental progress, a state willing to lead the charge in combating global warming. But the reality is that this pursuit of a "green" future is coming at a staggering cost to California consumers and businesses, a cost that's becoming increasingly unsustainable. A recent study by the Pacific Research Institute reveals the truly alarming scale of this financial burden, estimating that the green transition will cost Californians between $17,398 and $20,182 per family to fund the state's switch to alternative energy sources. BIDEN GREEN ENERGY PROJECT HALTED BY TRUMP ADMIN RELIGED ON RUSHED, BAD SCIENCE, STUDY FINDS Altogether, California's green transition is projected to cost as much as $246.7 billion to build out solar panels, construct wind turbines and battery infrastructure while also shutting down nuclear plants and oil fields – a bill that will be paid by us all. These shocking figures should give every policymaker and resident pause. The state's aggressive mandates, such as the push for 100% zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, are a prime example of this misguided approach. While the goal of reducing emissions is commendable, Sacramento's top-down, one-size-fits-all approach ignores basic economic realities. These mandates artificially inflate the cost of transportation, placing a disproportionate burden on low- and middle-income families. And these mandates deny the reality that electric vehicles are often more expensive to purchase than their gasoline-powered counterparts. While proponents tout potential long-term savings on fuel, those savings are quickly eroded by rising electricity costs in California. Aside from higher costs, these mandates will also soon bring major energy shortfalls – the state will be 21.2% short of the power needed to fuel the grid each day – when the state's 100% renewable energy and electric vehicle mandates are in effect. And this doesn't include huge looming power demands for artificial intelligence, or for green appliances and HVAC mandates on homes and businesses that will take effect in the coming years. But you don't need to be an economist to see the pain. California drivers are routinely paying some of the highest gasoline prices in the nation. These prices aren't solely driven by global market fluctuations; they're also a direct result of California's unique blend of environmental regulations, taxes, and fees. Gov. Newsom can point fingers at oil companies all he wants, but his policies play a significant role. And it's not just gasoline. Electricity rates in California are skyrocketing. A recent report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office confirms what many Californians already know: we pay nearly double the national average for electricity. These costs are driven by a combination of factors, including wildfire mitigation expenses and the state's very "ambitious" greenhouse gas reduction programs. Businesses are also feeling the squeeze. The high cost of energy in California makes it more difficult for them to compete, discouraging investment and driving jobs out of the state. How can California businesses compete with those in states with far lower energy costs? CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION Despite these real consequences, Gov. Newsom and other policymakers seem intent on forging ahead on the same course. They tout the long-term benefits of a green economy, but they ignore the very real and immediate pain that their policies are inflicting on ordinary Californians. Families are struggling to pay their bills, small businesses are closing their doors, and the dream of homeownership is slipping further out of reach for many. It's time for a reality check. California needs a more balanced and pragmatic approach to energy policy. We need to acknowledge the limitations of current renewable energy technologies, address the skyrocketing costs of electricity, and stop pretending that we can simply wish our way to a carbon-free future by legislative fiat. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Much as they wish, Sacramento politicians can't legislate innovation – but it should incentivize it and also embrace sensible reforms like expanding the use of low-emission and more affordable nuclear power and establishing a pro-emission reduction innovation environment. The state's current path is unsustainable. Unless we change course, California's green dream will become an economic nightmare for millions.
