China fed fomc Markets

Will Trump Give Up His Leverage Over Jerome Powell To Secure A Deal With Xi?

Sealing the deal with Xi may require giving up on rate cuts in an election year.

Sealing the deal with Xi may require giving up on rate cuts in an election year.
This content has been archived. Log in or Subscribe for full access to thousands of archived articles.

6 comments on “Will Trump Give Up His Leverage Over Jerome Powell To Secure A Deal With Xi?

  1. derek says:

    Seriously, with rates already so low, what difference would another 25 bp make? Except to banks and pension funds.

    • None. But Trump is after a lot more than that. Indeed, that’s the point. If he gives up on the tariffs, he won’t be able to engineer ZIRP in 2020 ahead of the election.

      • derek says:

        Not that he is aware of it, but low rates are devastating bank earnings and, maybe more importantly, wreaking havoc with private & public pension fund assumptions. It is just forcing companies to put more money into shoring them up. That’s money not spent on expanding their businesses.

    • George says:

      I think a lot of what we are seeing reflects the future which is going to be a Multilateral world order …replacing the Unilateralism brought on by the globalization of the last 40 or so years… In that respect this time is different at least when compared to the last century or so…
      I wonder if change can be good????

  2. vicissitude says:

    Re: “The scheduled December 15 tariff escalation comes within days of the final FOMC meeting of 2019”

    But, don’t forget the other upcoming hot potato in a few weeks!

    The House passed a continuing resolution (CR) on Sept. 19 that funds the government through Nov. 21, which the Senate passed on Sept. 26 and President Trump signed on Sept. 27. The House and Senate, meanwhile, are continuing to negotiate full appropriations for the rest of FY 2020, including through a package of four appropriations bills that has currently stalled.

    FYI: But not all budget deals are created equal when it comes to offsets. The first two accords, in 2013 and 2015, were fully offset and then some, trimming a net $17 billion from 10-year deficits. The 2018 deal, enacted under all-GOP control of the legislative and executive branches, is by far the priciest — clocking in at a hefty $358 billion in gross costs over a decade. Only about 29 percent of that cost is offset, though $90 billion in emergency disaster relief funds isn’t included in those calculations.

    And that was shortly after the Republican Congress and President Donald Trump pushed through a tax cut plan in late 2017 that was estimated at the time to cost $1.5 trillion over a decade, even after offsets. Against that backdrop, House Democrats aren’t keen to offset higher nondefense discretionary spending.

  3. vicissitude says:

    Will the Fed help pay for the Wall?

    But getting to a final compromise requires agreement on spending allocations, known as 302(b)s, for the 12 annual bills. And so far, the House and Senate have been working from different spreadsheets.

    But informal talks in recent weeks have been slow going. “I’m very concerned about the appropriations process,” he told reporters. While compromise spending allocations are sorely needed, he said, the willingness to compromise “does not appear to be present at this point.”

    Similarly, the president might refuse to sign any appropriations bills before the Homeland Security spending measure lands in his lap with fresh funding for the border wall and the Military Construction-VA bill clears Congress with extra cash to backfill the $3.6 billion he shifted toward construction of the wall.

Leave a Reply to vicissitude Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar