Connect with us

News

Tariffs are fueling fears of a recession. What does it take to actually declare one?

Published

on

Tariffs are fueling fears of a recession. What does it take to actually declare one?

Employees in the trading room of Nordea Markets follow Monday’s sharp stock market declines in Oslo. The Trump administration’s tariffs are fueling concerns about the prospect of a recession, in the U.S. and globally.

Ole Berg-Rusten/NTB/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ole Berg-Rusten/NTB/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration’s new tariffs on imported goods from countries around the world have rattled consumers, stoked a trade war, roiled global markets and fueled widespread concerns about the prospect of a recession, both in the U.S. and globally.

In the days since President Trump announced the sweeping baseline and “reciprocal” tariffs, Google searches for the term “recession” have surged and economists at prominent investment banks have pointed to increased odds of a recession occurring.

In a Sunday note to clients, Goldman Sachs raised the probability of a U.S. recession from 35% to 45% — and that’s assuming the tariffs are rolled back. If the country-specific tariffs take effect Wednesday as intended, the firm says, “we would revise our forecast to include a recession.”

Advertisement

In a research report last week titled “There Will Be Blood,” JP Morgan upped its risk of a global recession to 60% from 40% before the tariff announcement.

Its CEO Jamie Dimon doubled down on Monday, writing in his annual letter to investors that the tariffs “will likely increase inflation” and are prompting “many to consider a greater probability of a recession.”

“Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth,” Dimon wrote.

There are growing calls for Trump to delay or reduce the tariffs coming from Wall Street, Capitol Hill and around the world. Administration officials said Sunday that more than 50 countries have reached out to begin negotiations — but have also said the tariffs will not be postponed.

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed concerns about a recession, saying, “We’re going to hold the course.” Pointing to March’s better-than-expected jobs report, he said he sees “no reason that we have to price in a recession.”

Advertisement

“There doesn’t have to be a recession,” he added. “Who knows how the market is going to react in a day, in a week. What we are looking at is building the long-term economic fundamentals for prosperity.”

With all this talk about a potential recession, it’s worth taking a look at what the term actually means — and who decides when it applies.

What is a recession? 

A recession refers to a period of decline in economic activity. It’s one of the four stages of the economic cycle: growth, peak, contraction (or recession) and trough.

Some analysts use a rough rule of thumb to identify recessions: Two consecutive quarters of decline in a nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) — the broadest measure of economic activity. 

Advertisement

But the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) — the nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization that has become the semi-official arbiter of recessions — uses a somewhat squishier definition. It calls a recession a “significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months.”

Who declares a recession? 

The job of documenting the economic cycles, including recessions, does not fall to the federal government.

Instead, the NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee — made up of top American economists — has been declaring the beginning and end of the cycles since its creation in 1978 (NBER itself is decades older).

There is no fixed rule about how long NBER takes to identify a recession after a decline has started. It says on its website that past determinations have taken anywhere from four to 21 months.

“We wait long enough so that the existence of a peak or trough is not in doubt, and until we can assign an accurate peak or trough date,” NBER says.

Advertisement

For example, it announced in June 2020 that the U.S. had officially entered a pandemic-induced recession months earlier, in February. It announced over a year later that the 2020 recession had ended in April after just two months, making it the shortest U.S. recession on record.

What happens in a recession? 

A shrinking economy can cause a cascade of stressful ripple effects, including lower employment, deteriorating stock market results and higher borrowing costs for consumers and companies, according to Fidelity.

For example, people may not want to spend as much, which can impact the businesses they would otherwise support, which can lead to layoffs and in turn harm companies’ performance in the stock market — further fueling the cycle.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told NPR last week that consumer confidence and discretionary spending were already on the decline. He said the possibility of even broader tariffs — which were announced the following day — could speed up the path to a recession.

“It’s the consumer that’s feeling the brunt of it first, and with good reason,” he said. “But … the way you get to recession is businesses see the weakening in their sales, and if they start laying off workers, then we’re done. We’re going into a recession.”

Advertisement

How rare are recessions?

 Various factors can jolt the economy into a recession, from unexpected events (like pandemics and wars) to asset bubbles bursting to excessive inflation or deflation.

The U.S. has experienced 34 recessions since 1857, according to NBER data.

They varied considerably in length, from two months (2020) to over five years (The Panic of 1873, which triggered the “Long Depression”).

Since World War II, the average length of a recession has been 11.1 months, according to the business publication Kiplinger. The post-WWII U.S. has averaged a recession every 6.5 years, it adds.

The longest post-WWII recession was the Great Recession, which spanned 18 months from December 2007 to June 2009 and was triggered when the U.S. housing bubble burst. The most recent was the brief COVID-19 recession in 2020. While the economy experienced two quarters of negative GDP growth in early 2022, fueling fears of a recession, NBER did not declare one.

Advertisement

Depressions are much more severe and rare: Merriam-Webster says they are characterized by widespread unemployment and major pauses in economic activity. NBER does not specifically identify depressions, but says the U.S. is generally regarded to have last experienced one in the 1930s.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

News

UBS reaps trading windfall from market turmoil

Published

on

UBS reaps trading windfall from market turmoil

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

UBS has become the latest bank to reap a windfall from the market turmoil unleashed by Donald Trump’s tariffs, as its traders helped power the Swiss lender to better than expected first-quarter profits.

Revenues at its markets business surged 32 per cent to $2.5bn in the quarter, after Trump’s aggressive trade war triggered volatility across global stock and currency markets.

Trump’s erratic tariff policy since his return to the White House has helped propel trading revenues at big banks in Europe and on Wall Street, as investors contend with the fallout from his effort to reshape the global trading order.

Advertisement

UBS reported net profit of $1.7bn in the quarter, surpassing the $1.3bn forecast by analysts, but down from $1.8bn in the same period a year ago. Revenues were flat at $12.6bn.

Revenues at its investment banking division climbed 16 per cent to $3.3bn in the quarter.

Its global wealth management division attracted $32bn in new assets in the period, with the unit’s pre-tax profit of $1.4bn driven by higher fees.

Chief executive Sergio Ermotti said: “The power and scale of our diversified global franchise, coupled with our continued focus on clients, drove strong business momentum in the quarter and net new inflows in our asset-gathering businesses.”

Ermotti, who returned to lead the bank’s integration of former rival Credit Suisse in 2023, said the process was “on track”. UBS is in the midst of switching more than 1mn Swiss retail clients on to its systems, one of the most complicated parts of the integration.

Advertisement

“As we start to execute on the next critical phase of integration, I remain pleased with the substantial progress we have made so far,” Ermotti said.

Continue Reading

News

Hawaii plans to increase hotel tax to help it cope with climate change

Published

on

Hawaii plans to increase hotel tax to help it cope with climate change

People are seen on the beach and in the water in front of the Kahala Hotel & Resort in Honolulu, Nov. 15, 2020.

Jennifer Sinco Kelleher/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jennifer Sinco Kelleher/AP

HONOLULU — In a first-of-its kind move, Hawaii lawmakers are ready to hike a tax imposed on travelers staying in hotels, vacation rentals and other short-term accommodations and earmark the new money for programs to cope with a warming planet.

State leaders say they’ll use the funds for projects like replenishing sand on eroding beaches, helping homeowners install hurricane clips on their roofs and removing invasive grasses like those that fueled the deadly wildfire that destroyed Lahaina two years ago.

A bill scheduled for House and Senate votes on Wednesday would add an additional 0.75% to the daily room rate tax starting Jan. 1. It’s all but certain to pass given Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers and party leaders have agreed on the measure. Gov. Josh Green has said he would sign it into law.

Advertisement

Officials estimate the increase would generate $100 million in new revenue annually.

“We had a $13 billion tragedy in Maui and we lost 102 people. These kind of dollars will help us prevent that next disaster,” Green said in an interview.

Green said Hawaii was the first state in the nation to do something along these lines. Andrey Yushkov, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization, said he was unaware of any other state that has set aside lodging tax revenue for the purposes of environmental protection or climate change.

Adding to an already hefty taxThe increase will add to what is already a relatively large duty on short-term stays. The state’s existing 10.25% tax on daily room rates would climb to 11%. In addition, Hawaii’s counties each add their own 3% surcharge and the state and counties impose a combined 4.712% general excise tax on goods and services including hotel rooms. Together, that will make for a tax rate of nearly 19%.

Advertisement

The only large U.S. cities that have higher cumulative state and local lodging tax rates are Omaha, Nebraska, at 20.5%, and Cincinnati, at 19.3%, according to a 2024 report by HVS, a global hospitality consulting firm.

The governor has long said the 10 million visitors who come to Hawaii each year should help the state’s 1.4 million residents protect the environment.

Green believes travelers will be willing to pay the increased tax because doing so will enable Hawaii to “keep the beaches perfect” and preserve favorite spots like Maui’s road to Hana and the coastline along Oahu’s North Shore. After the Maui wildfire, Green said he heard from thousands of people across the country asking how they could help. This is a significant way they can, he said.

Hotel industry has mixed feelingsJerry Gibson, president of the Hawaii Hotel Alliance, which represents the state’s hotel operators, said the industry was pleased lawmakers didn’t adopt a higher increase that was initially proposed.

Advertisement

“I don’t think that there’s anybody in the tourism industry that says, ‘Well, let’s go out and tax more.’ No one wants to see that,” Gibson said. “But our state, at the same time, needs money.”

The silver lining, Gibson said, is that the money is supposed to beautify Hawaii’s environment. It will be worth it if that’s the case, he said.

Hawaii has long struggled to pay for the vast environmental and conservation needs of the islands, ranging from protecting coral reefs to weeding invasive plants to making sure tourists don’t harass wildlife, such as Hawaiian monk seals. The state must also maintain a large network of trails, many of which have heavier foot traffic as more travelers choose to hike on vacation.

Two years ago, lawmakers considered requiring tourists to pay for a yearlong license or pass to visit state parks and trails. Green wanted to have all visitors pay a $50 fee to enter the state, an idea lawmakers said would violate U.S. constitutional protections for free travel.

Advertisement

Boosting the lodging tax is their compromise solution, one made more urgent by the Maui wildfires.

A large funding gapAn advocacy group, Care for Aina Now, calculated a $561 million gap between Hawaii’s conservation funding needs and money spent each year.

Green acknowledged the revenue from the tax increase falls short of this, but said the state would issue bonds to leverage the money it raises. Most of the $100 million would go toward measures that can be handled in a one-to-two year time frame, while $10 to $15 million of it would pay for bonds supporting long-term infrastructure projects.

Kāwika Riley, a member of the governor’s Climate Advisory Team, pointed to the Hawaiian saying, “A stranger only for a day,” to explain the new tax. The adage means that a visitor should help with the work after the first day of being a guest.

“Nobody is saying that literally our visitors have to come here and start working for us. But what we are saying is that it’s important to be part of of the solution,” Riley said. “It’s important to be part of caring for the things you love.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Torture and Secret C.I.A. Prisons Haunt 9/11 Case in Judge’s Ruling

Published

on

Torture and Secret C.I.A. Prisons Haunt 9/11 Case in Judge’s Ruling

When a military judge threw out a defendant’s confession in the Sept. 11 case this month, he gave two main reasons.

The prisoner’s statements, the judge ruled, were obtained through the C.I.A.’s use of torture, including beatings and sleep deprivation.

But equally troubling to the judge was what happened to the prisoner in the years after his physical torture ended, when the agency held him in isolation and kept questioning him from 2003 to 2006.

The defendant, Ammar al-Baluchi, is accused of sending money and providing other support to some of the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attack, which killed 3,000 people. In court, Mr. Baluchi is charged as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

He is the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man accused of masterminding the plot.

Advertisement

The judge, Col. Matthew N. McCall, wrote that it was easy to focus on the torture because it was “so absurdly far outside the norms of what is expected of U.S. custody preceding law enforcement questioning.”

“However,” he added, “the three and a half years of uncharged, incommunicado detention and essentially solitary confinement — all while being continually questioned and conditioned — is just as egregious” as the physical torture.

Prosecutors are preparing to appeal.

But the 111-page ruling was the latest blow to the government’s two-decade-old effort to hold death penalty trials at Guantánamo Bay by sweeping aside a legacy of state-sponsored torture.

Military judges in the two capital cases at Guantánamo have rejected the use of confessions taken from prisoners after they were in C.I.A. detention, illustrating the enduring stain of a Bush administration decision after Sept. 11, 2001, to interrogate and hide suspected members of Al Qaeda in black sites rather than use the court-monitored law enforcement system.

Advertisement

From his capture in Pakistan in early 2003 to his transfer to Guantánamo in 2006, Mr. Baluchi was kept out of the reach of lawyers, a court and the International Red Cross, according to evidence presented at years of pretrial hearings.

In his first days in custody, Mr. Baluchi was deprived of sleep for 82 straight hours. He was shackled at the ankles and the wrists in a way that forced him to stand, naked, with a hood on his head. He was made to fear he would be drowned in a mock waterboarding technique while he was in a dungeonlike setting in Afghanistan.

In time, he was shuttled between five overseas prisons, including in Eastern Europe. Food and clothing were used as rewards for his cooperation with C.I.A. debriefers in a program described in court by two psychologists who carried out some of the interrogations for the agency.

The judge referred to classified C.I.A. accounts showing that Mr. Baluchi was questioned about Al Qaeda and his role in the Sept. 11 attacks more than 1,000 times before he was transferred to Guantánamo. Then, in January 2007, the Bush administration adopted a concept called clean teams.

The idea was to have agents who had not been involved in previous interrogations question a suspect anew to try to obtain admissible evidence for a court case. In the case of Mr. Baluchi, three F.B.I. agents questioned him over four days at Guantánamo in January 2007, four months after he was transferred there from a black site.

Advertisement

The F.B.I. agents wrote a memo containing his confessions, which Judge McCall rejected on April 11 as illegally derived from torture.

Prosecutors had argued that Mr. Baluchi’s brutal interrogations lasted only a few days. For the next three years, they said, he gradually became less afraid of his captors and in time voluntarily answered questions from the C.I.A. debriefers and, later, from the F.B.I. questioners at Guantánamo.

The judge disagreed. “The goal of the program was to condition him through torture and other inhumane and coercive methods to become compliant during any government questioning,” he wrote. “The program worked.”

Uncertainty over whether the statements would be admissible was one reason the prosecutors sought to settle the case with guilty pleas in exchange for life sentences rather than through a death-penalty trial.

Mr. Baluchi and his lawyers never reached a plea agreement. But Mr. Mohammed and two other defendants did in a settlement that the Justice Department is now trying to overturn. If the courts uphold the deal and the plea goes forward, Mr. Mohammed has agreed to let prosecutors use portions of his 2007 interrogations at Guantánamo at a sentencing hearing.

Advertisement

Government lawyers have to meet a high bar in appealing to reinstate Mr. Baluchi’s 2007 statements. In January, the military commissions appeals court upheld a judge’s decision to throw out the same type of evidence in the U.S.S. Cole case, the longest-running capital case at Guantánamo Bay.

In it, the appellate panel endorsed the analysis of the judge in that case that the C.I.A. had “conditioned” its captives “to answer questions from United States government officials — be they debriefers, interrogators or interviewers.”

In his third month at Guantánamo, Mr. Baluchi reported to a medical staff member that guards had withheld water from him “for 48 hours because he wrote his name in his shower with steam,” the judge noted.

Court testimony showed that each former C.I.A. prisoner’s cell was equipped with an intercom and individual shower that required little contact with guards. So Mr. Baluchi was punished for writing his name in a place where only he, the guards and the prison’s surveillance system could see it.

Moves between black sites started with a cavity search, the judge said in a section that explained the process in detail. Mr. Baluchi was blindfolded, and his ears and mouth were covered to prevent him from hearing or communicating with others.

Advertisement

“He was diapered and then strapped into a seat or strapped to the floor like cargo for however long the flight lasted,” the judge recounted. The prisoner “did not know where he was going or how long he would have to remain in a soiled diaper.”

Continue Reading

Trending