Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 17
The White House has taken yet another shot at the Fed, with Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, saying that the central bank’s economists should be “disciplined” for publishing a report showing US businesses and consumers are bearing the bulk of the costs from Trump’s tariffs.
The study, released last week, suggested they paid nearly 90 per cent of the cost of Trump’s tariffs in 2025, with the burden decreasing slightly as the year progressed.
Hassett, a close adviser to Trump who had been a frontrunner to be the central bank’s next chair, yesterday described the recent report from the New York Fed as “an embarrassment” and argued that it failed to portray the full breadth of Trump’s levies.
“It’s I think the worst paper I’ve ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve system,” Hassett told CNBC on Wednesday. “The people associated with this paper should presumably be disciplined.”
He added: “What they’ve done is they’ve put out a conclusion which has created a lot of news that’s highly partisan based on analysis that wouldn’t be accepted in a first semester econ[omics] class.”
This is the latest attack from the White House against the Federal Reserve, an independent federal agency that the Trump administration has been criticizing and targeting for months
I find it ironic that the same people who say that China will pay billions of dollars in tariffs and that tariffs are not simply a sales tax say the Fed analysis wouldn’t be accepted in a first semester econ[omics] class.”
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 8
It’s I think the worst paper I’ve ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve system,” Hassett told CNBC on Wednesday. “The people associated with this paper should presumably be disciplined.”
He added: “What they’ve done is they’ve put out a conclusion which has created a lot of news that’s highly partisan based on analysis that wouldn’t be accepted in a first semester econ[omics] class.” Looks like a lot lot lot of people need to get to that class.
Many studies—not only from Harvard and the Kiel Institute, which Mr. Navarro blithely dismisses, but also the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, the Tax Foundation, economists Gita Gopinath and Brent Neiman, and Goldman-Sachs, among others—have examined real-world transactions and found that U.S. companies and consumers are bearing almost all the tariff burden via higher retail prices or input costs https://www.wsj.com/opinion/who-pays-for-trumps-ta...Of course that’s just the Wall Street Journal speaking. What do they know?
No. of Recommendations: 16
In case anyone is interested in the actual report,
https://doi.org/10.59576/lse.20260212The summary of their analysis is in the last table:
January-August, non-US suppliers paid 6% of amount raised by tariffs, US importers/customers paid 94%
September-October, 8% and 92%
November, 14% and 86%
The last sentence:
"In sum, U.S. firms and consumers continue to bear the bulk of the economic burden of the high tariffs imposed in 2025. "The governmental reaction is a fine example of shooting the messenger. They decided to go with the "big lie and attack" approach. A more credible spin might have been that "As we promised, the tariffs went into place rapidly, so the economy is now adjusting. Americans are paying a smaller and smaller fraction of the cost as time passes". But of course it's still a tax levied on US importers.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 1
The governmental reaction is a fine example of shooting the messenger. They decided to go with the "big lie and attack" approach. A more credible spin might have been that "As we promised, the tariffs went into place rapidly, so the economy is now adjusting. Americans are paying a smaller and smaller fraction of the cost as time passes". But of course it's still a tax levied on US importers.
Yeah, there are countless ways they could have spun it better than this, if that was the intent. The arguments and excuses in favor of tariffs are paper thin. At this point, the only real question is whether Hassett and Navarro are speaking from ignorance or from deliberate deception.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Both is an option.
No. of Recommendations: 19
At this point, the only real question is whether Hassett and Navarro are speaking from ignorance or from deliberate deception.
I suggest they are speaking in the only language they know: “You disagree with me? You’re a [ … … …]. Fill in the blank: communist, radical leftist, idiot, liberal, etc.
They don’t do logic, they do “reaction”. Thought is not a necessary component, just as it’s not a necessary part of seeing a crocodile coming at you. It’s an adrenaline rush and off you go. This is not carefully planned messaging, it’s reactive in all the worst ways. It’s symptomatic of the entire movement, fwiw.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Americans are paying a smaller and smaller fraction of the cost as time passes"
Well, their application is a level of increase in price, so once adjusted to them, while their effect is highly inflationary on an initial basis, once the relative drop in your asset value takes place, they should no longer have additional inflationary characteristics. Of course the damage has already taken place (the area under the curve has already increased) and your buying power, in the US (except in real estate, I guess), has diminished.
Jeff
