Connect with us

Economics

An alternative theory to explain America’s murder spike in 2020

Published

on

You might call it a new golden age. America’s economy is strong, overdose deaths are falling and crime rates are down. For the second consecutive year murders in America have plummeted. The surge in violence in 2020, which was the deadliest year in over two decades, may now seem like a distant memory to some. Yet for criminologists and policymakers the question of what caused that spike in the first place remains unanswered.

A popular theory, advanced prominently by Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute, a think-tank, is that it was caused by a “George Floyd effect”. The theory is as follows: after the murder of Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis in 2020, police lost trust in high-crime communities and among African-Americans, leading to lower clearance rates for murders. When people think they will not get caught, they commit more crime. Another version of the Floyd effect thesis holds that police officers, beset by rising public hostility, deliberately pulled back from high-crime neighbourhoods, for fear of being prosecuted for doing their jobs. Either way, protests against police brutality lead directly to more murders, a bitter unintended consequence for the protesters and, perhaps, evidence of the kind of soft liberalism from big-city Democrats that Donald Trump was elected to expunge.

A recent report from the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, advances an alternative theory. Rohit Acharya and Rhett Morris, the report’s authors, argue that the rise in murders began in April 2020, about six weeks before the murder of Mr Floyd. They contend that high unemployment and school closures in poor neighbourhoods, both brought about by covid-19 and the policy response to it, left teenage boys idle. This, not the Floyd effect, was responsible for the murder spike. This would suggest an awful trade-off: those early lockdowns saved many lives, but they also may have resulted in more murders.

Chart: The Economist

Using weekly national homicide data, Messrs Acharya and Morris show that throughout the summer of 2020 murders rose 30% compared with the summer of 2019. Crucially, they do not find an inflection point around the end of May, when Mr Floyd was killed. Across the six weeks preceding his death national weekly murders increased by around 17 murders per week, a rate 70% greater than the same period in 2019. And during the six weeks following his death, murders rose at a similar rate.

What, then, caused this increase? The authors theorise that the economic circumstances of the pandemic are to blame. Criminologists concur that, in general, poverty correlates with crime rates. In Atlanta, 65% of all homicides occur in neighbourhoods where at least 30% of the population lives below the poverty line. Nearly every big American city displays this trend. Poorer neighbourhoods were also disproportionately affected by the pandemic: job losses and high-school dropout rates were far higher. Cities with a greater share of young men living in these conditions saw larger increases in homicides in 2020.

Juveniles typically commit few murders. Though roughly half of murders go unsolved and not all jurisdictions report the age of the murderer, the available data suggest that fewer than 10% of homicides are committed by those under the age of 18. Yet between 2019 and 2020 juveniles accounted for an estimated 15-20% of the overall surge. That seems consistent with the idea that closed schools and idle teenage boys are a big part of the story.

Criminologists tend to be wary of single explanations. “It’s very difficult to come up with a definitive conclusion about what happened in 2020, because so many things changed at the same time”, says Aaron Chalfin, a criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved with the Brookings report. He notes that, in the past, unemployment rates have not correlated with murder rates, although that does not necessarily mean no such relationship arose during the pandemic. And teasing out the interactions between variables is trickier still. Were school closures in poorer neighbourhoods responsible for juveniles committing more murders, or was it school closures plus fewer police officers patrolling the streets?

The research, says Neil Gross, a professor of criminology at Colby College (who was also not involved in the study), suggests that the nature of social ties in poor areas matters. Crime is often lower where “people know their neighbours and can look out on the street for errant teenagers and contact their parents”, says Mr Gross. That suggests yet another potential suspect: such neighbourhood watchers were locked down at home. 

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

Big inflation report coming. What to expect

Published

on

A person browses a grocery store following the announcement of tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods by U.S. President Donald Trump, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on March 4, 2025.

Arlyn Mcadorey | Reuters

With concerns running high that President Donald Trump’s tariff policies will aggravate inflation, a report Wednesday could deliver some mildly encouraging news.

The consumer price index for February is forecast to show an increase of 0.3% for a broad array of goods and services across the largest economy in the world. That projection holds both for the all-items measure and the core index that excludes volatile food and energy prices.

On an annual basis, that would put headline inflation at 2.9% and the core reading at 3.2%, both 0.1 percentage point lower than in January.

The good news is those rates represent a continuation of a steady but quite slow drawdown in the inflation rate over the past year. The bad news is that both also are still well above the Federal Reserve’s 2% goal, likely keeping the central bank on hold again when it meets next week.

“We expect broad-based deceleration, with weaker core goods and services,” Morgan Stanley economist Diego Anzoategui said in a note. “Why still elevated? For three reasons: (1) we expect used car prices rise because of past wildfires, (2) according to our analysis, certain goods and services show residual seasonality in February, and (3) we think supply constraints keep airfares inflation elevated in February.”

The big question now is where things head from here.

Trump’s tariff moves have stirred market worries of both rising inflation and slower economic growth. With Fed officials historically more attuned to the inflation side of the dual mandate for price stability and full employment, a prolonged period of high prices could put the Fed on the sidelines for longer.

However, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues have indicated that in their view, tariffs historically have been one-off price increases and not fundamental inflation drivers. If that’s also the case this time, policymakers might look through any price blips from trade policy and continue to lower rates, as markets are projecting this year.

Goldman Sachs economists expect the Fed to stay on hold until policy comes into clearer view, then likely lower the central bank’s benchmark lending rate by a half percentage point later this year.

“We see further disinflation in the pipeline from rebalancing in the auto, housing rental, and labor markets, though we expect offsets from catch-up inflation in healthcare and a boost from an escalation in tariff policy,” the firm said in a note.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the CPI report at 8:30 a.m. ET.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Economics

Young Americans are getting happier

Published

on

Depression and anxiety seem to have peaked a couple of years ago

Continue Reading

Economics

How Trump’s trade policy is putting pressure on U.S. farmers

Published

on

Soy farmer Caleb Ragland on his farm in Magnolia, Kentucky

Courtesy: American Soybean Association

Caleb Ragland, a soybean farmer in Magnolia, Ky., voted for President Donald Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Now, however, he has to navigate a tariff minefield at a time when the sector is already facing major headwinds.

Ragland works with his wife and three sons and has deep roots in the community. His family has been farming on the land for more than two centuries. But over the past few years, he has seen a double-digit percentage decline in crop prices while production costs rise. Soybean futures have gone down more than 40% over the past three years along with corn futures.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Soybean futures vs. corn futures since 2022

As pressures mount in the industry as a result of tariffs imposed by the second Trump administration — as well as retaliatory levies from other countries — he’s worried about the longevity of his business.

“My sons potentially could be the 10th generation if they’re able to farm,” Ragland, who is also the president of the American Soybean Association, told CNBC. “And when you have policies that are completely out of our control – that they manipulate our prices 20%, 30%, and on the flip side, our costs go up – we won’t be able to stay in business.”

This isn’t the first time farmers have had to deal with new tariffs. Back in Trump’s first term, the trade war with China in 2018 — a time when Ragland said the agricultural economy was “in a much better place than it is right now” — cost the U.S. agriculture industry more than $27 billion, and soybeans made up virtually 71% of annualized losses.

That trade war has caused lasting damage. To this day, the U.S. has yet to fully recover its loss in market share of soybean exports to China, the world’s number one buyer of the commodity, according to the ASA.

“Tariffs break trust,” Ragland said. “It’s a lot harder to find new customers than it is to retain ones that you already have.”

‘Insult to injury’

The White House last week imposed a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico alongside an additional 10% duty on Chinese imports.

While Trump soon reversed course by granting a one-month tariff delay for automakers Wednesday, then pausing tariffs a day later for some Canadian and Mexican goods until April 2, he said in an interview that aired Sunday on Fox News that tariffs “could go up” over time.

Tariffs on China were not included in these exemptions. China retaliated with levies of its own, which mainly target U.S. agricultural goods. Specifically, U.S. soybeans are now subject to an additional 10% tariff, while corn gets hit with an extra 15% charge.

“We’re already at the point that we’re unprofitable,” Ragland said. “Why on earth are we trying to add insult to injury for the ag sector by basically adding a tax?”

Ragland pointed out that he “appreciates the president’s ability to negotiate” and wants Trump to be successful for the sake of the country. However, he emphasized that those in the industry, especially soybean producers, don’t have any “elasticity in our ability to weather a trade war that takes away from our bottom line.”

“Folks are upset,” Ragland said about sentiment from other farmers, stressing that they all need relief through deals that reduce barriers to trade and a new five-year comprehensive farm bill – legislation that provides producers with key commodity support programs, among others. “You’re talking about people’s livelihoods,” he remarked.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said last week that the Trump administration was reportedly weighing exemptions on some agricultural products from tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trump’s adjusted measures Thursday included a reduced 10% tariff on potash, which is used for fertilizer.

More than 80% of American farmers’ potash needs are supplied by Canada, said Ken Seitz of Nutrien – a crop inputs and services provider based in Canada – during the BMO Global Metals, Mining & Critical Minerals Conference last month.

“As we look at the implications of tariffs for Nutrien, of course the biggest discussion is around potash, and that’s because in a market that’s kind of 10 million to 11 million tons in any given year, we ourselves supply about 40% of that market,” the company’s chief executive underscored during the conference. “We believe that the cost of tariffs will be passed on to the U.S. farmer.”

Weighing the outcomes

Even in the runup to the implementation of Trump’s tariffs, American farmers were sounding the alarm. Despite the latest Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer reading showing that farmer sentiment overall improved in February, 44% of survey respondents disclosed that month that trade policy will be most important to their farms in the next five years.

“Usually when you ask a policy question, by far and away the most important policy is crop insurance,” Michael Langemeier, agricultural economist at Purdue University, said. “Crop insurance is right up there with apple pie and baseball. It’s a program that’s very well liked, because it provides a very effective safety net.”

“The fact that crop insurance was a distant second to trade policy speaks volumes,” he also said.

The February survey also showed that almost 50% of farmers said that they think a trade war leading to a significant decrease in U.S. agricultural exports is “likely” or “very likely.” Langemeier estimated that between mid-February and early March, there was a 33% per acre drop in net return for soybeans and corn related to the tariffs. That’s on top of the fact that 2025 was “not ending up to be an extremely profitable year before this,” he revealed.

The economist thinks there may be a bit of a downward adjustment in overall farmer sentiment in the near term. Nevertheless, a constructive consequence of the tariffs could be that they speed up the signing of a new farm bill, he said.

“Well, how in the world can you come up with the amounts for the trade payments if you don’t even know what the amounts for the farm bill are going to be,” Langemeier asserted. He expects that the new farm bill signing will take place at some point this year.

Looking to the upcoming spring season, Bank of America analyst Steve Byrne wrote in a Feb. 25 note that tariffs could lead to “more conservative purchases of crop inputs.” That would mean a risk of lower fertilizer purchases, which could affect not only Nutrien but others like Mosaic and CF Industries, the analyst noted.

Shares of those companies, as well as other farming-related stocks like AGCO and Deere, all sold off on March 3 and March 4 on the heels of Trump’s tariff announcement.

“I think we’ve seen the ag stock sell-off just because of general concerns that the farmer is going to not be as profitable this year,” Morningstar’s Seth Goldstein said in an interview with CNBC.

Over the past month, Mosaic has slid almost 8%, while CF Industries has fallen more than 8%. Nutrien has also lost more than 1%. AGCO and Deere have fared better in that time, gaining around 2% and about 1%, respectively.

When it comes to how this trade war will affect American farmers in the long term, Goldstein doesn’t see that meaningful of an impact. He anticipates that global trade flows will shift and cancel each other out over the next two to three years or so.

“While there may be a near-term impact this year of soybeans sitting in warehouses without really available buyers, I think eventually we would see other countries then start to buy more U.S. soybeans,” the equity strategist said. “Maybe China buys more soybeans from Brazil, but maybe a place like Europe then buys more soybeans from the U.S., and we get … not that much difference.”

As it stands, Brazil is forecast to be the world’s largest soybean producer ahead of the U.S. for the 2024/2025 marketing year, accounting for 40% of global production in the period, per the Department of Agriculture. For corn, on the other hand, the U.S. is forecast to be in the top spot, making up 31% of global production in the marketing year.

Others on Wall Street believe that tariffs will be more consequential on trade dynamics, however.

Kristen Owen, an analyst at Oppenheimer, predicts that the duties will likely solidify Brazil becoming the primary global producer for both corn and soy, whereas the U.S. will become a sort of incremental supplier to the world.

“Brazil specifically has more capacity to grow their acreage, more capacity to grow to increase their share of the global grain trade,” she said to CNBC. “Tariffs and some of the other decisions that the administration is making just accelerate some of that.”

Continue Reading

Trending