Connect with us

Economics

Efforts to tackle student protests in America have backfired badly

Published

on

PART OF THE reason Elisha “Lishi” Baker wanted to go to Columbia University, an Ivy League university in New York, was its Middle Eastern History programme. He loved his first year and says he “felt great as a Jewish student at Columbia”. But since the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7th, the atmosphere on campus has changed. Within days there were protests. He heard students calling for an intifada. He kept being told “you’re interpreting it wrong,” but this week there was no misinterpreting, he says, the undercurrent of antisemitism on campus.

University presidents are struggling with policing free speech on campus: specifically, how to deal with pro-Palestinian protests. After seeing timid responses by the heads of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania lead to those presidents being forced to step down a few months ago, leaders are now trying a tougher approach. They are in danger of over-correcting.

The trigger for the latest troubles was the clearing by police of tents and protesters at Columbia on April 18th, and the arrest of more than a hundred students. This was an “alarming decision”, wrote Jameel Jaffer, from the university’s semi-independent free-speech centre, adding that “it was not evident to us how the encampment and protest posed such a danger” as to justify the escalation. According to the NYPD, the arrested protesters were peaceful and offered no resistance. “It was so scary,” says Layla Saliba, who saw the arrests. “All these cops just swarming everywhere and we had people in like full riot gear.” Within days another encampment sprang up on a nearby lawn.

In a letter posted on Columbia’s website Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s president, wrote that she asked the NYPD to intervene after other efforts failed, adding that she did so “out of an abundance of concern for the safety of Columbia’s campus”. The move only inflamed matters. “The irony is that in trying to quiet things down and assert control over the encampment, the administration unleashed this firestorm,” says David Pozen, a law professor at the university.

That firestorm has now spread, with tent encampments popping up far beyond Columbia. The demands by student protesters are largely the same: divest endowments of Israeli firms and any weapons manufacturers that sell there; end academic partnerships with Israeli institutions; and condemn Israel’s actions in the war.

As at Columbia, administrators elsewhere are overcoming their reluctance to call the cops. On April 22nd nearly 50 protesters were charged with trespassing for their participation in a week-long occupation of a plaza at Yale (protesters returned the next day). At New York University police broke up a copycat encampment. Yet not all sit-ins have proved so fraught. In February a camp that had stood for four months at Stanford disbanded peacefully after administrators met students and promised more transparency on investments.

Long before the debacle at Columbia, instances of disruptive behaviour had put administrators on edge. In February pro-Palestinian activists at UC Berkeley shattered a glass door leading to a lecture by an Israeli speaker. Weeks later others interrupted an event at the home of Erwin Chemerinsky, a free-speech scholar and dean of the law school.

Last year Columbia suspended two pressure groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, for organising unauthorised demonstrations. The New York Civil Liberties Union has sued over the move. Equally controversial was the University of Southern California’s decision to cancel the graduation speech of its pro-Palestinian valedictorian, who is Muslim; the school cited safety threats. USC has since cancelled all guest speakers at commencement.

Presiding over an American university was once a plum job; now it is a minefield. On April 17th Dr Shafik was the latest one to be grilled by the House Education Committee about antisemitism on campus. Unlike the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, who fumbled their appearances in December, Dr Shafik survived—for now. When she and colleagues were asked the question that both Claudine Gay, at Harvard, and Elizabeth Magill, at Pennsylvania, had struggled with—whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their university’s code of conduct—they answered simply “yes, it does.”

Critics say she did not do enough to stand up for free speech. In his letter from Columbia’s First Amendment Institute, Mr Jaffer expressed dismay. The university’s rules, he wrote, guarantee broad protection “even for speech that is objectionable or offensive to some listeners”. In her own public letter, Dr Shafik says in her defence that “we cannot have one group dictate terms and attempt to disrupt important milestones like graduation to advance their point of view.”

Dr Shafik is not out of the woods. This week she faced threats from donors to withdraw their funding and calls to resign by several politicians. On April 22nd all of New York’s Republican House members signed a letter by Elise Stefanik, a high-ranking Republican, calling for her resignation. Politicians supposedly concerned about the climate on campuses have made administrators’ jobs even more complex.

At Columbia, campus life is now disrupted for the majority of students not taking part in protests. Classes have moved online. Many professors have “walked out” in solidarity. Helicopters circle above and police in riot gear stand ready nearby. The bull-horns from protesters outside the gates are loud enough to hear across campus: students studying for MCATS, an exam for medical school, cannot find a quiet spot to take practice tests.

Continue Reading

Economics

Reeves’ plans contending with the bond market

Published

on

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – MARCH 26, 2025: Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves leaves 11 Downing Street ahead of the announcement of the Spring Statement in the House of Commons in London, United Kingdom on March 26, 2025. (Photo credit should read Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

Wiktor Szymanowicz | Future Publishing | Getty Images

Britain’s government is planning to ramp up public spending — but market watchers warn the proposals risk sending jitters through the bond market further inflating the country’s $143 billion-a-year interest payments.

U.K. Finance Minister Rachel Reeves on Wednesday announced the government would inject billions of pounds into defense, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas of the economy, in the coming years. A day later, however, official data showed the U.K. economy shrank by a greater-than-expected 0.3% in April.

Funding public spending in the absence of a growing economy, leaves the government with two options: raise money through taxation, or take on more debt.

One way it can borrow is to issue bonds, known as gilts in the U.K., into the public market. By purchasing gilts, investors are essentially lending money to the government, with the yield on the bond representing the return the investor can expect to receive.

Gilt yields and prices move in opposite directions — so rising prices move yields lower, and vice versa. This year, gilt yields have seen volatile moves, with investors sensitive to geopolitical and macroeconomic instability.

The U.K. government’s long-term borrowing costs spiked to multi-decade highs in January, and the yield on 20- and 30-year gilts continues to hover firmly above 5%.

Official estimates show the government is expected to spend more than £105 billion ($142.9 billion) paying interest on its national debt in the 2025 fiscal year — £9.4 billion higher than at the the time of the Autumn budget last year — and £111 billion in annual interest in 2026.

The government did not say on Wednesday how its newly unveiled spending hikes will be funded, and did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment about where the money will come from. However, in her Autumn Budget last year, Reeves outlined plans to hike both taxes and borrowing. Following the budget, the finance minister pledged not to raise taxes again during the current Labour government’s term in office, saying that the government “won’t have to do a budget like this ever again.”

Andrew Goodwin, chief U.K. economist at Oxford Economics, said Britain’s government may be forced to go even further with its spending plans, with NATO poised to hike its defense spending target for member states to 5% of GDP, and once a U-turn on winter fuel payments for the elderly and other possible welfare reforms are factored in.

Additionally, Goodwin said, the U.K.’s Office for Budget Responsibility is likely to make “unfavorable revisions” to its economic forecasts in July, which would lead to lower tax receipts and higher borrowing.

“If recent movements in financial market pricing hold, debt servicing costs will be around £2.5bn ($3.4 billion) higher than they were at the time of the Spring Statement,” Goodwin warned in a note on Wednesday.

‘Very fragile situation’

Mel Stride, who serves as the shadow Chancellor in the U.K.’s opposition government, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday that the Spending Review raised questions about whether “a huge amount of borrowing” will be involved in funding the government’s fiscal strategies.

“[Government] borrowing is having consequences in terms of higher inflation in the U.K. … and therefore interest rates [are] higher for longer,” he said. “It’s adding to the debt mountain, the servicing costs upon which are running at 100 billion [pounds] a year, that’s twice what we spend on defense.”

“I’m afraid the overall economy is in a very weak position to withstand the kind of spending and borrowing that this government is announcing,” Stride added.

UK is in a 'very fragile situation,' Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride says

Stride argued that Reeves will “almost certainly” have to raise taxes again in her next budget announcement due in the autumn.

“We’ve ended up in a very fragile situation, particularly when you’ve got the tariffs around the world,” he said.

Rufaro Chiriseri, head of fixed income for the British Isles at RBC Wealth Management, told CNBC that rising borrowing costs were putting Reeves’ “already small fiscal headroom at risk.”

“This reduced headroom could create a snowball effect, as investors could potentially become nervous to hold UK debt, which could lead to a further selloff until fiscal stability is restored,” he said.

Iain Barnes, Chief Investment Officer at Netwealth, also told CNBC on Thursday that the U.K. was in “a state of fiscal fragility, so room for manoeuvre is limited.”

“The market knows that if growth disappoints, then this year’s Budget may have to deliver higher taxes and increased borrowing to fund spending plans,” Barnes said.

However, April LaRusse, head of investment specialists at Insight Investment, argued there were ways for debt servicing burdens to be kept under control.

The U.K.’s Debt Management Office, which issues gilts, has scope to reshape issuance patters — the maturity and type of gilts issued — to help the government get its borrowing costs under control, she said.

“With the average yield on the 1-10 year gilts at c4% and the yield on the 15 year + gilts at 5.2% yield, there is scope to make the debt financing costs more affordable,” she explained.

However, LaRusse noted that debt interest payments for the U.K. government were estimated to reach the equivalent of around 3.5% of GDP this fiscal year, and that overspending could worsen the burden.

“This increase is driven not only by higher interest rates, which gradually translate into higher coupon payments, but also by elevated levels of government spending, compounding the fiscal burden,” she said.

Continue Reading

Economics

Here are the three reasons why tariffs have yet to drive inflation higher

Published

on

Shoppers browse the frozen food cases at WinCo.

Joe Jaszewski | Idaho Statesman | Tribune News Service | Getty Images

Despite widespread fears to the contrary, President Donald Trump‘s tariffs have yet to show up in any of the traditional data points measuring inflation.

In fact, separate readings this week on consumer and producer prices were downright benign, as indexes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that prices rose just 0.1% in May.

The inflation scare is over, then, right?

To the contrary, the months ahead are still expected to show price increases driven by Trump’s desire to ensure the U.S. gets a fair shake with its global trading partners. So far, though, the duties have not driven prices higher, save for a few areas that are particularly sensitive to higher import costs.

At least three factors have conspired so far to keep inflation in check: companies hoarding imported goods ahead of the April 2 tariff announcement, the time it takes for the charges to make their way into the real economy, and the lack of pricing power companies face as consumers tighten belts.

“We believe the limited impact from tariffs in May is a reflection of pre-tariff stockpiling, as well as a lagged pass-through of tariffs into import prices,” Aichi Amemiya, senior economist at Nomura, said in a note. “We maintain our view that the impact of tariffs will likely materialize in the coming months.”

Wholesale price measure rose just 0.1% in May, below forecast

This week’s data showed isolated evidence of tariff pressures.

Canned fruits and vegetables, which are often imported, saw prices rise 1.9% for the month. Roasted coffee was up 1.2% and tobacco increased 0.8%. Durable goods, or long-lasting items such as major appliances (up 4.3%) and computers and related items (1.1%), also saw increases.

“This gain in appliance prices mirrors what happened during the 2018-20 round of import taxes, when the cost of imported washing machines surged,” Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, said in his daily market note.

One of the biggest tests, though, on whether the price increases will prove durable, as many economists fear, or as temporary, the prism through which they’re typically viewed, could largely depend on consumers, who drive nearly 70% of all economic activity.

The Federal Reserve’s periodic report on economic activity issued earlier this month indicated a likelihood of price increases ahead, while noting that some companies were hesitant to pass through higher costs.

“We have been of the position for a long time that tariffs would not be inflationary and they were more likely to cause economic weakness and ultimately deflation,” said Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust. “There’s a lot of consumer weakness.”

Indeed, that’s largely what happened during the damaging Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930, which many economists believe helped trigger the Great Depression.

Tilley said he sees signs that consumers already are cutting back on vacations and recreation, a possible indication that companies may not have as much pricing power as they did when inflation started to surge in 2021.

Fed officials, though, remain on the sidelines as they wait over the summer to see how tariffs do impact prices. Markets largely expect the Fed to wait until September to resume lowering interest rates, even though inflation is waning and the employment picture is showing signs of cracks.

“This time around, if inflation proves to be transitory, then the Federal Reserve may cut its policy rate later this year,” Brusuelas said. “But if consumers push their own inflation expectations higher because of short-term dislocations in the price of food at home or other goods, then it’s going to be some time before the Fed cuts rates.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Economics

Does America now have a woke right?

Published

on

THE HORSESHOE theory of politics—the idea that the far-left and far-right resemble each other—has performed admirably well in the Trump era. It gained fresh vindication in a recent squabble among intellectuals of the new right, as some accuse others of being part of the “woke right”, the mirror image of their hated opponents on the left.

Continue Reading

Trending