Connect with us

Economics

If Trump wants to kill inflation, the first thing he needs to do is get more homes built

Published

on

Homes under construction in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey on Nov. 19th, 2024.

Adam Jeffery | CNBC

If President-elect Donald Trump is going to push inflation back down to a more tolerable level, he will need help from housing costs, an area where federal policymakers have only a limited amount of influence.

The November consumer price index report contained mixed news on the shelter front, which accounts for one-third of the closely followed inflation index.

On one hand, the category posted its smallest full-year increase since February 2022. Moreover, two key rent-related components within the measure saw their smallest monthly gains in more than three years.

But on the other hand, the annual rise was still 4.7%, a level that, excluding the Covid era, was last seen in mid-1991 when CPI inflation was running around 5%. Housing contributed about 40% of the monthly increase in the price gauge, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than food costs.

With the CPI annual rate now nudging up to 2.7% — 3.3% when excluding food and energy — it’s not clear that inflation is consistently and convincingly headed back to the Federal Reserve’s 2% goal, at least not until housing inflation eases even more.

“It would be expected that over time, we would start to see year-over-year slower growth in rents,” said Lisa Sturtevant, chief economist at Bright MLS, a Maryland-based listing service that covers six states and Washington, D.C. “It just feels like it’s taking a long time, though.”

Still rising but not as fast

Indeed, housing inflation has been on a slow, uneven trek lower since peaking in March 2023. Much like the overall CPI, shelter components continue to rise, though at a slower pace.

The housing issue has been caused by ongoing cycle of supply outstripping demand, a condition that began in the early days of Covid and which has yet to be resolved. Housing supply in November was about 17% below its level five years ago, according to Realtor.com.

Rents have been a particular focus for policymakers, and the news there also has been mixed.

The average national rent in October stood at $2,009 a month, down slightly from September but still 3.3% higher than a year ago, according to real estate market site Zillow. Rents over the past four years are up some 30% nationally.

Looking at housing, costs also continue to climb, a condition exacerbated by high interest rates that the Federal Reserve is trying to lower.

Until mortgage rates come down we won't see prices come down, says Howard Hughes Corp CEO

Though the central bank has cut its benchmark borrowing rate by three-quarters of a percentage point since September, and is expected to knock off another quarter point next week, the typical 30-year mortgage rate actually has climbed about as much as the Fed has cut during the same time frame.

All of the converging factors post a potential threat to Trump, whose policies otherwise, such as tax breaks and tariffs, are projected by some economists to add to the inflation quandary.

“We know that some of the president-elect’s proposed initiatives are quite inflationary, so I think the prospects for continued progress towards 2% are less sure than they might have been six months ago,” Sturtevant said. “I don’t feel like I’ve been compelled by anything in particular that suggests that targeting the supply issue is something that the federal government can meaningfully do, certainly not in the short term.”

Optimism for now

During the presidential campaign, Trump made deregulation a cornerstone of his economic platform, and that could spill into the housing market by opening up federal land for construction and generally lowering barriers for homebuilders. Trump also has been a strong proponent for lower interest rates, though monetary policy is largely out of his purview.

The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

The mood on Wall Street was generally upbeat about the housing picture.

“Rents may finally be normalizing to levels consistent with 2% inflation,” Bank of America economist Stephen Juneau said in a note. The November housing data “will be viewed as encouraging at the Fed,” wrote economist Krushna Guha, head of central bank strategy at Evercore ISI.

Still, shelter expenses “continue to be the number one source for higher prices, and that the rate of increase has slowed is no comfort,” said Robert Frick, corporate economist at Navy Federal Credit Union.

That could cause trouble for Trump, who faces a potential Catch-22 that will make easing the housing burden difficult to solve.

“We’re not going to drop rates until shelter costs come down. But shelter can’t come down until rates are lower,” Sturtevant said. “We know that there are some wild cards out there that we might not have been talking about two or three months ago.”

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Economics

Can Progressives learn to make progress again?

Published

on

In the political wilderness, Democrats are asking themselves how they lost their way

Continue Reading

Trending