Connect with us

Economics

The campus is coming for Joe Biden

Published

on

Aconnoisseur of radical chic can find plenty to catalogue these days while observing pro-Palestine protests on Ivy League campuses: the black or red keffiyehs, the conga drums, the folk songs, the kitschy signs (“Dykes 4 Divestment”) and the showy Arabic pronunciations of “Gaza”, so reminiscent of the Spanish-ish inflection given to “Nicaragua” by pro-Sandinista activists back in the 1980s.

And then there are the dainty intersectional gestures of the protesters: “We recognise our role as visitors and, for many of us, colonisers, on this land,” reads the third of nine “community guidelines” scrawled on a whiteboard in the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment”, the bivouac of domed tents on Columbia University’s south lawn. Not only was the land once inhabited by native Americans, but Columbia was guilty of “complicity in the displacement of the Black and Brown Harlem community”.

But such emblems of political taste are superficial. They might mislead the observer about the anger of many protesters, about how deeply it is felt and how deeply it is dividing universities, pitting some Arab-American students and their allies against some Jewish students and theirs. At elite institutions, years of uneven application of speech codes, of unequal attention to those offended by speech, have left students, alumni, faculty and even presidents seeming uncertain what the rules are and how to enforce them. This has doomed them to fighting about how to fight about what they are fighting about. At Columbia, a decision by the president, Minouche Shafik, to get New York City police to break up a previous encampment on April 18th, arresting more than 100 students, has touched off a faculty revolt.

On April 22nd faculty gathered on the granite steps of Low Memorial Library, the main administrative building, to demand an apology and amnesty for the students. One speaker, Christopher Brown, a professor of history, accused Dr Shafik of endangering the students and of failing to defend Columbia’s excellence in testimony to a House committee the day before the police raid. “She has forfeited the privilege to lead this great university,” Professor Brown declared, to raucous cheers and a chant of “Resign!” from hundreds of students. The university says it is negotiating with students over the new encampment, even as workers set up chairs nearby for next month’s commencement.

All this outrage is closing in on another institution, the Democratic Party, and its leader, President Joe Biden. The touchstone for the Columbia protesters is the struggle on that campus for racial justice and against the Vietnam war of April 1968, which culminated in a police crackdown and more than 700 arrests. For Democrats nationally, 1968 is also becoming a touchstone, an ominous one. The campus protests that year found a focus in the Democratic National Convention in August in Chicago, where the party plans to convene in the same month this year.

In 1968 pro- and anti-war delegates shouted and bickered over Vietnam. In the end the Democrats voted down an anti-war plank and nominated Hubert Humphrey, a Minnesota liberal who, as Lyndon Johnson’s vice-president, was tarred as pro-war. A national television audience watched in horror as Chicago police attacked protesters outside the delegates’ hotel with tear gas and clubs. More than 650 protesters were arrested and scores were hurt, as were many police officers.

Any chaos in Chicago would be bad for Mr Biden, who is running, as in 2020, as the candidate of normalcy. But the drama will almost certainly not be as intense as in 1968. Pro-Palestine groups want to rewrite the party’s plank on Israel, yet such fights no longer play out on convention floors. Mr Biden’s aides will control the platform, as they will the script of the convention, now just a particularly dull TV show. As in 1968, Chicago is being stingy with permits to protest, but the police superintendent, Larry Snelling, has said the department is preparing to respond to “large-scale First Amendment activity” with “constitutional policing”. Many of the superficial parallels to 1968 will probably prove to be just that.

Still, “There is a parallel that’s unavoidable,” says Bill Ayers, who as a leader of Students for a Democratic Society was beaten and arrested in Chicago in 1968. “And that is that Hubert Humphrey, the great liberal from the Midwest, tried way too late to extract himself from being a cheerleader for Vietnam.” Dogged by anti-war protesters, Humphrey struggled to unite Democrats and ultimately lost narrowly to Richard Nixon. “Irony of history,” Dr Ayers says. “How could Richard Nixon be elected as a peace candidate? Here’s a great anti-communist warmongering prick.” Though as president Nixon would intensify the war, he claimed as a candidate to have a “secret plan” to end it. Donald Trump has said he would end the Ukraine war in a day and, referring to the war in Gaza, has told Israel to “get it over with”.

They’re more like guidelines, anyway

Maybe Mr Biden will succeed in brokering a ceasefire in Gaza, and the anger will dissipate. Maybe the protesters chanting today against “Genocide Joe” will nevertheless show up to vote for him. Dr Ayers, who went on to help found the militant Weather Underground and spent years as a fugitive, pulled the lever for Humphrey. “I always vote for the lesser of two evils,” he says, “because they’re less evil.” He argues that voting is a practical rather than moral act, words other activists might take to heart.

The more thoughtful of Columbia’s activists, by the way, may also have something to teach everyone else, on campus and off. “We commit to assuming best intentions, granting ourselves and others grace when mistakes are made,” reads the eighth community guideline in the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, “and approaching conflict with the goal of addressing and repairing.”

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