This message comes from NPR sponsor Capella University.
Interested in a quality online education?
Capella is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.
A different future is closer than you think with Capella University.
Learn more at capella.edu.
This is Fresh Air.
I'm Terry Gross.
President Trump's immigration policies, his tariffs enabling Doge to fire or lay off tens of thousands of federal workers.
We'll be right back.
The Economist's New Streaming Show.
She previously was the publication's business editor and economics editor and is a former economist for the International Monetary Fund.
We recorded our interview yesterday.
Sandy Mitten-Bettos, welcome back to Fresh Air.
Of all the financial moves Trump and his administration have been making, is there any one thing that you find most confounding or most impactful?
Well, first of all, it's very nice to join you again.
That's a hard one to answer, because what is remarkable is that, in the face of a lot of shocks some positive, many negative the economy is doing remarkably well.
And the stock market is doing remarkably well.
And I think that the sort of... simple way to explain that is that on the one hand, we have a number of policy shocks.
And I would put the president's immigration policy right at the top and his tariff policy right at the top.
And we can talk about both of those.
But also generally, the uncertainty that surrounds what President Trump does.
You know he is very pro-business on one hand but on the other hand it's very, very hard to plan and predict.
But set against that, there is a frenzy, almost a euphoria in the United States right now around artificial intelligence.
And that frenzy is driving investment and it is really what is behind the stock market.
So you have this sort of tale of two economies, if you will.
The real economy right now in the here and now, I think being hit by particularly the tariffs.
And on the other hand, this optimism. in the markets that comes around the expectations for AI.
So how much of the stock markets boom right now is a result of AI?
I think you've written that like 40%.
Yeah, a huge amount.
If you look at really the stocks that are doing extraordinarily well, it is the big tech companies.
The Magnificent Seven, as they're often called.
Meta.
Tesla, Alphabet, formerly Google, Amazon, Nvidia, Microsoft and Apple.
It is the big tech companies that are driving this frenzy, and then other companies that investors think are going to benefit from it.
If you took those out, the performance of the stock market is much more lackluster.
So for people who aren't invested in those companies, how are they doing?
Well, if they're invested in the stock market at all, they're not doing nearly as well as if they were invested in those companies.
And if they don't hold shares, and many Americans don't, then the economy is much tougher because you're seeing inflation quite a lot higher than it really should be.
Maybe not as high as we might have feared six months ago, but still pretty high.
You're seeing the labor market weakening.
Although the unemployment rate hasn't risen very much, the pace of job growth was slowing.
Of course, we don't exactly know what's going on right now, because we aren't seeing any economic figures being published because of the government shutdown.
And the tariffs aren't all in place yet.
So businesses really don't know what to do.
So we're also not seeing the effects on consumers yet because of that.
If you remember, President Trump stood in the Rose Garden with that big board on which somebody had printed countries and the new tariff rates and it was called Liberation Day.
And there were incredibly high tariff rates being proposed.
And at that point and I think you and I spoke soon after that there was a very real fear that we would go into something like the 1930s, when there was a trade war, you know globally, and the US put up its tariffs under the Smoot-Hawley Act and then other countries retaliated and the depression was made much worse by that.
Compared to that outlook, it hasn't been as bad as we feared.
In fact, I would be the first to admit that the impact of the tariffs has not been, in the short term, as dramatic as I think.
I probably suggested it would be back in April.
And the reasons are several fold.
Firstly, President Trump threatened a lot of tariffs and then backed down.
You know, there's now this acronym, the TACO.
He's the TACO president.
Trump always chickens out.
And so a lot of the tariffs have not been put in place.
Many countries, rather than retaliating against the United States with their own tariffs, have actually cut a deal with the US.
And so if you went back to April.
Economists were looking at the threats the president made and they thought that the overall average what economists call the average effective tariff rate, which means the kind of average rate for the economy overall was going to rise to something well above 20.
In fact, if you look at how much revenue is being raised from tariffs, the actual rate right now is closer to just over 10, which is still significant increase.
It's still the biggest increase since the 1930s, but it's much, much less than people feared back in March.
And then not only is that tariff level lower.
Interestingly many, many companies have not passed on the cost of that tariff to consumers.
They have swallowed the cost of the tariff. in their profit margins.
And in the long run, that's not going to be possible.
Companies will have to pass on to their customers the cost of the tariff.
But in the short run.
Probably one of the reasons they haven't done so is partly, I think, scared of being the target of the president's ire, but also because there's so much uncertainty.
People aren't sure what is going to happen with tariffs going forward.
But all this means that right now we haven't, I don't think, seen the full impact of the tariffs.
It is going to put pressure on consumers in an ongoing way.
And actually, if you look at some sectors of the economy, it's already hitting very hard.
I'm sure you've been following what's happening to American farmers.
It's really tough if you're in the farming industry now.
And so you're seeing parts of the economy that are already feeling the pain.
Well, the most consequential of the tariffs right now will probably be the tariffs with China and China's retaliation against the tariffs.
There's threats, but it's not worked out yet.
The Treasury Secretary Scott Besant is going to meet with China's number two secretary.
Later this week, President Trump is going to meet with President Xi sometime soon, they say.
So we don't even know what the result of that is.
But Trump is threatening like 100 percent tariffs on Chinese goods.
Or is it 100% in addition to what he's already proposed?
I lose track.
You're right.
It is hard to keep track.
But China is a really interesting case.
And it's to me an interesting case of a country that has stood up to President Trump and actually prevailed.
Because, if you look at what happened in April, there was a mini war of tariff threats between President Xi and President Trump.
I can't even remember what it went up to, but they threatened retaliatory tariffs and counter-threatened.
And at one point, it looked like they were both going to be well over 100%.
But then...
Ineffectively, President Trump chickened out and a deal was struck.
And I think it shows that President Xi and China realized that actually.
The US couldn't afford to put the kind of tariffs on China that it wanted to, because it just would have hurt consumers too much.
And now, if you fast forward to what's happening now, it's now China that is playing hardball with the United States.
Just a few days ago, the Chinese laid out a new set of export controls and licensing requirements on rare earths, which are these kinds of Base metals that are required and minerals that are required, particularly for computer chips and for the magnets that go into all manner of vehicles, and so forth.
And they're also very, very important for the defence industry.
China essentially controls the production of those rare earths.
And it's just announced that it's going to require essentially a complicated licensing arrangement for anybody to have any access to rare earths.
And it's really flexing its muscles and saying to the United States we can play at this game of using rare earths, our economic power, as a weapon too.
And I think what you're seeing, and the reason that there's a lot of uncertainty about the meeting now, both between the Treasury Secretary and his Chinese counterpart and the President, is that there's a big game of sort of threats and counter threats and chicken going on.
And the brutal truth is that yes, the United States has a lot of leverage over China, particularly in financial area.
But China also has a lot of leverage over the United States.
And it's really the one country that I think the US can't essentially push around through using economic weapons.
Do you think that Trump did not count on retaliation?
I think President Trump has a very strong sense of America's ability to use its military and economic power to push countries around.
And also of his own personal power.
Yes, I think he's extremely good at that.
He's extremely good at recognizing weakness in others and using the clout that he has as America's president to further what, in his view, is America's advantage.
I would not be so sure that often it is in America's advantage, but he sees it as that.
But I think China is a case where he's sort of met his match and President Xi is being as tough in return and is playing hardball.
And when President Xi's playing hardball, it becomes clear that President Trump is keen to negotiate.
But whereas with other countries he and his team have been able to bully them into deals where they have agreed to pay tariffs on their exports to the US.
Because, for example, let's take the case of the European Union.
Very close to home here for me.
The EU did a deal with the United States which essentially accepted tariffs on European goods going into the United States and made all kinds of promises about investing in the United States.
And the reason that the Europeans went along with this is that they really, really need the U.S.'
's support in NATO.
They're worried that President Trump would no longer be committed to the NATO alliance or indeed might try and push a very pro-Russia peace in Ukraine.
And so where the US has clout in this administration, it's very effectively using it.
There's a A phrase that I've heard used to describe this, which is that the US is monetizing its military and economic power.
It is essentially... And the way the Trump administration would describe it, they would say...
Look, the international system was essentially rigged against us and we are, you know, moving the goalposts more in America's direction.
We're getting a fairer deal for America.
But they make no apology about the fact that They are using America's power to push other countries to do something differently.
But I think in the case of China, it's proving hard to do because China also has power.
Something that I'm really struggling to understand is one of the things Trump is proposing is a 100 percent tariffs on brand name drugs not generics, but brand name drugs that are manufactured outside of the United States.
He has an exception for companies working to try to manufacture drugs in the U.S.
That's a kind of bad recipe for a lot of people's health care.
Yes, it is.
But I think to be fair to the administration, I think President Trump has identified something that he sees as an unfairness, which is that global drug companies sell their drugs more cheaply in other countries than they do in the United States.
The United States is the biggest market.
It's the place where the newest and best drugs come to market first.
But consumers pay more in the United States.
Whereas in somewhere like in the UK, where I'm from, where we have the National Health Service, the National Health Service drives a very hard bargain with drug companies and will only agree to buy drugs if they feel that they are not just effective but also cost effective, and so they end up forcing the drug companies to sell at a much cheaper price.
And The Trump administration has basically said this is not fair on Americans.
We're being ripped off.
But the sort of remedy that he has proposed, as you've described, of tariffs, is not one that is going to help this.
And certainly the impact of having tariffs on imported drugs plus the end of subsidies for health care is a double whammy for the US patients.
Absolutely.
It sounds to me and I don't know anything about the administration of tariffs, but it sounds to me like an administrative nightmare.
And I've been wondering is Trump going to have to reestablish part of the quote administrative state that he's been trying to destroy just to administer the tariffs?
For most of the world for the last 80 years in the post-war era, we had a system of global rules for trade which was based on something called MFN Most Favored Nation Status.
And what that meant was.
It was essentially a rule that said, when a country imposed a tariff, it had to impose the same tariff on all countries.
So you couldn't have one tariff on France and another tariff on India.
If you imposed a 5% tariff on a good coming into your country, you'd impose it on everybody.
And what the United States has done under the Trump administration essentially has completely thrown away that system and said we're not playing by those rules any longer.
We are going to have different tariffs for different countries.
And indeed we reserve the right to change those tariffs all the time, and we're going to threaten to change them.
And remember that President Trump has used tariffs not just to negotiate trade deals, but to impose punishments on countries for all kinds of things.
Tariffs were imposed on Brazil in August because President Trump didn't like the way that the current government was prosecuting former President Bolsonaro.
And he made very clear that was one of the reasons that very high tariffs were imposed on Brazil.
So if you're using tariffs to punish countries for all manner of things and you change your mind about tariffs a lot, you have, as you say, an incredibly uncertain system.
And you have an uncertain system that has different tariff rates for all manner of countries.
So, yes, it's extraordinarily complicated and confusing.
And the other thing is that the US has now recently got rid of what's called the de minimis provision.
And the de minimis provision meant that any imports of a small amount – and I think it was up to 800 – were tariff free.
And those big Chinese consumer companies like Shein, that were the ways in which people could buy very cheap clothes from China.
Very cheap.
Very cheap.
Yeah, I'm not passing judgment on whether they were a good idea or not, but they came in through this de minimis arrangement.
And now lots of small importers, kind of mom and pop stores that import goods from China and then sell them on.
They can no longer bring their goods in through that provision.
And so the impact is at the very least confusing.
But I think you're right.
It's a kind of bureaucratic nightmare.
And there are quite a lot of countries and companies that are simply no longer willing to provide career services or packaging services to the United States because it's just too complicated to do the administration of the tariffs.
Because it's Congress's power to inflict tariffs.
It's not the president's power.
But the president is using a provision of a federal law that addresses trade issues.
This is trade issues that present a threat to national security.
And this part of the federal law doesn't even mention the word tariff.
So the Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on the legality of these tariffs.
And if the Supreme Court rules...
They're not legal.
Then what?
Do we pay the countries back?
I mean, where does that leave us?
You're right.
The broad tariffs have been put into place under this emergency so-called emergency Economic powers act.
Which way the Supreme Court will rule?
And we've developed, my colleagues, a SCOTUS bot, which is an AI bot that, on the basis of the justice's previous writings and so forth, predicts what the outcome is.
And I believe our SCOTUS bot suggests that it isn't going to be struck down.
If it is struck down, there are other laws under which the administration can impose tariffs Section 301, Section 201, laws which are narrower but do give the administration the ability to impose tariffs.
And I think that...
The US trade representative and his staff have been working very hard to figure out the sort of plan B route to imposing tariffs.
So unfortunately, I think this administration is going to find a way to continue to use tariffs even if this sweeping approach ability is removed by the Supreme Court.
But yes, you're right that technically, if that is the case, then they would have to technically pay back the tariffs that have been collected under that ruling.
Do you think, if there is any hint that they're going to strike it down, that they would do it on an emergency basis?
I don't know.
I think this is such a central part of this administration's economic policy platform.
It would be a big decision for the Supreme Court to rule against the president on that.
And thus far, if you look at the behavior of the Supreme Court, it's shown itself disinclined to pick those kind of fights.
But I also think that, even if it is struck down, as I said, I think there are other ways in which the administration will use tools to continue to impose tariffs.
It's worth remembering that, you know, President Trump has been in favor of tariffs for 40 years.
He first took out ads in The New York Times in the 1980s. railing against Japan.
It was Japan in those days that was the object of his ire and saying that you had to have tariffs.
He's a tariff person.
He said, I love tariffs.
This is central to his presidency and he campaigned on it and everyone knew that's what he wanted to do.
And so I can't imagine that the administration will suddenly go oh okay, we can't use tariffs, right?
That's not going to be part of our policy any longer.
Let's take another break here.
If you're just joining us, my guest is Zannie Minton-Bettos, editor-in-chief of The Economist.
We recorded our interview yesterday.
We'll be right back.
I'm Terry Gross, and this is Fresh Air.
This message comes from Dell Technologies.
Your new Dell PC with Intel Core Ultra helps you handle a lot when your holiday to-dos get to be a lot.
Luckily, the Dell PC helps you get it all done.
Get yours at dell.com.
Support for Fresh Air comes from WHYY presenting The Pulse, a weekly podcast about health and science.
Each episode is full of great stories and big ideas, fueled by curiosity and wonder.
How do fungi communicate?
Check out The Pulse, available where you get your podcasts.
This message comes from Jackson.
Seek clarity in retirement planning at Jackson.com.
Jackson is short for Jackson Financial Inc.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company Lansing, Michigan and.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York.
Purchase New York.
Support for this podcast and the following message come from Lisa Lisa isn't just about sleep.
It's about impact.
They donate thousands of mattresses each year to those in need, while also partnering with organizations like Clean Hub to help remove harmful plastic waste from oceans.
Visit Lisa.com for 20% off mattresses, plus get an extra $50 off with promo code NPR.
That's L-E-E-S-A dot com promo code NPR.
This is Fresh Air.
Let's get back to my interview with Zannie Minton-Bettos, editor-in-chief of The Economist.
We're talking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, immigration crackdown and other policies on plans.
The impact on everything from consumers to the global economy.
We recorded our interview yesterday.
Let's talk about immigration.
So I think you've said that we don't quite appreciate how much Trump's crackdown on immigration is affecting the American economy today.
Can you elaborate on that?
Yes, of course.
We've spent a lot of time talking about tariffs, and rightly so, because tariffs have been a big part of the discussion of the last six months.
But one of the striking things that I think much less remarked on is just how dramatic the shift in the numbers of people coming into the US has been.
Now we all know that President Trump proudly says that he has stopped the flood of people coming across the southern border, and he has.
But the consequences that...
The US has gone from a country that had, under President Biden, net immigration of some two and a half million people a year to this year having the estimates are, you know very, very low.
Hundreds of thousands, or even some forecasts I've seen have suggested that that this year the US could see a net outflow of people, ie more people leaving the US than coming into the US.
And that would be the first time since the Depression that the U.S. would have a net outflow.
And, on the one hand, that is exactly what the president said he was going to do.
You know, stop people coming in.
But that's a very big shock to the labor market.
And to understand the impact of that, I think it's worth separating two things.
The stop of low skilled people, the people broadly coming across the southern border and the much more unfriendly attitude towards housing higher skilled people.
And, if you remember, just a few weeks ago, the administration suddenly announced that H-1B visas, which are the high skilled visas, would now henceforth, companies would have to pay 100000 to get one of these visas.
So if we split those two up Low-skilled immigrants coming across the border you can argue about whether it was a good or bad thing, and I'm not going into that here.
But what is certainly true is that there are a large number of industries in the US, particularly agriculture and construction, where foreign workers particularly and many of them that in the US illegally were a huge part of the workforce.
I mean the estimates suggest it's, I think you know, as high as 50 in agriculture and 25 in construction.
You know, that's a big hit.
If suddenly, The sort of pipeline of those workers is cut off.
And because of the aggressive actions of ICE, of the Immigration and Enforcement Agency, you are seeing a lot of people very worried and very worried about going to work in those communities.
So it's hitting poorer Americans.
The other impact on the top end of the labor market, I think is a much more medium to long term impact.
But there are in certain areas take AI, for instance many many, many of the top researchers in AI are In the United States, are foreign born.
Elon Musk, for heaven's sake.
Yes.
In fact, four of the CEOs of the magnificent seven that we were talking about, four of them are foreign born.
And so if the US genuinely becomes a place that is less hospitable to foreign born folk, then I think it has a very big medium and long-term cost to the United States because, by and large, these people are some of the most productive and most skilled.
And they are the people who have come to the US, because the strength of the US has been that this is a place which attracts the best and the brightest from around the world, has the biggest and deepest capital markets, and so is a magnet for smart people, good ideas, and they get them funded there, and that's the engine of US growth.
And if you suddenly...
Develop a reputation for being a place that doesn't really like foreigners and doesn't want high-skilled foreigners.
I think it will really hurt the US's ability to maintain its position as one of the most innovative and successful economies.
There's a study that suggests that something like between 30 and 50 of America's productivity gains between 1990 and 2010 were thanks to skilled immigrants.
It's an extraordinarily high share.
Can I ask you a question, though?
What is the logic behind President Trump placing a 100000 fee for visas on high-skilled workers coming to the US?
I think if you asked a member of the administration it would be.
These H-1B visas have for too long been a way for companies to get cheap skilled workers from abroad, whereas in fact they can and should give those jobs to Americans.
And by raising the price of H-1Bs, you know we're encouraging companies only to apply for those if there is a really high skilled person that they need from abroad.
At some level there is an economic logic that says you should create a market and pay a price for these visas.
But I don't actually think that's really what's motivating this.
I think that there are a number of people in the administration who who are just migration restrictionists and who just don't want foreigners.
And it's for that reason that I think it's a dangerous direction to go in.
And for us in Europe, this is a tremendous opportunity.
I'm not at all sure that European governments will grab it, but Europe has a huge number of highly skilled, particularly in areas like AI.
And many of these people have been going for years now to the United States because that's where a lot of the opportunities were.
Well, if the United States doesn't want high skilled foreigners any longer, then they are coming back to Europe.
Which is a huge influx of talent potentially for Europe.
What about like hospitals and doctors?
I know from personal experience with family doctors and emergency room visits and all of that, that so many doctors and nurses are foreign born.
And if we cut off that flow, if we make it more difficult for hospitals and other medical practices to have foreign medical workers come to the US, We're hurting the healthcare system.
We're hurting people who need doctors and nurses.
I mean, there already seems to be a shortage.
I think that's absolutely right.
And I think that is true in the medical area.
It's true in the high-tech area.
It's true in lots of areas.
Oh, and I should also mention caregivers.
So many caregivers are foreign-born.
And the United States has always been, or at least for most of the past hundred years, has been, a country that has been a magnet for migration.
Now, what is certainly true is that under the Biden administration in particular, there was an absolute surge of migration, illegal migration across the southern border.
And it's also true that that caused real political disquiet I think frankly in both parties.
I understand that and I understand that people felt that there was a sort of loss of control of the border, and What the Trump administration is doing is in reaction to that.
And the reason it is actually quite popular is because people felt the border was out of control.
So I absolutely understand why a country needs to be able to secure its borders.
But we are now, it looks like, going from a world of extremely high levels of migration to what looks to be zero or possibly negative.
And my worry is if that is sustained for any number of years, particularly in high skilled migration, but frankly, also in in less skilled migration, because you need farm workers, you need construction workers, you need.
The US needs people for its economy to grow.
I think it will really hurt the US economy.
Okay, I got to reintroduce you again.
We have to take a break.
If you're just joining us, my guest is Zannie Minton-Bettos, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist.
We'll be right back.
This is Fresh Air.
This message comes from Carvana.
The Carvana value tracker shows you your car's worth.
Check it anytime, track changes, and sell when the timing feels right.
Use Carvana value tracker to track your car's value today.
This message comes from NetSuite.
What does the future hold for business?
Can someone invent a crystal ball?
Until then, over 42000 businesses have future proved their business with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one cloud ERP, bringing accounting, financial management, inventory and HR into one platform.
With real-time insights and forecasting, you're able to peer into the future and seize new opportunities.
Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning for free at netsuite.com.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates.
Potential savings will vary.
Not available in all states.
This is Fresh Air.
Let's get back to my interview with Zannie Minton-Bettos, editor-in-chief of The Economist.
We're talking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, immigration crackdown and other policies and plans on everything from consumers to the global economy.
We recorded our interview yesterday.
Let's get back to AI.
The frenzy around AI is driving up the stock market.
But what impact do you think AI is going to have on the Well, let's stand back.
Artificial intelligence is, I think, going to prove to be the biggest transformational technology since the Industrial Revolution.
I do think this is a sort of epochal change over the next few years in the way our economies are run and in the capacity that artificial intelligence brings and the potential disruption.
So I think this is a big, big deal.
I don't think it's a question of the next year or two.
It'll be probably decades until we see the full effects.
What we're seeing in the stock market is a kind of collective realization by investors that this could indeed be a big, big thing.
And then a massive frenzy, a sort of gold rush, if you will, of piling into the companies that investors think are going to be the winner.
So take Nvidia, for example. which is the chip company.
Its share price has absolutely gone through the roof because it is essentially part of this gold rush.
But the impact on the broader economy depends on the timeframe you're looking at.
What I think it will do will improve the productivity of the economy.
It'll make us as a society much more productive.
There'll be lots of ways in which our lives will be transformed for the better.
But it is going to be very disruptive.
And I think, as there have been in previous bouts of technological innovation, there are definitely going to be losers from this.
And I guess what worries me a bit, particularly given the political environment we're in right now, is that we don't have the political capacity to deal with the consequences of that kind of disruption on ordinary workers.
Because if you look back Terry, at the whole era of the sort of 90s and 2000s, after NAFTA and after those trade deals and jobs moved, jobs were displaced thanks to trade.
You know that was really the origin of a lot of the polarization and anger in many parts of the United States.
And if you imagine that the impact on jobs from AI could be even bigger than that and faster than that, you can imagine that it's going to be politically very, very difficult to deal with.
So that's the worrying scenario.
On the other hand, it could also be technology that really allows the US economy to grow much faster and to have a kind of prosperity that it hasn't had for a long time, or indeed ever.
We're at the very beginning stages of this.
And what the stock market is doing is essentially encapsulating all of the hopes around the technology.
But at the same time, as you point out, it could have all kinds of impacts for real people in the real economy which are much more negative.
So there's a debate going on about whether the stock market gains are a bubble, whether the valuation of AI-related stocks are a bubble.
If it is a bubble, and the bubble bursts and the stock market crashes, would it be different than previous crashes?
Yes.
The word bubble is one that is bounded around a lot, and certainly I use too, but we have to be a little careful what we mean by bubble.
Clearly these are very richly priced stocks and it's pretty clear that, Even if the AI delivers in the most optimistic way possible, not every company is going to do as well as its current stock market price assumes it will do in terms of future revenues.
So there will be some losers and there'll be companies that don't fulfill the expectations that are currently priced into their stock prices.
However, does that mean it is a dangerous and pernicious bubble?
In 2007 and 2008, we had a housing bubble.
And the bursting of that housing bubble caused the global financial crisis.
And the reason that was so catastrophic and painful was because essentially it was...
The ripple effects to banks and the financial system from the collapse of that asset price, the housing prices.
This time around, it's much less connected to the banking system.
And the financial consequences, they're not going to be zero.
There's definitely going to be a hit to those people who are invested in the stock market, who will lose a lot of money.
And there will be some knock-on consequences to the financial institutions that have lent to these companies or lent to companies that are investing in data centers and so forth.
But I think it is likely to be less sort of financially corrosive.
Is Trump still interested in investing money from the Federal Reserve in crypto?
Is that still a thing?
I don't actually know.
But what is very clear that this is an administration that is extremely pro crypto.
I'm not as convinced as those in the Trump administration are that this is a sensible direction to really go in.
But what's very clear is that crypto is going mainstream for good or ill.
And this is a bit of a gold rush.
It's one that the president and his family are personally benefiting from to an extraordinary degree.
It's more broadly an administration that has legislatively now underwritten, you know, we want America to be a place where cryptocurrencies blossom and where the whole crypto universe blossoms.
And actually this is something that leads and I will say this very quickly but this is an administration that, from financial services to energy, to all manner of areas, is trying to cut regulation and make it easier for business to do things.
I think that's an important thing to remember, because CEOs in the United States are very upbeat right now.
And they're certainly not saying anything publicly against the president, perhaps because they're worried.
But they are also seeing an administration that is trying to make it easier to invest in the United States and is trying to make it easier for businesses to do well.
So I do think it's kind of important that we don't focus only on one side of the ledger.
It's not that the Trump administration is only doing things that are hurting the economy.
It is also trying to do things that encourage investment, that encourage businesses to invest in financial services.
They're definitely pushing back against regulation.
And that may or may not be a good idea.
But broadly I think most people agree that there was too much and too onerous regulation in the Biden administration and having a bit less of it would be a good thing.
But also just one thing in terms of encouraging business, not the alternative energy world.
Those companies are not being encouraged by the Trump administration.
Absolutely.
You're absolutely right.
If you stand back a bit.
What is really striking is is how willing this administration is to pick winners and to say you know, this is a good company, this is a bad company.
You know, essentially the government taking a stake in Intel.
These are kind of remarkable things for, you know, notionally Republican administration to be doing.
It's essentially intervening in business in a very, very sort of heavy handed and overt way, you know, calling out CEOs when they're not doing well what the president wants, punishing those who have an agenda that he doesn't like.
Look, I'm still a free marketeer.
I'm still a good English liberal who believes in a limited state and is skeptical of untrammeled power and authority.
But I'm really struck that you know the US now always seems to be sort of normalized this kind of behavior by the government.
And it's, to me, very un-American.
My guest is Zannie Minton-Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist.
We'll be right back.
This is Fresh Air.
This message comes from KeyBank.
Growing a successful business has never been easy, but whether you're navigating a complex industry or trying to reinvent one, KeyBank's breadth of banking experts are here to collaborate on market proven solutions at KeyBank.
They're built to grow with your changing needs, because they're not just there for the business you are now.
They're there for the business you'll become.
Reimagine business as usual.
KeyBank opens doors.
Learn more at key.com slash b2b.
Support for this podcast and the following message come from Midi Health.
Women's midlife health issues have often been trivialized and ignored.
It's time for a change.
It's time for Midi.
Midi is covered by major insurance companies, making expert care accessible and affordable.
Clinicians provide one-on-one consultations, where they listen to your unique needs and offer data-driven solutions tailored for you.
Midi works to make you feel seen, heard, and prioritized.
Visit joinmidi.com to book your virtual visit.
Midi, the care women deserve.
This is Fresh Air.
Let's get back to my interview with Zannie Minton-Bettos, editor-in-chief of The Economist.
We're talking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, immigration crackdown and other policies and plans on everything from consumers to the global economy.
We recorded our interview yesterday.
So after slashing so many federal positions and, you know, Trump is cutting back on spending.
Meanwhile, Trump wants to bail out Argentina to the tune of $20 billion.
And that's only if the current president, Javier Millet, gets reelected in the October 26th election, because Millet is an ally of Trump's.
Treasury Secretary Scott Besant is advocating for raising the American contribution of 20 billion to as high as 40 billion.
What does this bailout mean?
I'm unclear about whether we'd be giving them the billions, loaning them the billions or investing the billions in the Argentine peso.
The US is essentially trying to provide enough financial muscle to shore up confidence in Argentina and in President Belay.
I actually think that what President Belay has done in Argentina is pretty impressive.
And it's been a pretty remarkable turnaround in a country that has, you know, for decades failed to get to grips with its fiscal problem.
Basically, there's an election coming up.
There's a lot of fear that he will lose in that parliamentary election and thus be unable to continue his reform program.
And so the investors are nervous about Argentina.
And what the US Treasury has essentially done is to try and sort of provide, with its US dollar lifeline the confidence that prevents a run on the peso.
Now, the peso needs to float the currency.
And it's not sort of in principle crazy that the US should provide a sort of underpinning of support.
It's exactly what the International Monetary Fund was set up to do for countries.
What's interesting is that this is done with such a sort of clear political condition.
As I think President Trump said pretty explicitly, we're going to pull the plug if he doesn't win.
So it's one country rather than the International Monetary Fund has for decades supported Argentina.
The US is now coming in with its own sort of bilateral support plan, but very clearly, as you say, for a political ally.
It's an odd thing for the US to do, given that just earlier this year it's pulled back from all manner of USAID and foreign assistance of all sorts.
So it's showing that the United States, under the Trump administration, is indeed willing to support countries if they are countries where it particularly likes the leadership.
Looking at the larger picture in the US right now and in the economy, not knowing what the future brings.
What do you see as the best and worst case scenarios when you try to look ahead?
Is that a manageable question?
Let me give you the best case.
The best case is that the damage from the tariffs is limited, is such that they don't go full restrictionist, but they do continue to make America be a place that welcomes particularly the highly skilled.
And that the AI revolution is both...
An elixir for the economy, but not so sudden that it causes extraordinary disruptions in the job market.
If all of those things go well, then the United States, I think, will remain the most dynamic economy in the world and it will be able to essentially absorb the some these shocks, if they're not too big.
And I've you know, I've learned in gosh almost 30 years about writing about the US economy that you bet against it at your peril.
And there are far more times that I have written pieces saying the US is heading for a terrible period and been wrong than the converse.
So I'm generally... an optimist about the US.
So my upbeat case would be this is a huge country full of very incredibly hardworking, smart people, a magnet for talent from around the world.
It's clearly ahead in AI.
It has all of the ingredients for being an extremely prosperous country that can also deal with its very real challenges, and one we've hardly talked about.
But the budget deficit and the debt problem are all dealable with if you have economic growth and rational policymakers.
Now, I'm not sure how much faith I put in that, but that's my upbeat scenario.
The negative one, you know, depends how dark you want me to get.
You know, I think, that if you have continued protectionism, high tariffs, continued immigration restrictions, a growing overvaluation in the stock market, which is ever more reliant on a frenzy in a few big tech companies, an administration that wants to punish its critics, that wants to use the tools of economic policy to punish its critics, whether it is to push around the Fed or whether it is to go after companies that it doesn't like, then you are systematically, I think, undermining the pillars that have made the American economy strong, And you know things could unravel quite quickly.
And things like the US right now, because it has the dollar, the world's reserve currency, because it's the biggest, strongest economy in the world.
I think there is a kind of presumption often in the US that it must always be this way.
And that's not necessarily the case.
Foreigners could take fright.
They could leave dollar assets.
The dollar could tumble further.
Interest rates could rise.
The US could suddenly become much less productive and a much tougher place and a much worse place for ordinary American workers who've already had many of whom have already had quite a tough time.
So you can paint a pretty grim picture if you put your mind to it.
Well, it sounds like you didn't have to work that hard to paint that grim picture.
I don't think that has to happen.
I'm not only by nature an optimist.
I do think the resilience of the U.S. economy is remarkable.
I also think that, in the end, this administration will not want to preside over the destruction of the American economy.
And so in areas where it sees that happening, it will actually reverse course.
Well, Zannie Minson-Bettos, thank you so much for returning to our show.
I really appreciate it.
You're very welcome.
It was great to chat with you, as always.
Zannie Minton-Bettos is the editor-in-chief of The Economist.
She's also the host of The Insider, The Economist's new streaming show.
Tomorrow on Fresh Air.
Filmmaker Guillermo del Toro joins us to talk about his new reimagining of Frankenstein.
It gets to themes he's been obsessed with—a man who wants to be a god, men who behave like monsters, father-son relationships religion, empathy and cruelty—.
His other films include Pan's Labyrinth and The Shape of Water.
I hope you'll join us.
To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air.
Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller.
Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham.
Our managing producer is Sam Brigger.
Thank you.
Roberta Shorrock directs the show.
Our co-host is Tanya Mosley.
I'm Terry Gross.
This message comes from BetterHelp.
As a dad.
BetterHelp president Fernando Madeira, relates to needing flexibility when it comes to scheduling therapy.
I have kids under 18, so, like, time is very limited.
That's why, at BetterHelp, our therapists try to have sessions, sometimes at night, depending on the therapist, or during the weekend.
I think that's what we need to tell the parents.
You're not alone.
We can help you out.
If a flexible schedule would help you visit BetterHelpcom.
Slash NPR for 10 off your first month of online therapy.
Support for this podcast and the following message come from Lisa.
Lisa has a lineup of beautifully crafted mattresses tailored to how you sleep.
Each mattress is meticulously designed and assembled in the USA and designed with specific sleep positions and feel preferences in mind.
Visit Lisa.com for 20% off plus get an extra $50 off with promo code NPR.
That's L-E-E-S-A dot com promo code NPR.
