Connect with us

Business

Even the author of ‘Trumponomics’ admits ‘tariffs are taxes—and taxes are bad’

Published

on



Stephen Moore helped build the economic case for Donald Trump. Now, he’s tearing a piece of it down. In an interview with Fortune, the former presidential economic advisor and the economist who literally wrote the book on Trumponomics said Trump’s tariffs have hurt GDP and pushed prices higher: “Tariffs are taxes—and taxes are bad.”

Moore, a Heritage Foundation economist, explained the import taxes have directly increased costs for U.S. businesses and consumers by “clobbering” medium-sized manufacturers. He said he noticed an article in the Wall Street Journal that the single fastest growth in commodity prices right now is coffee.

“Well, guess what? We put a 50% tariff on coffee,” Moore said. “So, yeah, the coffee price went up.” 

Independent data suggests tariffs are already pressuring prices and manufacturing. In a May 2025 New York Fed survey, many exposed firms reported passing tariff costs to customers, and about a third of manufacturers said they fully passed on those costs. Meanwhile, the Yale Budget Lab found new tariffs have led to a 2.3% increase in the overall U.S. price level and a $3,800 loss in purchasing power per household (in 2024 dollars). On the factory front, September’s ISM Manufacturing PMI came in at 49.1, marking a seventh straight month of contraction, and some manufacturers are now attaching 20% surcharges to offset tariff-induced input price increases.

At the same time, however, many of the recession predictions economists made earlier this year have not yet come to pass. When Trump imposed sweeping new tariffs in April, mainstream economic forecasts warned of disaster: Goldman Sachs put the odds of a recession at 45% while Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote “a recession seems likely” following “the biggest trade shock in history” (referring to the stock market rout following Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement). Some analysts went as far as to warn of stagflation and supply-chain collapse. But nine months into the trade war, the U.S. economy—while uneven—has not fallen into the kind of crisis many expected.

“The prophets of doom were, once again, completely wrong,” Moore said. “The Biden economists who said Trump would destroy the economy have all been contradicted by real world events.” 

However, Moore credits this to other parts of the Trump agenda—energy expansion, deregulation, and tax cuts—calling them “net positive” and arguing they outweighed the drag from tariffs. When pressed on whether tariffs were worth the economic hit, Moore answered simply: “No.”

He framed his break on trade as a targeted economic correction, not a political departure.

 “I’m a big fan of Donald Trump,” he said, while still labeling tariffs a costly mistake.

Moore’s new concern: Trump is naming prices—and moving markets

Tariffs weren’t the only red flag Moore raised. Asked about Trump’s increasingly direct interventions in pricing, Moore hesitated, then acknowledged concern.

Trump declared Thursday that he will reduce the cost of Ozempic from $1,300 to $150, triggering a selloff in Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly stocks during Friday trading. Earlier that day, he also claimed he “worked [his] magic” to make a deal to bring down beef prices.

Does that kind of intervention worry Moore, a famously libertarian economist?

“A little bit, yeah,” he said. “That’s not the way markets are supposed to work.”

The direct price interventions are part of what some critics have warned is a broader shift in Trump’s economic approach, which seems to have less characteristics of free-market capitalism and more of a system of state intervention that resembles “state capitalism.”

As Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip noted, Trump is extending political control into the private sector in ways that go beyond crisis-era bailouts or targeted industrial policy. Trump has repeatedly singled out CEOs, pressured companies over business decisions, and used federal power to influence industries, from steel and autos to tech and media. 

His administration has also demanded equity stakes, “golden shares,” and revenue kickbacks from private firms in exchange for market access or approvals, raising concerns among critics about political favoritism and government intrusion into corporate strategy. 

Moore made clear that price declarations are not part of traditional conservative economic philosophy. He emphasized that predictable policy—not ad hoc deals—is what gives businesses confidence to invest.

“The best policy is always to have a system that benefits everyone,” he said. “It shouldn’t pick winners and losers.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Australia will start banning kids from social media this week

Published

on



Starting this Wednesday, many Australian teens will find it near impossible to access social media. That’s because, as of Dec. 10, social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram must bar those under the age of 16, or face significant fines. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the pending ban “one of the biggest social and cultural changes our nation has faced” in a statement.

Much is riding on this ban—and not just in Australia. Other countries in the region are watching Canberra’s ban closely. Malaysia, for example, said that it also plans to bar under-16s from accessing social media platforms starting next year. 

Other countries are considering less drastic ways to control teenagers’ social media use. On Nov. 30, Singapore said it would ban the use of smartphones on secondary school campuses. 

Yet, governments in Australia and Malaysia argue a full social media ban is necessary to protect youth from online harms such as cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and financial scams.

Tech companies have had varied responses to the social media ban. 

Some, like Meta, have been compliant, starting to remove Australian under-16s from Instagram, Threads and Facebook from Dec. 4, a week before the national ban kicks in. The social media giant reaffirmed their commitment to adhere to Australian law, but called for app stores to instead be held accountable for age verification.

“The government should require app stores to verify age and obtain parental approval whenever teens under 16 download apps, eliminating the need for teens to verify their age multiple times across different apps,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Others, like YouTube, sought to be excluded from the ban, with parent company Google even threatening to sue the Australian federal government in July 2025—to no avail.

However, experts told Fortune that these bans may, in fact, be harmful, denying young people the place to develop their own identities and the space to learn healthy digital habits.

“A healthy part of the development process and grappling with the human condition is the process of finding oneself. Consuming cultural material, connecting with others, and finding your community and identity is part of that human experience,” says Andrew Yee, an assistant professor at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.

Social media “allows young people to derive information, gain affirmation and build community,” says Sun Sun Lim, a professor in communications and technology at the Singapore Management University (SMU), who also calls bans “a very rough tool.”

Yee, from NTU, also points out that young people can turn to platforms like YouTube to learn about hobbies that may not be available in their local communities. 

Forcing kids to go “cold turkey” off social media could also make for a difficult transition to the digital world once they are of age, argues Chew Han Ei, a senior research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in the National University of Singapore (NUS).

“The sensible way is to slowly scaffold [social media use], since it’s not that healthy social media usage can be cultivated immediately,” Chew says.

Enforcement

Australia plans to enforce its social media ban by imposing a fine of 49.5 million Australian dollars (US$32.9 million) on social media companies which fail to take steps to ban those under 16 from having accounts on their platforms.

Malaysia has yet to explain how it might enforce its own social media ban, but communications minister Fahmi Fadzil suggested that social media platforms could verify users through government-issued documents like passports. 

Though young people may soon figure out how to maintain their access to social media. “Youths are savvy, and I am sure they will find ways to circumvent these,” says Yee of NTU. He also adds that young may migrate to platforms that aren’t traditionally defined as social media, such as gaming sites like Roblox. Other social media platforms, like YouTube, also don’t require accounts, thus limiting the efficacy of these bans, he adds.

Forcing social media platforms to collect huge amounts of personal data and government-issued identity documents could also lead to data privacy issues. “It’s very intimate personally identifiable information that’s being collected to verify age—from passports to digital IDs,” Chew, from NUS, says. “Somewhere along the line, a breach will happen.”

Moving towards healthy social media use

Ironically, some experts argue that a ban may absolve social media platforms of responsibility towards their younger users. 

“Social media bans impose an unfair burden on parents to closely supervise their children’s media use,” says Lim of SMU. “As for the tech platform, they can reduce child safety safeguards that make their platforms safer, since now the assumption is that young people are banned from them, and should not have been venturing [onto them] and opening themselves up to risks.”

And rather than allow digital harms to proliferate, social media platforms should be held responsible for ensuring they “contribute to intentional and purposeful use”, argues Yee.

This could mean regulating companies’ use of user interface features like auto-play and infinite scroll, or ensuring algorithmic recommendations are not pushing harmful content to users.

“Platforms profit—lucratively, if I may add—from people’s use, so they have a responsibility to ensure that the product is safe and beneficial for its users,” Yee explains. 

Finally, conversations on safe social media use should center the voices of young people, Yee adds.

“I think we need to come to a consensus as to what a safe and rights-respecting online space is,” he says. “This must include young people’s voices, as policy design should be done in consultation with the people the policy is affecting.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jimmy Kimmel signs ABC extension through 2027

Published

on



Kimmel’s previous, multiyear contract had been set to expire next May, so the extension will keep him on the air until at least May 2027.

Kimmel’s future looked questionable in September, when ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for remarks made following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Following a public outcry, ABC lifted the suspension, and Kimmel returned to the air with much stronger ratings than he had before.

He continued his relentless joking at the president’s expense, leading Trump to urge the network to “get the bum off the air” in a social media post last month. The post followed Kimmel’s nearly 10-minute monologue on Trump and the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Kimmel was even on Trump’s mind Sunday as the president hosted the Kennedy Center Honors in Washington.

“I’ve watched some of the people that host,” Trump said. “I’ve watched some of the people that host. Jimmy Kimmel was horrible, and some of these people, if I can’t beat out Jimmy Kimmel in terms of talent, then I don’t think I should be president.”

Kimmel has hosted the Oscars four times, but he’s never hosted the Kennedy Center show.

Just last week, Kimmel was needling Trump on the president’s approval ratings. “There are gas stations on Yelp with higher approval ratings than Trump right now,” he said.

Kimmel will be staying longer than late-night colleague Stephen Colbert at CBS. The network announced this summer it was ending Colbert’s show next May for economic reasons, even though it is the top-rated network show in late-night television.

ABC has aired Kimmel’s late-night show since 2003, during a time of upheaval in the industry. Like much of broadcast television, late-night ratings are down. Viewers increasingly turn to watching monologues online the day after they appear.

Most of Kimmel’s recent renewals have been multiyear extensions. There was no immediate word on whose choice it was to extend his current contract by one year.

Bill Carter, author of “The Late Shift” and veteran chronicler of late-night TV, cautioned against reading too much into the length of the extension. Kimmel, at age 58, knows he’s getting close to the end of the line, Carter said, but when he leaves, he doesn’t want it to appear under pressure from Trump or anyone.

“He wants to make sure that it’s on his terms,” Carter said.

Kimmel has become one of the leading voices resisting Trump. “I think it’s important for him and for ABC that they are standing up for him,” Carter said.

Following Kirk’s killing, Kimmel was criticized for saying that “the MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” The Nexstar and Sinclair television ownership groups said it would take Kimmel off the air, leading to ABC’s suspension.

When he returned to the air, Kimmel did not apologize for his remarks, but he said he did not intend to blame any specific group for Kirk’s assassination. He said “it was never my intention to make the light of the murder of a young man.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump says he’ll allow Nvidia to sell advanced chips to ‘approved customers’ in China

Published

on



President Donald Trump said Monday that he would allow Nvidia to sell an advanced type of computer chip used in the development of artificial intelligence to “approved customers” in China.

There have been concerns about allowing advanced computer chips to be sold to China as it could help the country better compete against the U.S. in building out AI capabilities, but there has also been a desire to develop the AI ecosystem with American companies such as chipmaker Nvidia.

The chip, known as the H200, is not Nvidia’s most advanced product. Those chips, called Blackwell and the upcoming Rubin, were not part of what Trump approved.

Trump said on social media that he had informed China’s leader Xi Jinping about his decision and “President Xi responded positively!”

“This policy will support American Jobs, strengthen U.S. Manufacturing, and benefit American Taxpayers,” Trump said in his post.

Nvidia said in a statement that it applauded Trump’s decision, saying the choice would support domestic manufacturing and that by allowing the Commerce Department to vet commercial customers it would “strike a thoughtful balance” on economic and national security priorities.

Trump said the Commerce Department was “finalizing the details” for other chipmakers such as AMD and Intel to sell their technologies abroad.

The approval of the licenses to sell Nvidia H200 chips reflects the increasing power and close relationship that the company’s founder and CEO, Jensen Huang, enjoys with the president. But there have been concerns that China will find ways to use the chips to develop its own AI products in ways that could pose national security risks for the U.S., a primary concern of the Biden administration that sought to limit exports.

Nvidia has a market cap of $4.5 trillion and Trump’s announcement appeared to drive the stock slightly higher in after hours trading.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.