Latest news with #PlanA
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Reserve's Nevin Freeman lays out ‘Plan A and B' for the monetary system at Monetarium 2025
Reserve's Nevin Freeman lays out 'Plan A and B' for the monetary system at Monetarium 2025 originally appeared on TheStreet. In an interview with TheStreet Roundtable, Nevin Freeman said Monetarium is the second annual gathering organized by Confusion Capital and the Reserve ecosystem. Freeman explained that Monetarium isn't limited to Reserve enthusiasts or asset-backed currency advocates. 'It's really for anybody who wants to have a deep conversation about the nature of monetary systems and who's willing to think about what is going to happen to the fiat system, what's going to happen to the US dollar,' he said. The conference is scheduled for June 18 to June 21 and will take place in Washington D.C. Addressing the first half of the framing question, Freeman outlined 'Plan A.' He said, 'How do we preserve the current system, how do we pay down the debt and preserve the state of the US dollar? Because as long as it works, it's a functional system.' Panels will dig into why Congress has struggled to balance the budget and control national debt — and whether politically difficult reforms can avert debt monetization. On the flip side, Freeman described 'Plan B' for attendees who conclude the current model won't hold. 'If we don't manage to do that, we have not as a society cracked that nut yet,' he said. Under Plan B, the conference will explore alternative monetary designs. 'Obviously there'll be some focus on asset-backed currency as one option, but we also have invited some other groups who have different ideas to compare and contrast.' Freeman highlighted expert sessions on historical precedents. Last year's agenda examined the gold standard's rise and fall; this year's will also probe the inner workings of the Federal Reserve. Attendees will learn why past reserve currencies failed and what those lessons mean for today's debt challenges. A final strand will trace the evolution of exchange-traded funds and consider how those market structures can inform decentralized token funds. Freeman summed up his excitement plainly: 'I'm super excited.' Reserve's Nevin Freeman lays out 'Plan A and B' for the monetary system at Monetarium 2025 first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 16, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 16, 2025, where it first appeared. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Gulf Today
16-06-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Neither the PM nor the chancellor is a natural storyteller
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves admitted mistakes had been made during the government's difficult first year when she addressed a private meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) after announcing her spending review. Her audience knew what she meant: her catastrophic decision on the pensioners' winter fuel allowance. Reeves was more honest in private than she is in public. Even after their spectacular U-turn, she and Keir Starmer insist last July's decision was right at the time. In her defence, the chancellor said Labour had been out of power for 14 years and in office for one — an admission, perhaps, that ministers must learn on the job. She won a good reception at the PLP for her £113bn boost to investment projects and her framing of her review, first made in The Independent, as "Labour's choices". But Reeves' plea for Labour MPs to "get out and sell" the spending programme in their constituencies landed badly with some in her audience. On Westminster's summer party circuit, they grumbled about a lack of salesmanship from both Reeves and Keir Starmer. These critics have a point. Neither the prime minister nor the chancellor is a natural storyteller. They sometimes look like technocratic automatons as they prioritise the "stability" they offered after Conservative chaos over their election-winning pitch of "change". Although the social democrat Reeves is more ideological than the arch-pragmatist Starmer, many Labour backbenchers complain she has become a prisoner of "Treasury orthodoxy". The double act of PM and chancellor works better when they complement each other. Tony Blair was a good communicator and Gordon Brown the brains behind New Labour's strategy and domestic policy. The relationship between David Cameron and George Osborne was similar, and without the corrosive personal tensions between Blair and Brown. Crucially, Blair and Cameron had a story to tell. Today, even some Starmer allies admit privately he has yet to articulate a coherent narrative about his and his government's purpose. However, ministers and Labour backbenchers sense the spending review marks the overdue start of such a process. They detect an important shift — from a technocratic approach towards Labour's traditional goal of social justice: the winter fuel U-turn, an extension of free school meals and a £39bn boost for affordable housing. The biggest symbol of this change of tack will be measures to combat child poverty in the autumn, likely to include lifting the two-child benefit cap. That would be a break with the opinion poll-driven approach of Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff. Although the cap is supported by the public, sometimes politicians have to lead public opinion rather than merely follow it. Aides insist Starmer's pragmatism is an asset that gives him the flexibility to try different approaches if Plan A doesn't work and to correct mistakes. But the absence of an ideological anchor can be a liability. To see off the real threat from Nigel Farage, Labour will need more than attacks on Reform UK; it will require a positive vision based on Labour values to woo centre-left voters. A crusade against child poverty will unite the Labour Party, while welfare cuts divide it. Soft-left ministers have a spring in their step: "Things are moving in the right direction," one told me. Indeed, the spending review was not dictated by "Treasury orthodoxy" and the short-termism which often results in cutting investment projects to balance the books. Reeves addressed at least some of the long-term challenges facing the country. Labour's poor results in last month's local elections in England encouraged the rethink. They proved that caution isn't working. What is needed now is not old Labour but bold Labour. That will require more boldness and honesty on taxation. It's an open secret that, barring an economic miracle, Reeves will have to raise taxes in her autumn Budget. Significantly, she is not ruling it out, reverting to the formula Labour used before last year's election: there's nothing here (in the manifestospending review) requiring higher taxes. It's the politicians' old, disingenuous friend of "no plans" used before Reeves raised taxes by £40bn in her first Budget. Starmer and Reeves should prepare the ground now by making the case for higher taxes to deliver better public services and the higher defence spending needed in the dangerous new world of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. If they don't, the vacuum will be filled by months of damaging headlines predicting which taxes Reeves will raise - many of which will turn out to be wrong. If Starmer and Reeves don't make the case, a right-dominated press will blame the inevitable tax rises on Labour economic mismanagement. There is another story to tell. Although the public tend to prioritise avoiding tax increases over investing in public services, Labour can win the argument by exposing the fantasy economics of Reform and Tory plans to cut taxes and raise spending. Brown won such an argument when he raised national insurance to fund the NHS in 2002. Reeves' fiscal rules can provide the "stability" and tax rises the "change." Labour must deliver both. Ministers need to start the debate on tax and spending that the country should have had before last year's election. Now.
Axios
03-06-2025
- Business
- Axios
What to know about tariffs: Key deadlines and rules
A series of milestone events in coming days will determine the course of the trade war. Why it matters: That in turn will decide the fate of not only the U.S. economy, but the world's. This is what you need to know about the days ahead. What are the major tariff deadlines? What to watch: There are key legal and diplomatic deadlines in coming weeks. June 4: The U.S. expects best and final offers from trade partners, reports say. June 5: The plaintiffs in the case that led to tariffs being struck down by the Court of International Trade have to file their papers with a federal appellate court, explaining why they oppose a motion to stay the trade court's ruling. June 9: The government has to file a reply to those papers, after which time the appellate court could rule on issuing a stay or not. End of June: President Trump has flagged the end of this month as possible timing for new tariffs that would affect cell phone makers like Apple and Samsung. July 8: For most nations, this is the end of the 90-day pause on the sweeping global reciprocal tariffs that Trump imposed in early April, and then froze a week later. July 9: The end of that pause for the European Union. July 14: The EU will impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods "if negotiations are not satisfactory," the bloc's top official said. August 12: The end of a 90-day pause on retaliatory tariffs against China. August 31: The end of an extension on long-standing exclusions for certain products from China tariffs. What tariffs are in place now? Zoom out: For now, all of the tariffs Trump previously imposed are still in effect, including a 10% global baseline tariff and additional levies on certain countries and sectors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the Court of International Trade's ruling throwing out the tariffs Trump imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. That ruling did not affect tariffs previously imposed on sectors like steel and aluminum, which were implemented under a different authority. Can Trump impose tariffs in other ways? Zoom in: If the trade court's ruling striking down the IEEPA tariffs ends up standing, the administration has a variety of other levers it can pull to impose tariffs, though some are more time-consuming than what Trump has done thus far. Section 232 tariffs are sectoral levies imposed in the interests of national security; they require studies first to determine impacts. Section 301 tariffs are designed to respond to the unfair practices of foreign governments that put burdens on U.S. commerce. These also require an assessment process. Section 338 tariffs date to 1930s-era trade law and give the president wide latitude to impose levies on other countries, with fewer restrictions or preliminary requirements. What they're saying: " We're very, very confident that Plan A is all we're ever going to need," National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett told ABC last weekend, referring to the IEEPA tariffs. But failing that, he said administration officials have been working on alternatives since 2017.
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Kevin Hassett 'very, very confident' courts will back Trump's tariffs amid legal setback
White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett says he remains "very, very confident" that courts will support President Donald Trump's tariff agenda. Hassett made the statement during a Sunday morning appearance on ABC's "This Week," telling host George Stephanopoulos that the White House still expects "Plan A" to work out. "And so we're very thrilled. We are very confident that the judges would uphold this law. And so I think that that's Plan A, and we're very, very confident that Plan A is all we're ever going to need," Hassett said. "But if, for some reason, some judge were to say that it's not a national emergency when more Americans die from fentanyl than have ever died in all American wars combined, that's not an emergency that the president has authority over – if that ludicrous statement is made by a judge somewhere, then we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again," he added. Twelve States Sue Trump Over Tariffs, Claiming They're 'Illegal' And Harmful To Us Economy Hassett's appearance comes after a federal court struck down Trump's tariffs in a ruling last week, only for an appeals court to issue a temporary stay protecting the tariffs during litigation. Read On The Fox News App The appeals court ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), thus allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The CIT had ruled unanimously to block the tariffs the day before. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet. Fox News' Breanne Deppisch contributed to this reportOriginal article source: Kevin Hassett 'very, very confident' courts will back Trump's tariffs amid legal setback
01-06-2025
- Business
Hassett says he's 'very confident' that courts will uphold Trump's tariffs
White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Sunday that the administration is confident it will be able to continue its tariff agenda despite recent legal setbacks. 'And so we're very thrilled. We are very confident that the judges would uphold this law. And so I think that that's Plan A, and we're very, very confident that Plan A is all we're ever going to need,' Hassett told 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos.' An appeals court reinstated President Donald Trump's tariffs this week after a Wednesday court order blocked them. The appeals court decision stands for the time being. The original injunction of Trump's tariffs came after the court decided that the administration's evocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the right to set 'unlimited' tariffs. The White House argued that the court order could harm its progress in negotiations.
