A couple of weeks ago, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced his finding that China was manipulating its currency to keep it unfairly low, and further announced that he would be taking the issue up with the International Monetary Fund. I offered some of my own views on this announcement when it happened. But what's interesting here is not what I think, or even what Mnuchin thinks, but what the IMF thinks.
Jurisdictions around the world have been implementing taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.
The United States, like most big countries, has an ambivalent view of big business. When big firms are making high profits, we are concerned that they are out-of-control and exploitative. If big firms are performing poorly, with losses and layoffs, we argue over how or whether to rescue them. (Remember the auto company bailouts in 2009?) Might it be possible to strike a more lasting balance?
One of those things that "everyone knows" is that continued technological progress is vital to the continued success of the US economy, not just in terms of GDP growth (although that matters) but also for major social issues like providing quality health care and education in a cost-effective manner, addressing environmental dangers including climate change, and in other ways. Another thing that "everyone knows" is that research and development spending is an important part of generating new technology. But total US spending on R&D as a share of GDP has been nearly flat for decades, and government spending on R&D as a share of GDP has declined over time.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has "determined that China is a Currency Manipulator" (with capital letters in the press release). The overall claim is that one major reason for China's large trade surpluses is that the country is keeping its exchange rate too low. This low exchange rate makes China's exports cheaper to the rest of the world, while also making foreign products more expensive in Beijing, thus creating China's trade surplus.
If there is something that is evident is that the United States does not need a rate cut.
A group of recent research studies have argued that "markups" are on the rise. As one of several prominent examples, a study by Jan De Loecker, Jan Eeckhout, and Gabriel Unger, called "The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications" presents calculations suggesting that the average markup for a US firm rose from 1.21 in 1980 to 1.61 in 2016 (here's a working paper version from Eeckhout's website dated November 22, 2018). The Summer 2019 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives discusses the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence in a three-paper symposium: