The first 100 days of Trump’s second administration have been a whirlwind. And Stephen Miran, president of the Council of Economic Advisors of President Trump, has been at the center of what he calls “volatility.” Trump has increased import taxes to levels, not sene since the 1930s. And the commercial conversations to make them go back, or not, are in flow, leaving the trajectory of the US economy, the prices of the consumer and the global trade in the limbo.
Look, a Ph.D. Economist trained in Harvard-Who Who is recognized for floating the idea of a Mar-A-Lago agreement to “restructure the global commercial system,” he has put himself in the position of explaining the president’s thinking and the final objectives.
On Wednesday, just before the United States and Great Britain announced a framework for a commercial agreement and before commercial conversations this weekend between the administration and Chinese officials, Mira spoke with the Talmon Talmon Smith Smith in the White House. And stood in the president’s unconventional movements.
The interview has been slightly edited by length and clarity.
You have said in public comments that you are not in the negotiation team, but as an economist, do you think that the economy of this country can maintain what the Secretary of the Treasury has called the “embargo” levels of current tariffs on China?
Yes, look, the president has acted with historical reach and speed to put American workers in the fairest land in front of our business partners. I don’t think anyone can say that the policy adjustment was not historical or extraordinary. And as a result, there is volatility in the legs in financial markets. There may also be volatility in economic data, but I think it is important to understand that volatility does not necessarily mean anything greater in the long term.
And then, is it possible that economic activity is replaced from one month to another? Yes. Are companies waiting to discover the results of the negotiations? Yes. Are you waiting to discover that the tax bill is being approved and that we will avoid the highest increase in history in history next year the tax cuts of President 2017 are not going to expire? Yes, they are also waiting for that.
But when you expect a decision, because you are waiting for information, it is not I postponing that decision forever.
In China, specifically, the president, in recent days, has said that we do not even need to make an agreement. That has left market participants. I speak with a very confused fear and consumers.
So, the president has said two things. He said, one, he thinks we will have a deal. He has said it many times. And two, we don’t need a deal. Those can be true.
All of you went up to frustration with respect to the cost of living and inflation. At the top of that list there was housing. So what is the policy of this administration to address housing shortages?
Regulations through the economy prevent companies from producing what they could to increase the offer. If you do not have enough supply of something, if prices are too high, the best thing you can do is get the government out of the way and let companies do more. And that is why the Trump administration is involved in an impulse of deregulation of the entire government.
The previous administration and some in Congress, in a bipartisan base, sought to commit to policies led by federals to, for example, give “carrots” to the jurisdictions that decided to get rid of certain regulations and zonify extra for more jurisdictions that did not do so. Is there anything similar to all of you in that line, or do you see this as a state and local problem that cannot do not for what everyone makes of the White House?
No, I see that we can encourage states and locations to follow us in our deregulating agenda.
But I am specifically asking within the regulation of housing and zoning.
It would be useful if other jurisdictions did the same.
Was the same thing about what? Because maybe this is my ignorance, but I have not seen anything from this White House so far. Okay, it’s early.
No, you’re right. You’re right. You are right, it is early and that we have focused on trade. We have focused on the tax bill.
Why did Dege not meet his established savings goals? Because there is a deficit of Promised billion.
Even cutting hundreds of billions is, I think, a great achievement. I think Dege has done a fantastic job.
A great objective of this administration is to rebuild manufacturing. We saw a manufacturing construction tree from 2020 or less until 2024. From autumn, it is fallen. Should we expect, as a barometer or success for this administration, that manufacturing construction increases again?
The manufacturing construction, I hope will arise as a result of our policies. And, by the way, it is not just trade and isolation, it is trade, taxes and deregulation, right? And if it makes the United States a much more competitive environment in providing greater tax relief, by reducing the regulations that facilitate construction here, to make distinctions, and begins to address asymmetries and trade through the United States a more competitive place to do business.
Asia and Europe’s headquarters -headed investors have told me that they plan to gradually rotate the assets of the United States, including bonds. Do you think they are exaggerating? Or that market commentators that cover thesis movements are exaggerating the scope of it? And then secondly, do everyone appreciate a dollar demand fabric?
So, with the second, I have to go to my creagos a couple of blocks in the department of the Treasury. With respect to the first, as I said before, it was really a historical change of extraordinary policies, and the fact that it was the volatility of the financial market as results should not be surprising.
But when the dust sits, capital will follow investment opportunities. Investment opportunities are a function of economic opportunities, and that is why President Trump focuses on creating the most dynamic American economy in history.
The president said in an “Meet The Press” interview: “We were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now, we are not doing business with China, therefore, we are saving hundreds of billions of dollars. It is very simple.” So that is inaccurate, right? Do you, when you advise the president, feel comfortable by redirecting or reviewing facts if he is wrong or when he is wrong?
So I don’t think the president was wrong. You know, the United States was executing a commercial deficit. And if the trade has decreased, IFTRADE with China has decreased, then, you know, that the part of the commercial deficit may fall.
“We are losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now, essentially, we are not doing business with China,” are we saving hundreds of billions of dollars? Do you think it is a precise representation of how to talk about commercial deficits?
This is how the president understands that. And I think that is correct. I think the president is correct.
Congress is trying to make their way through a budget at this time. I know that you are not responsible for Congress, but the Administration has talked about a commitment to lose deficits and, nevertheless, also wants to cut taxes and a billion defense budget. So how does that add?
Then a couple of things. One is that high growth will constitute income. And I think that many people constantly underestimate that, and are constantly wrong. There was no evidence that there was a long -term decrease in tax revenues as results of the president’s tax cuts. The growth of the economy is one of the best ways to increase income, and that was the experience with the president’s first tax reduction.
What are tariffs that are high enough to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in income consisting of the president’s promise to reduce costs for companies and consumers?
Because I don’t think rates finally generate costs. I believe that in the short term, volatility is possible, but in the long term, US consumers are flexible about where we import, and if a country reaches a commercial agreement with the US, when opening exports of their exports to export uses to export uses to export uses to export uses to export uses to export uses to export use export uses to export uses. You can get our production from more friendly countries, instead of countries that scam us.
But many freight experts think you are wrong; That supply chains take months, if not years, to move, so there will be no substitution, there will only be higher costs.
Instead of buying things in China, we could buy things from another country. Or we can do things here. We can change our demand through borders. That makes us more elastic.
It is true that we are early, and it is true that there may be short -term volatility, but are we talking a few weeks? Are we talking about some rooms? Are we talking about a couple of years?
You have played something that economists have never really been able to settle. You know, the truth is that it will vary from one product to another, right? And some products, it is probable relatively easy to change supplier. And other products, it can take years. And so, it will vary.
Do we need to understand this administration, and that the president takes the commercial or global commercial markets seriously, and that there will be no important setback of this position?
The president has been clear that they can be interruptions. And he talked about the wrists: he has talked about other things. I think it is a leg above this all the time.
I suppose that the concern for the dolls, where the president said that, instead of 30, perhaps a girl only receives, you know, a couple or three, is that people are concerned about crucial inputs for US factors. Forty percent more or less of them use imported parts or finished products.
The president has said that there may be interruptions. And there are many negotiations at this time with almost 20 different commercial partners. The president is one of the best and best negotiators in the history of the United States.
I’ve spoken with a Lot of Economists – Plenty of Whom I Think You’re Friend With, As Well As Market Participants, Mostly in the Bond Market – Who Think That in Order To Take This Position you Wille and Wille Willing and Wille Willing and Wille Willing and Wille Willing and Wille Willing and Wille Willing and Wille Willing Willing Willing and Willing Willy Willing and Willing Willy Willy and Willing Goals of This Administration. How do you respond to that opinion?
I think that is ridiculous, and I think it is very common for people to project their own political preferences in people mind. You know, the administration focuses on creating a dynamic, healthy and robust economic boom for Americans, and we are going to do that.
Thanks for reading! See you on Monday.
We would like your comments. Send thoughts and suggestions to truthbook@nytimes.com.
