Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.A.W. Widens Strikes at G.M. and Stellantis, but Cites Progress in Ford Talks

    The union designated 38 spare-parts distribution centers as additional strike targets at General Motors and Stellantis.The United Automobile Workers union on Friday significantly raised the pressure on General Motors and Stellantis, the parent of Jeep and Ram, by expanding its strike against the companies to include all the spare-parts distribution centers of the two companies.By widening the strike to the distribution centers, which supply parts to dealerships for repairs, the union is effectively taking its case to consumers, some of whom might find it difficult or impossible to have their cars and trucks fixed. The strategy could pressure the automakers to make more concessions to the union, but it could backfire on the union by frustrating car owners and turning them against the U.A.W.Shawn Fain, the union’s president, said Friday that workers at 38 distribution centers at the two companies would walk off the job. He said talks with two companies had not progressed significantly, contrasting them with Ford Motor, which he said had done more to meet the union’s demands.“We will shut down parts distribution centers until those two companies come to their senses and come to the bargaining table,” Mr. Fain said.Where Autoworkers Are Walking Out More

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Issues Final Rules to Keep Chip Funds Out of China

    The rules, which aim to prevent chip makers from using new U.S. subsidies to benefit China, take into account the industry’s perspective.The Biden administration on Friday issued final rules that would prohibit chip companies vying for a new infusion of federal cash from carrying out certain business expansions, partnerships and research in China, in what it described as an effort to protect United States national security.The regulations come as the Biden administration prepares to disburse more than $52 billion in federal grants and tens of billions of dollars of tax credits to build up the U.S. chip industry. The new rules aim to prevent chip makers that benefit from U.S. grants from passing technology, business know-how or other benefits to China.The final restrictions will prohibit firms that receive federal money from using it to construct chip factories outside the United States. They also restrict companies from significantly expanding semiconductor manufacturing in “foreign countries of concern” — defined as China, Iran, Russia and North Korea — for 10 years after receiving an award, the administration said.The rules also prevent companies that receive funding from carrying out certain joint research projects in those countries, or licensing technology that would raise national security concerns to those countries.If a company violated those guardrails, the Commerce Department said, the government could claw back the firm’s entire award.“These guardrails will protect our national security and help the United States stay ahead for decades to come,” Gina M. Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said in a statement.The restrictions have been the subject of heavy lobbying from the chip industry, which collectively earns about one-third of its revenue from China. Chip makers in comments filed this year expressed concerns that overly restrictive measures could disrupt supply chains and hamper their global competitiveness.Many of the rule’s broad principles, like the 10-year limit on new investments in China, were outlined in the bipartisan legislation that authorized funding for the sector. But Commerce Department officials were responsible for writing the detailed provisions of the rule.In its final rules issued Friday, the department appeared to take the perspective of chip makers and others into account. A comparison of the restrictions showed that the department had made several changes supported by chip makers, such as abolishing a specific dollar threshold for transactions that would expand chip companies’ manufacturing capacity in China, Russia, North Korea or Iran. Under the proposed rule in March, the Commerce Department would have reviewed any transaction that expanded a company’s semiconductor manufacturing capacity in such a “country of concern” valued at more than $100,000.But companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company suggested that it would be more pragmatic for the department to monitor the physical expansion of the footprint of semiconductor factories, a standard that the commerce department adopted.It remains to be seen if any of the changes will prompt a backlash from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have criticized the Biden administration as not being tough enough on Beijing and condemned a recent set of trips to China by top administration officials.In an interview on Friday, Commerce Department officials said that they had received various requests from the industry to relax certain guidelines, but that they had maintained or even strengthened some provisions where necessary to protect national security.One official added that the national security goal of the program was to have companies operating in the United States and doing so successfully, and that the department aimed to work with companies to ensure they were executing on U.S. grants.“My sense is that they struck a reasonable balance between trying to be restrictive but also not trying to be draconian with the impact on existing facilities in China,” said Chris Miller, the author of “Chip War” and an associate professor of international history at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. More

  • 175 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Credit card losses are rising at the fastest pace since the Great Financial Crisis

    Goldman Sachs predicts credit card losses will continue to climb through the end of 2024/early 2025.
    What is unusual is that the losses are accelerating outside of an economic downturn, the firm said.
    Credit card losses currently stand at 3.63%, up 1.5 percentage points from the bottom.

    Frederic J. Brown | AFP | Getty Images

    Credit card companies are racking up losses at the fastest pace in almost 30 years, outside of the Great Financial Crisis, according to Goldman Sachs.
    Credit card losses bottomed in September 2021, and while initial increases were likely reversals from stimulus, they have been rapidly rising since the first quarter of 2022. Since that time, it’s an increasing rate of losses only seen in recent history during the recession of 2008.

    It is far from over, the firm predicts.
    Losses currently stand at 3.63%, up 1.5 percentage points from the bottom, and Goldman sees them rising another 1.3 percentage points to 4.93%. This comes at a time when Americans owe more than $1 trillion on credit cards, a record high, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    “We think delinquencies could continue to underperform seasonality through the middle of next year and don’t see losses peaking until late 2024 / early 2025 for most issuers,” analyst Ryan Nash wrote in a note Friday.
    What is unusual is that the losses are accelerating outside of an economic downturn, he pointed out.
    Of the past five credit card loss cycles, three were characterized by recessions, he said. The two that occurred when the economy was not in a recession were in the mid ’90s and 2015 to 2019, Nash said. He used history as a guide to determine further losses.

    “In our view, this cycle resembles the characteristics of what was experienced in the late 1990s and somewhat similar to the ’15 to ’19 cycle where losses increase following a period of strong loan growth and has seen similar pace of normalization thus far this cycle,” Nash said.
    History also shows that losses tend to peak six to eight quarters after loan growth peaks, he said. That implies the credit normalization cycle is only at its halfway point, hence the late 2024, early 2025 prediction, he said.
    Nash sees the most downside risk for Capital One Financial, followed by Discover Financial Services.
    — CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed reporting. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and China Agree to New Economic Dialogue Format

    The regular talks are intended to give both countries a venue to resolve differences.The United States and China have created a new structure for economic dialogue in an effort to improve communication between the world’s largest economies and stabilize a relationship that has become increasingly strained in recent years.The Treasury Department said on Friday that the United States and China had agreed to create economic and financial working groups that will hold regular meetings to discuss policy and exchange information. The announcement follows visits to Beijing by three of President Biden’s cabinet members over the summer that were intended to ease tensions over economic and geopolitical matters that has been festering for years between the two countries.The Treasury Department said that the new working groups would create “ongoing structured channels for frank and substantive discussions.” Treasury officials will report to Ms. Yellen, who traveled to Beijing in July. China’s representatives, from its ministry of finance and the People’s Bank of China, will report to Vice Premier He Lifeng.“These working groups will serve as important forums to communicate America’s interests and concerns; promote a healthy economic competition between our two countries with a level playing field for American workers and businesses; and advance cooperation on global challenges,” Ms. Yellen said in a statement.The U.S. and China still have major economic disagreements on tariffs, technology controls and investment restrictions. The Biden administration has been especially concerned recently about the treatment of American companies operating in China.The creation of a working group linking the Treasury Department directly with Chinese officials on economic and financial issues represents the revival of a decades-long approach to bilateral relations that was dismantled under former President Donald J. Trump.Congress took away the Treasury’s authority over trade relations in the 1970s, transferring that authority to the newly created Office of the United States Trade Representative, which was also made a cabinet agency. Congress acted after complaints from American industries and labor unions that Treasury and the State Department had been making trade concessions to other countries to win allies against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.Under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Treasury led interagency negotiating teams in talks with China. Treasury’s leadership limited the influence of American trade officials, as a succession of Treasury secretaries assigned a high priority to economic policy coordination with China and to opening China’s financial markets to Wall Street firms.Mr. Trump dismantled the interagency working group system and said that each agency would negotiate separately with China. Vice Premier Liu He, the predecessor of Vice Premier He Lifeng in handling international economic policy, tried repeatedly to reach trade arrangements with then Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, bypassing Robert E. Lighthizer, who was Mr. Trump’s trade representative.But Mr. Trump did not endorse those arrangements and instead backed Mr. Lighthizer, who ended up negotiating a limited trade agreement that was signed by both countries in January 2020, and remains in place.In August, Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, announced during her trip to Beijing and Shanghai that the United States and China agreed to hold regular conversations about commercial issues and restrictions on access to advanced technology.A senior Treasury official said that a consensus was reached during Ms. Yellen’s trip in July to form the groups, which are meant to allow both sides to voice concerns and look for ways to work together. The economic group will focus on challenges such as restructuring debt for low- and middle-income countries in distress, while the financial group will delve into topics like financial stability and sustainable finance.Ms. Yellen said on Friday that the new structure was an important step forward in the bilateral relationship.“It is vital that we talk, particularly when we disagree,” she said. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    For Tesla and Musk, Auto Strike Carries Benefits and Risks

    Elon Musk, the Tesla chief executive, may be able to exploit his rivals’ weaknesses, but the United Automobile Workers union also has the electric carmaker in its sights.The United Automobile Workers strike against the Michigan automakers would seem to be nothing but good news for Tesla, the electric vehicle maker that has upended the industry and stolen customers from Ford Motor, General Motors and Stellantis, which owns Jeep and Ram.Unencumbered by an activist union, Tesla can take advantage of the work stoppages to add to its substantial lead in battery technology and software. As the three established automakers face increases in labor costs and struggle to master electric vehicles, Tesla can twist the knife by lowering car prices because it is much more profitable than most automakers.But the U.A.W.’s determination to secure a big victory for its members, amid a nationwide resurgence in union activism, harbors risks for Tesla and Elon Musk, its chief executive, who has attacked and ridiculed unions on his social media network, X, formerly Twitter.The U.A.W., which has failed to organize Tesla’s factory workers in the past, is gearing up for another attempt, a top union official said.“There is a group of Tesla workers who are actively talking about forming a union and creating the best representation they can for themselves and their co-workers through collective bargaining,” said Mike Miller, the director of the U.A.W.’s Region 6, which includes California and Nevada, where Tesla makes cars and batteries. Tesla also has a large factory in Austin, Texas, not too far from a unionized G.M. factory in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.In an interview, Mr. Miller declined to provide more details or identify the Tesla workers, saying they needed time to prepare before going public. This union organizing effort is separate from a campaign at a Buffalo plant where Tesla makes electric vehicle chargers and employs data entry workers.But as representatives of the national union demand 40 percent wage increases from the Detroit automakers, along with significant gains in benefits, they are certainly thinking about the signal that any deal would send to nonunion workers at Tesla.Tesla has upended the industry and stolen customers from Ford Motor, General Motors and Stellantis and dominates the market for electric vehicles.Jim Wilson/The New York Times“Clearly the narrative out there is that this can’t be good for the Big Three, and if it’s not good for the Big Three, it’s good for Tesla,” said Rahul Kapoor, a professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.But he added, “If I’m an autoworker with wages lower than what Ford and G.M. are paying, and I hear there is a substantial increase, it’s very likely I would want to take that into account.”The president of the U.A.W., Shawn Fain, fired a warning shot at Mr. Musk Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”“Most of these workers in those companies are scraping to get by so that greedy C.E.O.s and greedy people like Elon Musk can build more rocket ships and shoot theirself in outer space,” he said.A lot has changed since 2016, when a group of workers at Tesla’s auto assembly plant in Fremont, Calif., began an organizing drive that never acquired enough momentum to come to a vote.Back then, Tesla was a struggling upstart flirting with bankruptcy. Now, Tesla dominates the market for electric vehicles, with a 60 percent share in the United States. It is worth vastly more on the stock market than the three established U.S. automakers combined. It is arguably in a better position to reward workers than its rivals.Yet labor organizing is arduous. Activists must get at least 30 percent of workers to sign union cards and force a vote overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Companies often do all they can to dissuade workers from joining, hiring lawyers and consultants who specialize in defeating union campaigns.Even if a majority of workers cast ballots in favor of a union, winning pay increases and better benefits comes only after negotiations that can drag for years. Amazon workers at a Staten Island warehouse voted in April 2022 to unionize, but Amazon has challenged the result and has yet to begin bargaining on a contract.Still, Tesla would be a tempting target for unions. The company reported profit of $2.7 billion on sales of $25 billion in the second quarter, giving it a profit margin of about 11 percent. That profit margin is more than that of Ford or G.M., even after an exceptionally profitable period for those companies. Stellantis, which was created by the 2021 merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot, reported an 11 percent profit margin in the first six months of the year, but lost market share in the United States.Tesla’s stronger financial performance has allowed it to significantly cut car prices, making it harder for the established carmakers to gain ground in electric vehicles. The least expensive Model 3 sedan costs about $33,000 after federal tax credits, less than comparable gasoline vehicles.The climate for organized labor is better than it has been for years. President Biden is a big supporter of unions. Hollywood writers and actors are on strike, a high-profile manifestation of labor activism. In August, United Parcel Service employees won their biggest raises ever in a contract negotiated by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.Tesla did not respond to a request for comment, but Mr. Musk seemed to acknowledge the union threat last week, saying on X that his workers were better off than employees of G.M., Ford and Stellantis. “We pay more than the U.A.W.,” he said, although he added that “performance expectations are also higher.”A Hummer electric vehicle on display at the Detroit Auto Show. G.M. and the other two established U.S. automakers have struggled to master electric vehicles.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesThe traditional automakers quarreled with Mr. Musk’s math, saying that they pay their workers substantially more and that a big raise would only widen the gap and undermine their ability to invest in electric vehicle and battery factories. Ford says its hourly employees make an average of $112,000 per year including benefits, compared with about $90,000 at Tesla.The Ford figures do not include stock options that Tesla grants employees, and that can be worth a lot. Mr. Musk has said that some production workers have become millionaires from their shares in the company.Stock options can be lucrative but also risky. Tesla has not detailed how often or in what amount it distributes options to rank-and-file workers. In regulatory filings, the company has said the options that those workers receive have a vesting period, meaning that employees must remain at the company for a certain period to cash them in.Tesla workers may lose their options if they are fired or forced to quit because of injury or poor health, said Bryan Schwartz, a lawyer in Oakland, Calif., who has represented the company’s employees in lawsuits against the company.“There are lots of issues with options to the degree workers can really count on them,” Mr. Schwartz said.Stock awards fluctuate in value along with Tesla’s share price. The stock peaked at more than $400 in late 2021, plummeted to a little more than $100 last year and rebounded this year to $270. The uncertainty may be unsettling for workers trying to make mortgage payments and pay for child care.“If I was a Tesla worker, with all these other companies making E.V.s, I would prefer a wage,” said Rick Eckstein, a professor of sociology at Villanova University who follows labor issues.Tesla has a reputation as a tough place to work, with long hours and punishing deadlines. Mr. Schwartz has sued Tesla on behalf of Black employees who say they faced discrimination in promotions and work assignments and were subject to racist abuse. Tesla has denied the accusations.Any union drive would face forceful opposition from Mr. Musk. The National Labor Relations Board has found that Mr. Musk illegally threatened employees in 2018 by implying they would lose their stock options if they voted to unionize. The labor board also found that Tesla illegally fired one of the lead organizers.An appeals court upheld the board’s decision. Tesla, which argues that Mr. Musk and the company did nothing wrong, is appealing the court ruling.Without doubt, the strike poses huge risks for the Detroit automakers, which were slow to take Tesla seriously and stand to lose precious time they need to catch up.“The real winner in the U.A.W. strike will likely be the auto company that has been winning all along,” Gary Black, managing partner of the Future Fund, an investment firm that owns Tesla stock, said on X.But any schadenfreude among Tesla investors could be brief.“The strike could be a bellwether,” said Mr. Eckstein of Villanova. “It’s a hot time in the labor movement.” More

  • 163 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Ford Averts Auto Strike in Canada as UAW Talks in U.S. Inch Along

    The United Auto Workers union is threatening to expand strikes on Friday if it does not make significant progress in talks with General Motors, Ford and Stellantis.Negotiations between each of the three large U.S. automakers and the United Auto Workers union remain far from being resolved, but one of the companies — Ford Motor — has averted a second strike in Canada.Late on Tuesday, the company reached a tentative labor agreement with Unifor, Canada’s main auto union. The deal was announced minutes before an 11:59 p.m. deadline set by the union for a strike by its 5,600 members at Ford.Neither side disclosed the terms of the agreement, but Unifor said the company had made a “substantive offer.”“We believe that this agreement will solidify the foundations on which we will continue to bargain gains for generations of autoworkers in Canada,” Unifor’s national president, Lana Payne, said in a statement.Unifor’s talks with Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram, started on Aug. 10 but have been overshadowed by the U.A.W. contract talks in the United States.Ford has an assembly plant and two engine plants in Canada. Unifor selected Ford as the “target” of its talks, meaning it focused on securing the best deal it could from the company before turning to the other two automakers. Now, it will seek to strike similar agreements with G.M. and Stellantis.Ford’s deal in Canada appears to have little bearing on the U.A.W. strikes in the United States.Last Thursday, the U.A.W. told nearly 13,000 workers to leave their jobs at three U.S. plants: a G.M. pickup truck factory in Wentzville, Mo.; a Ford truck and sport utility vehicle plant in Wayne, Mich.; and a Stellantis S.U.V. plant in Toledo, Ohio.The talks appear to have progressed only a little since the strikes began on Friday. On Wednesday, the U.A.W. said it was reviewing a new offer from Stellantis but declined to provide details.Josh Boyd, with his daughter, is an auto mechanic at the headquarters’ technical center. He said he was ready to walk out if asked by the union.Nick Hagen for The New York TimesThe union is seeking a 40 percent increase in wages over four years, saying the pay of the automakers’ chief executives rose by roughly that much over the previous four years. The companies have offered raises of just over 20 percent.The U.S. union also wants more workers to qualify for pension plans, company-paid health care for retirees, shorter working hours and other improvements. And the U.A.W. is seeking an end to a practice under which new hires are paid about $17 an hour — a bit more than half the top union wage of $32 an hour.At $32 an hour, a U.A.W. member working 40 hours a week is paid about $67,000 a year. In recent years, the companies have paid workers profit-sharing bonuses of $9,000 to $15,000.Outside Stellantis’s North American headquarters in Auburn Hills, Mich., on Wednesday, workers who are not on strike picketed in support of the work stoppage, chanting, “No justice, no Jeeps.”Josh Boyd, 36, an auto mechanic who works at the headquarters’ technical center, said he was ready to walk out if asked by the union. “There’s always uncertainty, but there’s also excitement,” he said. “I think we’re going to get a good contract.”Mr. Boyd, who carried his young daughter on his shoulder, said that he earned $32 an hour, but that his family of three was stretched. “Day care is $250 a week,” he said. “I’ve got a mortgage. My wife is in school, so we are on one income.”LaShawn English, a regional U.A.W. director, said the wage increases offered by the automakers would apply to most but not all workers.Nick Hagen for The New York TimesLaShawn English, who was elected this year as the director of the U.A.W.’s Region 1, which includes parts of Michigan and Canada, said the wage increases offered by the automakers would apply to most but not all workers. Among those who would not get the same raises are temporary workers who make up about 12 percent of Stellantis’s unionized work force of 43,000.“It’s not just about the higher-wage workers,” she said. “We have to move everybody forward. We can’t leave people behind.”Earlier on Wednesday, Stellantis presented a new offer to the union but did not disclose details other than to say it primarily addressed issues other than wages. The company also said it had to lay off 68 workers at a machining plant in Ohio, and might have to lay off 300 more in Indiana because of the U.A.W.’s strike at its Toledo plant, which makes Jeeps.On Tuesday, the U.A.W. president, Shawn Fain, said the union might expand the strike to additional plants this week if it did not make significant progress toward an agreement. Mr. Fain is expected to announce additional strike locations Friday morning with workers leaving their jobs at noon.In the past, the U.A.W. typically struck at all locations of one automaker at a time. Mr. Fain was elected president of the union this year on promises to take a more combative approach. His unusual strike strategy, frequent media appearances and strident criticisms of management appear to have caught the automakers off guard.On Friday, Mr. Fain appeared at a rally of several hundred workers in Detroit along with Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.On Wednesday, G.M.’s second-highest-ranking executive, its president, Mark Reuss, sought to rebut Mr. Fain’s criticisms in an opinion essay in The Detroit Free Press.He said G.M. had offered to increase wages 20 percent over the next four years, which would lift the top wage to more than $39 an hour, or about $82,000 a year, based on a 40-hour workweek. Entry-level workers now earning $17 an hour would reach $39 an hour after four years.“U.A.W. leadership claims G.M. pays its team members ‘poverty’ wages,’” Mr. Reuss wrote. “This is simply not true.”While G.M. is making near-record profits — it made almost $10 billion in 2022 — Mr. Reuss said the company was investing heavily to make the transition to electric vehicles, including $11 billion this year. He added that the company could not afford to pay what the U.A.W. was seeking if it wanted to remain competitive and healthy.“The fundamental reality is that the U.A.W.’s demands can be described in one word — untenable,” he wrote, adding, “As the past has clearly shown, nobody wins in a strike.”Separately, the U.A.W. said on Wednesday that 190 union members went on strike at a Tuscaloosa, Ala., plant owned by ZF, a company that supplies axles to Mercedes-Benz. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Defense Department Awards Chip Funding to Fuel Domestic Research

    The $238 million in grants will set up eight research hubs, as a small slice of the federal money that will go to chip companies and research facilities in the coming months.The Biden administration on Wednesday announced that it was awarding $238 million through the Defense Department to set up eight hubs around the United States for promoting innovation in the semiconductor industry.The funds are one of the earliest releases of the nearly $53 billion in grants and subsidies that Congress and the Biden administration have approved to build up the domestic semiconductor industry, which U.S. officials say has been left vulnerable by decades of offshoring.The Biden administration has a variety of funding programs in the works to encourage chip research institutions and manufacturers to set up operations in the United States. Most of these programs are run through the Commerce Department, and many will begin handing out money this fall.While U.S. companies still design many of the world’s most advanced chips, much of the manufacturing of the technology has been outsourced to foreign locations, including Taiwan, leaving U.S. chip supply vulnerable if, for example, the Chinese government were to invade Taiwan.The awards announced Wednesday will go to research institutes, consortiums and universities located in New York, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, California, North Carolina and Massachusetts, defense officials said.Each hub will receive $15 million to $40 million to fund the development of new chips for use in electromagnetic warfare, artificial intelligence, 5G and 6G wireless technologies, and quantum computing, among other areas. While the research will be directed at meeting the needs of the Defense Department, it is also expected to be useful for commercial applications.Kathleen Hicks, the deputy defense secretary, said in a news conference Wednesday that the hubs would “tackle many technical challenges relevant to D.O.D.’s missions, to get the most cutting-edge microchips into systems our troops use every day: ships, planes, tanks, long-range munitions, communications gear, sensors and much more.”The funding also aims to accelerate what the industry refers to as the “lab-to-fab transition,” the process of taking new chip technologies and turning them into viable commercial products.David A. Honey, the deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering, said the hubs would bring more prototype work to the United States.“Now we’ll be able to get it done here,” he said. “And also we’re building out in the areas that are just not available anywhere else.”The Commerce Department is separately setting up a string of research hubs for the semiconductor industry, collectively called the National Semiconductor Technology Center, drawing on $11 billion in funding it received for research and development.Appearing before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Tuesday, Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said that her department was on track to formally unveil that technology center this fall.She also said that the department had received about 100 applications from companies hoping to receive grants that will be available to manufacturers.While Ms. Raimondo acknowledged that the grant program faced challenges, like securing enough workers to staff new chip plants, she said that if properly implemented, the program would make the United States “the premier destination in the world” for chip design, research and manufacturing.“That’s the vision that we’re trying to achieve with your support,” Ms. Raimondo told lawmakers.Ms. Raimondo was also questioned about the release in prior weeks of an advanced smartphone by Chinese telecom giant Huawei. The company is under heavy U.S. trade restrictions, administered by the Commerce Department, that theoretically should have prevented such an innovation.Ms. Raimondo said that she was upset by the development, but added that the U.S. government did not have any evidence that Chinese companies could manufacture the more sophisticated chips at scale.Ms. Raimondo said that the United States could take various defensive measures to limit China’s access to advanced technology, but “my strongly held view is that what we do on offense matters so much more.”“The reality is that over the past 30 years, this country has taken its eye off the ball of manufacturing,” she continued. “And when you don’t manufacture you lose out on innovation, and you become dependent on other countries.” More