Biden, Joseph R Jr

More stories

  • 163 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Xi Jinping to Address U.S. Business Leaders Amid Rising Skepticism of China Ties

    by

    Corporate executives will pay $2,000 a head to dine with China’s leader in San Francisco next week, in one of a series of engagements aimed at stabilizing the U.S.-China relationship.The Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who is set to meet with President Biden in San Francisco next week, is expected to speak to top American business executives at a dinner following that bilateral meeting.Mr. Xi, who is traveling to the United States for an international conference, will address business leaders at a challenging moment in U.S.-China relations. The United States has expressed growing concern about China’s military ambitions and has sought to cut off Beijing’s access to technology that could be used against the United States. China’s treatment of Western companies, which are facing tougher restrictions in how they do business, have also prompted firms to question the wisdom of investing in China.Still, Chinese and American leaders have expressed interest in bolstering ties between their economies, the world’s two largest, which remain inextricably linked through trade. The Biden administration has sent several top officials to China this year to try to make clear that while the United States wants to protect national security, it does not seek to sever economic ties with Beijing.It is unclear whether Mr. Xi’s visit will do much to alleviate the skepticism of foreign businesses, many of which are deterred both by China’s slowing economic growth and the tighter grip of the Chinese Communist Party on business activity under Mr. Xi.Tickets to the dinner and reception, hosted by the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the U.S.-China Business Council, cost $2,000 each, according to an invitation circulating online. For $40,000, companies can purchase eight seats at a table plus one seat at Mr. Xi’s table, a person familiar with the event said.Engagements between Chinese officials and the U.S. business sector will try to send the signal that China remains an attractive place to do business, “as evidenced by these companies flocking to meet with Xi Jinping and have dinner with him,” Jude Blanchette, the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a briefing on Tuesday.Beijing wants this for “tactical reasons,” Mr. Blanchette said. “I don’t think, at a broad level, they’re expecting or see the prospect of resetting or recalibrating the relationship.”Foreign firms are particularly concerned about Chinese regulations that block them from selling to the government or into certain markets, and a broader counter-espionage law that can lead to prison time for company executives and researchers who deal in sensitive industries. At the same time, the United States is stepping up restrictions on investing and selling advanced technology to China, saying that such ties can pose national security concerns.Many businesses still see China as an essential market, but an increasing number are starting to look to other countries for their new investments. A survey by the U.S.-China Business Council of its members this year found that 34 percent had stopped or reduced planned investment in China over the past year, a higher percentage than in previous years.Mr. Blanchette said Chinese officials would also see the meeting as an opportunity to try to shift the U.S. trajectory on the technology controls it has placed on China. But the United States is unlikely to change its stance, he said.“I think this will be one of the issues where the U.S. and China will have longstanding tensions. And I’m sure this will be communicated to Beijing,” Mr. Blanchette said.The visit will be Mr. Xi’s first trip to the United States since 2017, when he met with President Donald J. Trump at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Since then, U.S.-China business relations have changed drastically, with the countries carrying out a trade war and sparring over advanced technology and geopolitical influence, and China turning notably more authoritarian under Mr. Xi.The dinner and reception featuring Mr. Xi will be part of a two-day “C.E.O. Summit” taking place next week on the sidelines of a bigger meeting of the leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, a group of 21 countries that ring the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Biden is expected to meet with Mr. Xi earlier next Wednesday, in their first face-to-face meeting in a year.Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi are expected to discuss business and technology ties, as well as issues like communication between the countries’ militaries, stopping the flow of fentanyl to the United States and new agreements for governing artificial intelligence.In recent weeks high-level Chinese officials have met with U.S. counterparts to lay the groundwork for the trip. In a news release Wednesday, the organizers of the C.E.O. summit said that Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi would be in attendance at the two-day summit, along with other world leaders and the chief executives of companies including Microsoft, Mastercard and Pfizer. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    ‘Morning in America’ Eludes Biden, Despite Economic Gains

    by

    Seeking re-election in 1984, Ronald Reagan presided over an economy similar in many ways to today’s. But he sold a message of progress and promise.President Ronald Reagan rode a “Morning in America” message to a blowout re-election victory in 1984, based partly on warm feelings about his economic performance. Today’s economy is similar in many ways to Mr. Reagan’s as he entered that campaign, with one big difference: There is widespread voter angst over the incumbent’s economic stewardship.A New York Times/Siena College poll shows President Biden trailing his likely Republican opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, in key battleground states. Poll respondents rate the economy poorly and say they trust Mr. Trump more to fix it. That’s true even though the economy grew faster and added more jobs over the last year than forecasters expected, while inflation fell sharply from what had been a four-decade high.In public and private conversations, and in consultation with outside economists and other experts, Mr. Biden’s economic team has been consumed with that disconnect: Why do Americans remain so down on the economy when economic data are trending up?The answer is almost certainly some combination of how Americans process the economic moment and how Mr. Biden communicates about it.In both cases, the contrast with Mr. Reagan — and with the economic environment of the early 1980s — is instructive.In the fall of 1983, Mr. Reagan’s re-election was not assured. The nation was still emerging from a recession that had marred his first two years in office. Consumer prices had risen more than 15 percent since he took office — nearly as much as they have risen on Mr. Biden’s watch. Translated into today’s dollars, the price of a gallon of gasoline was about $3.80, about 40 cents higher than it is now. The typical American’s wages had not increased at all during Mr. Reagan’s tenure, after adjustment for higher prices, similar to Mr. Biden’s experience.But public faith in the economy, and in Mr. Reagan’s handling of it, was significantly stronger than it is for Mr. Biden.President Ronald Reagan rode a “Morning in America” message to re-election in 1984, partly on the strength of warm feelings about his economic performance.Bettmann/Getty ImagesThe University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment was roughly 50 percent higher under Mr. Reagan in the fall of 1983 than it is now. Polls showed his approval rating climbing, including sentiment on the economy, in a reversal from the start of the year.A year later, Mr. Reagan would air “Prouder, Stronger, Better,” a television ad that began with the words “It’s morning again in America.” It highlighted falling inflation and lower interest rates allowing more Americans to buy a home.Mr. Reagan’s appeals worked in part because Americans had just endured more than a decade of persistently high prices and high interest rates. Economists and historians generally agree that voters came to see the progress under Mr. Reagan as relief from a long, difficult period.Voter psychology is very different under Mr. Biden. The 9 percent annual inflation rate that the country experienced last year was more than triple the average rate from the end of Mr. Reagan’s time in the White House to the start of Mr. Biden’s. Those mortgage rates Mr. Reagan trumpeted? They were around 14 percent in 1984. Right now, rates are just below 8 percent. The difference is that under Mr. Reagan, rates fell, and under Mr. Biden, they’ve gone up.For Mr. Biden and his economic team, “the problem is really in the way people think about and process economic information, rather than the economic fundamentals,” said Francesco D’Acunto, an economist at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business who recently briefed the White House Council of Economic Advisers.Mr. D’Acunto presented slides at the White House highlighting work he and colleagues have done, drilling down into how consumers process price increases. They find that consumers’ attitudes are shaped most by the products they buy most often — like milk, gasoline, bread and beer — and not by the things they spend the most money on.They also find that unexpected price surges stick in shoppers’ minds, negatively. They linger in a way that slower-building price increases, or even prolonged periods of high prices, do not.That research helps explain why voters did not punish Mr. Reagan for inflation even though the price growth he oversaw never reversed itself: They were accustomed to rapid price growth and grateful for improvement.One overly simplistic explanation for Mr. Biden’s woes is that voters are waiting for prices to fall back to their prepandemic levels. If that were true, Mr. Biden would almost certainly be doomed electorally. On the whole, the path of prices across American history is an upward march.But Mr. D’Acunto says his research suggests that Mr. Biden might be able to brighten voters’ moods by mounting a public persuasion campaign, focusing on prices that have begun to come down from recent highs. That includes consumer electronics like smartphones and computers, which are less expensive today than they were a year ago, on average, and which are often large-dollar purchases.For Mr. Biden and his economic team, “the problem is really in the way people think about and process economic information,” said Francesco D’Acunto, a Georgetown University economist.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesMr. Biden’s campaign recently spent $25 million on television ads to promote “Bidenomics” — a mix of the president’s blue-collar background and policy blueprint that is meant to resonate with the working class. It includes an ad focusing on a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, which Mr. Biden signed last year, that seeks to reduce the cost of prescription drugs through Medicare. Campaign aides say it is scoring well in surveys with viewers.There is little evidence in polls that those efforts have broken through. Biden aides say they did not expect immediate results. They are testing messages, they say, including how best to talk about Mr. Biden’s economic record, as the president prepares to spend $1 billion or more in advertising before the election.Aides also insist that continued economic improvement will eventually punch through to the public. They contend that continued wage growth will restore some of the buying power Americans lost to recent inflation, and that consumers will gradually acclimate to prices that are higher than what they were used to before the pandemic.“What the president brings to the table is a deep and effective pro-worker agenda that’s maintaining a great job market, putting downward pressure on prices,” Jared Bernstein, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview. “I understand that hasn’t reached the sentiment indexes yet. But I’m confident it will.”Some Democrats worry that Mr. Biden himself is a barrier to getting that message through, particularly to younger voters who express concerns over his age. Campaign officials say his direct appeals resonate well in tests. The Reagan comparison offers evidence for both sides.Economic surveys have become more politicized in recent years, with Republicans in particular resistant to praising the economy’s performance with a Democrat in office. Still, components of the Michigan survey suggest that Mr. Reagan had far more success than Mr. Biden as an economic cheerleader.Mr. Reagan made a habit of both championing the economy’s performance and critiquing press coverage of its flaws. At this point in his presidency, Americans were far more likely to report hearing positive news about the economy and prices than they do under Mr. Biden. They even reported hearing better news on unemployment, at a time when the rate was near 9 percent. It is under 4 percent today.Mr. Biden has often tried to strike more of a balance between celebrating strong job growth and acknowledging the pain of high prices. He has leaned more into boosterism in recent months — as the share of Americans reporting in the Michigan index that they hear good economic news has grown. More

  • 125 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Janet Yellen, U.S. Treasury Secretary, Will Meet With Chinese Counterpart

    by

    The high-level meetings in San Francisco will lay the groundwork for talks between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen will hold two days of high-level meetings with her Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, this week, as the United States and China look to build upon an effort that started earlier this year to improve communication between the world’s two largest economies.The meetings will take place on Thursday and Friday in San Francisco ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which begins on Saturday. The meetings will help lay the groundwork for expected talks at the summit between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping. The Treasury Department said that the United States hoped Ms. Yellen’s meetings would “further stabilize the bilateral economic relationship” and make progress on key economic issues.The revival of economic diplomacy between the two countries comes at a fraught moment for the global economy, which is grappling with sluggish output and wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.A senior Treasury Department official said the Biden administration continued to seek a better understanding of China’s economic policies. Ms. Yellen is expected to talk to Mr. He about issues like debt relief for developing countries and the financing of international efforts to combat climate change. The discussions are also intended to address any misunderstandings from recent national security actions that the Biden administration has taken, such as restrictions on investments that Americans can make in Chinese industries.The talks in San Francisco follow Ms. Yellen’s trip to Beijing in July. After that visit, the Treasury Department established financial and economic working groups to promote more regular dialogue between the United States and China.As Treasury secretary, Ms. Yellen has been trying to help the United States diversify its supply chains so that it relies more on allies and domestic production and less on China, which over the past decade has similarly worked to become less reliant on imports.In a speech at the Asia Society last week, Ms. Yellen said that the United States would continue to respond to China’s economic practices while seeking ways to work together where possible. But she also made clear that she opposed efforts to sever economic ties with China.“A full separation of our economies, or an approach in which countries including those in the Indo-Pacific are forced to take sides, would have significant negative global repercussions,” Ms. Yellen said. “We have no interest in such a divided world and its disastrous effects.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden to Travel to Minnesota to Highlight Rural Investments

    by

    The president’s push to focus attention on the domestic economy comes as his administration has been dealing with events overseas after the terrorist attacks in Israel.The White House on Wednesday will announce more than $5 billion in funding for agriculture, broadband and clean energy needs in sparsely populated parts of the country as President Biden travels to Minnesota to kick off an administration-wide tour of rural communities.The president’s efforts to focus attention on the domestic economy ahead of next year’s campaign come after three weeks in which his administration has been seized by events overseas following the terrorist attacks in Israel and the state’s subsequent military action in Gaza.The trip will take place as Mr. Biden is urging Congress to quickly pass a $105 billion funding package that includes emergency aid to Israel and Ukraine, two conflicts he has described as threats to democracy around the globe.But the president and his aides are well aware that his hopes for a second term are likely to be determined closer to home. Rural voters like the ones he will address at a corn, soybean and hog farm south of Minneapolis are increasingly voting Republican. A recent poll showed that most voters had heard little or nothing about a health care and clean energy law that is the cornerstone of Mr. Biden’s economic agenda. And the president even faces a challenge within his own party, from Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who announced his long-shot presidential bid last week.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, declined on Tuesday to speak about campaign issues, citing the Hatch Act, which limits political activity by federal officials, but said that Mr. Biden “loves Minnesota.” Administration officials have said Mr. Biden’s trip was planned before Mr. Phillips announced his candidacy.The White House has called the next two weeks of events the “Investing in Rural America Event Series.” It includes more than a dozen trips by Mr. Biden as well as cabinet secretaries and other senior administration officials. The White House said in a statement that the tour would highlight federal investments that “are bringing new revenue to farms, increased economic development in rural towns and communities, and more opportunity throughout the country.”Mr. Biden will be joined on Wednesday by Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary. Against the backdrop of a family farm that uses techniques to make crops more resilient to climate change, they will announce $1.7 billion for farmers nationwide to adopt so-called climate-smart agriculture practices.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will join President Biden in Minnesota and later travel to Indiana, Wyoming and Colorado.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesOther funding announcements include $1.1 billion in loans and grants to upgrade infrastructure in rural communities; $2 billion in investments as part of a program that helps rural governments work more closely with federal agencies on economic development projects; $274 million to expand high-speed internet infrastructure; and $145 million to expand access to wind, solar and other renewable energy, according to a White House fact sheet.“Young people in rural communities shouldn’t have to leave home to find opportunity,” Neera Tanden, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said Tuesday on a call with reporters.She said federal investments were creating “a pathway for the next generation to keep their roots in rural America.”Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, a Democrat, said he expected Mr. Biden to face serious headwinds in rural communities, in large part because of inflation levels.“It is a little challenging, there’s no denying, when prices go up,” Mr. Walz said. “The politics have gotten a little angrier. I think folks are feeling a little behind.”But Mr. Walz also praised Mr. Biden for spending time in rural communities. “Democrats need to show up,” he said.Kenan Fikri, the director of research at the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank, said the Biden administration had made sizable investments over the past two and a half years in agriculture, broadband and other rural priorities.“The administration has a lot to show for its economic development efforts in rural communities,” he said, but “whether voters will credit Biden for a strong economic performance is another question.”Later in the week Mr. Vilsack will travel to Indiana, Wyoming and Colorado to speak with agricultural leaders and discuss land conservation. Deb Haaland, the interior secretary, will go to her home state of New Mexico to highlight water infrastructure investments.Energy Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm will be in Arizona to talk about the electricity grid and renewable energy investment in the rural Southwest.The veterans affairs secretary, Denis McDonough, plans to visit Iowa to discuss improving access to medical care for veterans in rural areas. Isabel Guzman, who leads the Small Business Administration, will travel to Georgia to talk about loans for rural small businesses.Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, will go to New Hampshire to promote how community colleges help students from rural areas. Xavier Becerra, the secretary of health and human services, will be in North Carolina to talk about health care access in rural areas. More

  • 175 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    A Push for Tech Hubs in Overlooked Places Picks 31 to Vie for Money

    by

    A new federal program will be a test of whether spreading funds outside of big cities will result in economic gains, or in inefficiencies.The Biden administration said on Monday that it had chosen 31 regions as potential recipients of federal money that would seek to fund innovation in parts of the country that government investment overlooked in the past.The announcement was the first phase of a program that aims to establish so-called tech hubs around the country across a variety of cutting-edge industries, like quantum computing, precision medicine and clean energy. In the coming months, the regions will compete for a share of $500 million, with roughly five to 10 of the projects receiving up to about $75 million each, the administration said.The program will test a central idea of a bipartisan bill that lawmakers passed last year: that science and technology funding should not just be concentrated in Silicon Valley and a few thriving coastal regions but flow to parts of the country that are less populated or have historically received less government funding.Proponents of the program say these investments can tap into pools of workers and economic resources that are not reaching their full potential, and improve the American economy as well as its technological abilities.But it remains to be seen if dispatching money to more remote places, which struggle with issues like an outflow of young workers, will ultimately be the most efficient way to use government funding to promote technological gains.The 31 finalists were chosen from nearly 400 applicants, the Commerce Department said. They include proposals to manufacture semiconductors in New York and Oregon, design autonomous systems for transportation and agriculture in Oklahoma, research biotechnology in Indiana and process critical minerals in Missouri.In Washington on Monday, President Biden said these tech hubs would bring together private industry, educational institutions, state and local governments, tribes, and organized labor to produce “transformational” research.“We’re doing this from coast to coast, and in the heartland and red states and blue states, small towns, cities of all sizes,” Mr. Biden added. “All this is part of my strategy to invest in America and invest in Americans.”Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said in an interview on Monday that the tech hub program, which he had devised with Senator Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, had helped to secure bipartisan support for the CHIPS and Science Act last year.The legislation included $200 billion for basic scientific research, and more than $75 billion in grants and tax credits for semiconductor companies. It aimed to lower the country’s dependence on foreign manufacturers of computer chips and other critical technology.Mr. Schumer said “it was a very big selling point” for the overall bill that the funding was not just going to “three or four cities in blue states.”“There was such divisiveness in the country, the coasts and non-coasts, and a lot of it was because all these new tech and high-end industries were locating on the coasts,” he said. “And so we crafted the tech hub program to be spread throughout the middle of America.”Mr. Schumer was touring Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse on Monday to celebrate the inclusion of two New York proposals, one focused on semiconductor manufacturing and the other on battery technology.“There’s a lot of talent here that’s not used,” he added.Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, described the tech hub program as “a grand experiment” in industrial policy.Mr. Muro said the United States had seen the incredible strength of concentrating technology investments in a few key places like Silicon Valley, where companies in related businesses can benefit by clustering together. But those investment patterns have also resulted in tremendous imbalances in the country’s economy, where “only a few places are truly prospering and much talent and much innovation is left on the table,” he said.“This is a whole different map,” Mr. Muro said, adding, “I think we need to make some experiments and some of them will probably be great investments.”The announcements tried to balance several competing goals of the tech hubs, including whether to invest in as many regions as possible — or whether to concentrate spending in a few areas in hopes of engineering radical economic improvement in those areas. They also reflected the high interest in the program from regional officials and their representatives in Congress.The administration is also trying to do as much as possible with initial funding for the program that remains well below the maximum levels lawmakers set in the CHIPS bill. While that bill authorized Congress to fund a variety of programs, lawmakers still need to greenlight actual money for many of the tech hub investments, as well as other programs.Given those financial constraints, some supporters of the program said on Monday that they hoped administration officials would ultimately focus most of the money on a small set of the announced hubs. Ideally, “you’d be extremely narrow about who gets funding,” said John Lettieri, president and chief executive of the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank. “The more narrow the better.”The later round of funding announcements, he added, “is where we have to be pretty ruthless about shielding the process from politics as much as possible.”Madeleine Ngo More

  • 88 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Tightens China’s Access to A.I. Chips

    by

    The further limits on shipments could cripple Beijing’s A.I. ambitions and dampen revenues for U.S. chip makers, analysts said.The Biden administration on Tuesday announced additional limits on the kinds of advanced semiconductors that American firms can sell to China, shoring up restrictions issued last October to limit China’s progress on artificial intelligence.The rules appear likely to bring to a halt most shipments of advanced semiconductors from the United States to Chinese data centers, which use them to produce models capable of artificial intelligence. More U.S. companies seeking to sell China advanced chips, or the machinery used to make them, will be required to notify the government of their plans, or obtain a special license.To prevent the risk that advanced U.S. chips travel to China through third countries, the United States will also require chip makers to obtain licenses to ship to dozens of other countries that are subject to U.S. arms embargoes.The Biden administration argues that China’s access to such advanced technology is dangerous because it could aid the country’s military in tasks like guiding hypersonic missiles, setting up advanced surveillance systems or cracking top-secret U.S. codes.But artificial intelligence also has commercial applications, and the tougher restrictions may affect Chinese companies that have been trying to develop A.I. chatbots like ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, or the internet giant Baidu, industry analysts said. In the longer run, the limits could also weaken China’s economy, given that A.I. is transforming industries ranging from retail to health care.The limits also appear likely to cut into the money that U.S. chip makers such as Nvidia, AMD and Intel earn from selling advanced chips to China. Some chip makers earn as much as a third of their revenue from Chinese buyers and spent recent months lobbying against tighter restrictions.U.S. officials said the rules would exempt chips that were purely for use in commercial applications, like smartphones, electric vehicles and gaming systems. Most of the rules will take effect in 30 days, though some will become effective sooner.In a statement, the Semiconductor Industry Association, which represents major chip makers, said it was evaluating the impact of the updated rules.“We recognize the need to protect national security and believe maintaining a healthy U.S. semiconductor industry is an essential component to achieving that goal,” the group said. “Overly broad, unilateral controls risk harming the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem without advancing national security as they encourage overseas customers to look elsewhere.” In a call with reporters on Monday, a senior administration official said that the United States had seen people try to work around the earlier rules, and that recent breakthroughs in generative A.I. had given regulators more insight into how the so-called large language models behind it were being developed and used.Gina M. Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said the changes had been made “to ensure that these rules are as effective as possible.”Referring to the People’s Republic of China, she said, “The goal is the same goal that it’s always been, which is to limit P.R.C. access to advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to P.R.C. military applications.”She added, “Controlling technology is more important than ever as it relates to national security.”The tougher rules could anger Chinese officials when the Biden administration is trying to improve relations and prepare for a potential meeting between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, in California next month.The Biden administration has been trying to counter China’s growing mastery of many cutting-edge technologies by pumping money into new chip factories in the United States. It has simultaneously been trying to set tough but narrow restrictions on exports of technology to China that could have military uses, while allowing other trade to flow freely. U.S. officials describe the strategy as protecting American technology with “a small yard and high fence.”But determining which technologies really pose a threat to national security has been a contentious task. Major semiconductor companies like Intel, Qualcomm and Nvidia have argued that overly restrictive trade bans can sap them of the revenue they need to invest in new plants and research facilities in the United States.Some critics say the limits could also fuel China’s efforts to develop alternative technologies, ultimately weakening U.S. influence globally.The changes announced Tuesday appear to have particularly significant implications for Nvidia, the biggest beneficiary of the artificial intelligence boom.In response to the Biden administration’s first major restrictions on artificial intelligence chips a year ago, Nvidia designed new chips, the A800 and H800, for the Chinese market that worked at slower speeds but could still be used by Chinese firms to train A.I. models. A senior administration official said the new rules would restrict those sales.In addition to those expanded restrictions, the United States will create a “gray list” that requires makers of certain less advanced chips to notify the government if they are selling them to China, Iran or other countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo.In a note to clients last week, Julian Evans-Pritchard, the head of China economics at the research firm Capital Economics, said the effects of the controls would become more apparent as non-Chinese companies rolled out more advanced versions of their current products and the amount of computing power needed to train A.I. models rose as their data sets grew larger.“The upshot is that China’s ability to reach the technological frontier in the development of large-scale A.I. models will be hampered by U.S. export controls,” Mr. Evans-Pritchard wrote. That could have broader implications for the Chinese economy, he added, since “we think A.I. has the potential to be a game changer for productivity growth over the next couple decades.” More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Scales Back Hopes for Ambitious Climate Trade Deal With Europe

    by

    A negotiating deadline is quickly approaching, and the United States has lowered its expectations for a groundbreaking trade deal.For the past two years, the United States and the European Union have been working toward a deal that would encourage trade in steel and aluminum made in more environmentally friendly ways to combat climate change.But longstanding differences on the way governments should treat trade and regulation have cropped up, preventing the allies from coming to a compromise. With an Oct. 31 deadline to reach a deal approaching, the United States has significantly narrowed its ambition for the pact, at least in its initial iteration.The outcome has been deeply disappointing for American negotiators, including Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative in charge of the talks, according to people familiar with the negotiations. In speeches last year, Ms. Tai described the potential deal as “historic” and “a paradigm-shifting model” that would reduce carbon produced by heavy industries, while also limiting unfair trade competition from countries like China, which has been pumping out cheap steel that is not manufactured in an environmentally friendly way.U.S. negotiators had envisioned setting up a club of nations committed to cleaner production, initially with Europe and later with other countries, that together would act to block dirtier steel, aluminum and other products from their markets. Steel and aluminum production is incredibly carbon intensive, with the industries together accounting for about a 10th of global carbon emissions. But Europeans raised a variety of objections to the approach, including arguing that it violated global trade rules for treating countries fairly.Now, the Biden administration is trying to salvage the talks by pushing for a narrower deal in the coming weeks. The more limited U.S. proposal currently includes an immediate agreement for countries to take steps to combat a flood of dirtier steel from countries like China, as well as a commitment to keep negotiating in the coming years for a framework that would discourage trade in products made with more carbon emissions, the people familiar with the negotiations said.Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, has been seeking a far-reaching deal with the Europe Union.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe agreement is expected to be a point of discussion at a summit planned for Oct. 20, when President Biden will meet the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at the White House.The stakes are high: The United States is poised to bring back Trump-era tariffs on European steel and aluminum on Jan. 1, unless the sides reach an agreement, or American negotiators issue a special reprieve. Mr. Biden paused those tariffs for two years in 2021, when negotiations began with Europe.Restoring cooperation between the United States and Europe after years of rocky relations during the Trump presidency has been a key objective for Mr. Biden and his deputies.But the talks faced a basic obstacle: the United States and Europe have fundamental differences in how they are addressing climate change, trade and competition from China, and neither side is yet willing to significantly depart from its own policies.The Biden administration has largely dispensed with traditional trade negotiations focused on opening international markets, arguing that past trade deals that lowered global barriers to trade helped multinational corporations, rather than American workers, while supercharging the Chinese economy.Instead, the Biden administration has embraced tariffs, subsidies and trade arrangements that protect industries in the United States and allied countries, while blocking cheaper products made in China. It has done so in lock step with U.S. labor unions, which are opposed to removing tariffs and other policies that protect their industries.The European Union has criticized the American tariffs and subsidy programs as protectionist policies that threaten to undermine international trade rules.“This administration is trying to significantly retool the way we go about global economic engagement,” said Emily Benson, the director of Project on Trade and Technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “What’s unclear is the degree to which our allies buy into that agenda.”For their part, European officials are putting their efforts into an ambitious new carbon pricing scheme, that would tax companies across a range of industries in Europe and elsewhere for the greenhouse gases emitted during manufacturing. European officials have urged the United States to adopt a similar approach but American officials argue such a system is not viable in the United States, where Congress would be unlikely to impose new carbon taxes on American companies.The two governments also differ in how to approach China, which makes more than half of the world’s steel, often by burning coal. American steel makers say their Chinese counterparts receive generous government subsidies that allow Chinese steel to be sold at artificially low prices, unfairly undercutting competitors.European officials have been more reluctant to target China specifically. While the E.U. government has begun to take a more skeptical look at Chinese exports, many European nations still regard the country more as a vital business partner than a geopolitical rival.Given the close alignment between the United States and Europe on many issues, the history of trade negotiations between the governments is surprisingly bleak.The Obama administration pursued a trade deal with Europe that ultimately crumbled as a result of irreconcilable differences over regulation and agriculture. After lobbing both criticism and tariffs at Europe, the Trump administration tried for a more limited agreement, with similarly unimpressive results.The Biden administration successfully de-escalated some of those trade fights. But fundamental differences remain in how the United States and Europe view the role of government and regulation.“It’s incredibly complicated, largely because we have markedly different priorities,” said William Alan Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I can see a path but the path involves both sides making concessions that they really don’t want to make.”Miriam Garcia Ferrer, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said the countries were “fully committed to achieving an ambitious outcome” by October.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, has warm relations with the American trade representative but that has not yet resulted in an agreement.Andy Wong/Associated PressThe European Union is seeking a permanent solution to U.S. tariffs and “re-establish normal and undistorted trans-Atlantic trade” while also driving decarbonization and addressing the challenge of global steel overproduction, Ms. Garcia Ferrer said.Sam Michel, a spokesperson for the U.S. trade representative, said that the Biden administration had “been fully committed to these negotiations over the last two years and we are hopeful both sides can reach an agreement that demonstrates the close partnership between the United States and the European Union.”People close to the talks say the outcome has been particularly disappointing given the close alignment and warm relations between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen, and Ms. Tai and her counterpart, Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade.Ms. Tai and Mr. Dombrovskis committed earlier this year to meeting every month. Mr. Dombrovskis, the former prime minister of Latvia, hosted Ms. Tai at a seaside dinner in the Latvian capital in June, and she brought him to the White House on July 4 to watch fireworks from the lawn.U.S. officials initially thought those meetings might mark a turning point for the negotiations. In a trip to Brussels in July, Ms. Tai told her counterparts that time was running out and that they needed to get something done.But that top-level commitment did not fuel momentum at lower levels of the bureaucracy, and progress fizzled as European negotiators left for summer holidays.The pace of talks has accelerated over the past month, but for a much more limited agreement.Jennifer Harris, a former senior director for international economics at the National Security Council who played a key role in starting negotiations, expressed optimism that progress could be made in the final days and weeks of the negotiations, especially given the upcoming meeting between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen.The talks now need “the kind of swift injection of tailwind that only leaders can provide,” she said. “I don’t think either leader is going to let this thing fail.” More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Strike Is a High-Stakes Gamble for Autoworkers and the Labor Movement

    by

    Experts on unions and the industry said the U.A.W. strike could accelerate a wave of worker actions, or stifle labor’s recent momentum.Since the start of the pandemic, labor unions have enjoyed something of a renaissance. They have made inroads into previously nonunion companies like Starbucks and Amazon, and won unusually strong contracts for hundreds of thousands of workers. Last year, public approval for unions reached its highest level since the Lyndon Johnson presidency.What unions haven’t had during that stretch is a true gut-check moment on a national scale. Strikes by railroad workers and UPS employees, which had the potential to rattle the U.S. economy, were averted at the last minute. The fallout from the continuing writers’ and actors’ strikes has been heavily concentrated in Southern California.The strike by the United Automobile Workers, whose members walked off the job at three plants on Friday, is shaping up to be such a test. A contract with substantial wage increases and other concessions from the three automakers could announce organized labor as an economic force to be reckoned with and accelerate a recent wave of organizing.But there are also real pitfalls. A prolonged strike could undermine the three established U.S. automakers — General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram — and send the politically crucial Midwest into recession. If the union is seen as overreaching, or if it settles for a weak deal after a costly stoppage, public support could sour.“Right now, unions are cool,” said Michael Lotito, a lawyer at Littler Mendelson, a firm representing management.“But unions have a risk of not being very cool if you have five-month strike in L.A and an X-month strike in how many other states,” he added.If the stakes seem high for the U.A.W., that’s partly because the union’s new president, Shawn Fain, has gone out of his way to elevate them. During frequent video meetings with members before the strike, Mr. Fain has portrayed the negotiations as a broader struggle pitting ordinary workers against corporate titans.“I know that we’re on the right side in this battle,” he said in a recent video appearance. “It’s a battle of the working class against the rich, the haves versus the have-nots, the billionaire class against everybody else.”Mr. Fain’s framing of the contract campaign in class terms appears to be resonating with his members, thousands of whom have watched the online sessions.Shunte Sanders-Beasley, a U.A.W. member said, “If we can win back some of the concessions we took, I’m hoping that it’ll be a trickle-down effect.”Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesShunte Sanders-Beasley, a U.A.W. member in Michigan who started working at a Chrysler plant in Indiana in 1999, said she saw the fight similarly.“If you follow history, autoworkers tend to set the tone,” said Ms. Sanders-Beasley, who has served as vice president of her local and backed Mr. Fain’s campaign for the union’s presidency last year. “If we can win back some of the concessions we took, I’m hoping that it’ll be a trickle-down effect.”A successful autoworker strike in 1937, which led G.M. to recognize the U.A.W. for the first time, helped set in motion a wave of union organizing across a variety of industries like steel, oil, textiles and newspapers over the next few years.Labor activists agreed that the current strike could also reverberate across other industries, where workers appear to be paying close attention to the labor actions of the past year. “In organizing meetings, they say, ‘If they can do it, we can do it,’” said Jaz Brisack, an organizer with Workers United who had played a key role in the Starbucks campaign.But the flip side is that the strike could inflict collateral damage that creates frustration and hardship among tens of thousands of nonunion workers and their communities.“The small and medium-sized manufacturers across the country that make up the automotive sector’s integrated supply chain will feel the brunt of this work stoppage, whether they are a union shop or not,” Jay Timmons, the chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement Friday.Higher wages and gains for rank-and-file workers can be good for the economy. But some argue that Mr. Fain’s and other labor leaders’ aggressive demands could discourage businesses from investing in the United States or render them uncompetitive with foreign rivals.“Mr. Fain has to think about this, too — the long-term financial viability of these three companies,” said John Drake, vice president of transportation, infrastructure and supply chain policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Even those who welcome the union’s aggressive stance say it is fraught with risk. Gene Bruskin, a longtime union official who helped workers at a Smithfield meat-processing plant in North Carolina achieve, in 2008, one of the biggest organizing victories in decades, said a long strike could disillusion workers if the union came up short on key demands.“If the U.A.W. fails to make any significant gains, particularly on the two-tier stuff, their future could be seriously harmed,” said Mr. Bruskin, referring to a system in which newer workers are paid far less than veteran workers who perform similar jobs.Mr. Bruskin also worried that the union could effectively win the battle and lose the war if the auto companies respond by shifting more production to Mexico, where they already have a significant presence. Shawn Fain, president of the U.A.W., said, “It’s a battle of the working class against the rich, the haves versus the have-nots, the billionaire class against everybody else.”Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesThe tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies for domestic production of electric vehicles that President Biden has helped secure should limit that shift and help keep manufacturing jobs at home. Many automakers are already locating new plants in the United States to take advantage of the funds.Still, Willy Shih, an expert on manufacturing at Harvard Business School, said the automakers could adjust their operations in ways that undercut the U.A.W. while continuing to produce cars domestically. Automation is one option, he said, as is locating new plants in lightly unionized Southern states.The Detroit automakers have created joint ventures with foreign battery makers outside the reach of the U.A.W.’s national contracts and have sought to locate some of those plants in states like Tennessee and Kentucky. The union is seeking to bring workers at those plants up to the same pay and labor standards that direct employees of the Big Three enjoy, but it has not succeeded so far.Given those threats, the union may feel justified in taking a more ambitious posture toward the automakers. The primary check on shifting work to other states will be the U.A.W.’s ability to organize new plants, especially in the South, where it has struggled to gain traction for years. Experts argued that the union would likely increase its chances of attracting members there if it could point to large concrete gains.“The answer is winning a strong contact here and using it to organize huge groups of autoworkers who are currently nonunion,” said Barry Eidlin, a sociologist at McGill University in Montreal who studies labor.And there are other ways in which being too cautious may be a bigger risk to the union than being too aggressive. Organizers point out that workers are often demoralized when union leaders talk tough and then quickly settle for a subpar deal.Critics of the previous U.A.W. administration accused it of doing just that before Mr. Fain took over this year. “We’d be trying to make sense of how certain things passed in the first place,” Shana Shaw, another longtime U.A.W. member who backed Mr. Fain, said of the concessionary contracts autoworkers were asked to accept over the years.Even Mr. Fain’s habit of framing the fight in broad class terms may prove to be a strategic advantage. A recent Gallup poll found that 75 percent of the public backed the autoworkers in the showdown, compared with 19 percent who were more sympathetic to the companies.The widespread public support suggests that the autoworkers may be operating in a different context from workers in another strike that famously contributed to a loss of power for labor: air traffic controllers’ unsuccessful fight against the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, after which private-sector employers appeared to become more comfortable firing and replacing striking employees.Dr. Eidlin said that while the air traffic controllers failed to court allies in the labor movement, “the fact that Fain and the U.A.W. are messaging more broadly, really trying to build that broad coalition, speaks to the possibility of a different outcome.” More