Biden, Joseph R Jr

More stories

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Withdraws Sarah Bloom Raskin as Nominee for Fed’s Top Bank Cop

    by

    President Biden will withdraw his nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin to serve as the Federal Reserve’s top bank regulator on Tuesday, after a Democratic senator said he would join Republicans in voting against her, most likely dooming her chances of confirmation.Ms. Raskin earlier on Tuesday sent a letter to the White House asking to withdraw her name from consideration to be the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, according to two people familiar with the decision. The New Yorker earlier reported the existence of the letter.“Sarah was subject to baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups,” Mr. Biden said in a statement released on Tuesday afternoon.While the end of Ms. Raskin’s candidacy will leave the Biden administration without the regulatory voice it was hoping for at the Fed Board, which oversees the nation’s largest banks, it could pave the way toward confirmation for the White House’s other Fed picks. Republicans had been stonewalling Ms. Raskin’s nomination, and in the process they were holding up the White House’s four other Fed nominees, including Jerome H. Powell, who is seeking confirmation to a second term as Fed chair.Besides Mr. Powell, Mr. Biden has nominated Lael Brainard to be the Fed’s vice chair and two academic economists — Philip N. Jefferson and Lisa D. Cook — to serve as governors.“I urge the Senate Banking Committee to move swiftly to confirm the four eminently qualified nominees for the Board of Governors,” Mr. Biden wrote in his statement.Ms. Raskin almost certainly lacked sufficient support to pass the Senate. Republicans opposed her nomination to be vice chair for bank supervision and Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said on Monday that he would not vote to confirm her.In deciding to withhold support for Ms. Raskin, Mr. Manchin essentially doomed her chances in an evenly divided Senate. Democrats most likely needed all 50 lawmakers who caucus with their party to vote for Ms. Raskin, with Vice President Kamala Harris able to break ties.Republicans had shown little appetite for placing a supporter of tougher bank regulation into a powerful regulatory role at the Fed and had also boycotted her nomination over her work in the private sector. Lawmakers refused to show up to a key committee vote to advance her nomination to the full Senate.They had also seized on Ms. Raskin’s writings, saying her statements showed that she would be too aggressive in policing climate risks within the financial system and would overstep the unelected central bank’s boundaries.“President Biden was literally asking for senators to support a central banker who wanted to usurp the Senate’s policymaking power for herself,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said on Tuesday. He added: “It is past time the White House admit their mistake and send us someone suitable.”Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, cited Ms. Raskin’s past comments on the role that financial regulation should play in fighting climate change for his opposition.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Manchin, who represents a coal state and has close ties to the fossil fuel industry, cited Ms. Raskin’s climate comments in explaining his opposition.Ms. Raskin had written an opinion piece in September 2021 arguing that “U.S. regulators can — and should — be looking at their existing powers and considering how they might be brought to bear on efforts to mitigate climate risk.”She did not argue that the Fed push beyond its legal boundaries, and the fierce backlash underlined that the issue of climate-related regulation is politically fraught territory in the United States.The White House “may want to take some time, lick their wounds, and make sure they carefully think about who to nominate next,” said Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners. He noted that he would expect the White House to name a new nominee before the midterm elections in November. “They’re not having success with candidates who do not sit well with moderate Democrats.”Saule Omarova, a Cornell Law School professor whom critics painted as a communist after Mr. Biden picked her to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, withdrew her candidacy late last year.Opponents to Ms. Raskin’s confirmation targeted more than just her climate views. They also took issue with work she did in the private sector — and the way she answered questions about that work.Republicans had specifically cited concerns about Ms. Raskin’s time on the board of directors of a financial technology firm. The company, Reserve Trust, secured a coveted account with the Fed — giving it access to services that it now prominently advertises — after Ms. Raskin reportedly called a central bank official to intervene on its behalf.It is unclear how much Ms. Raskin’s involvement actually helped. But the episode raised questions because she previously worked at the Fed and because she made about $1.5 million from the stock she earned for her Reserve Trust work. Democrats regularly denounce the revolving door between regulators and financial firms.Republicans had demanded that Ms. Raskin provide more details about what happened while she was on the company’s board, but she had largely said she could not remember. Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, led his colleagues in refusing to show up to vote on Ms. Raskin and the other Fed nominees until she provided more answers.Mr. Toomey signaled on Monday that he would favor allowing the other Fed nominees to proceed.Sherrod Brown, Democrat from Ohio and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday that he would hold a markup for the other nominees, and later told reporters that he might move them as soon as this week.“Sadly, the American people will be denied a thoughtful, experienced public servant who was ready to fight inflation, stand up to Wall Street and corporate special interests, and protect our economy from foreign cyberattacks and climate change,” Mr. Brown said in his statement.Several more progressive Democrats expressed disappointment that Ms. Raskin would not be confirmed.“The lobbyists have power on Capitol Hill, and when they see their power threatened, they fight back hard — Sarah Bloom Raskin is just the latest casualty,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in response to the news.Michael D. Shear More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Allies Will Strip Russia of Favored Trade Status

    by

    WASHINGTON — President Biden and other Western leaders moved on Friday to further isolate Russia from the global trading system, saying they would strip the country of normal trade relations and take other steps to sever its links to the world economy in response to President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.The measures, which were announced jointly with the European Union and other Group of 7 countries, would allow countries to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods and would prevent Russia from borrowing funds from multilateral institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.Mr. Biden also moved to cut off additional avenues of trade between the United States and Russia, barring lucrative imports like seafood, vodka and certain diamonds, which the White House estimated would cost Russia more than $1 billion in export revenues per year.The United States will also restrict exports to Russia and Belarus of luxury items like high-end watches, vehicles, alcohol, jewelry and apparel. The European Union announced its own set of bans, including barring imports of Russian iron and steel.The restrictions add to a growing list of economic barriers that much of the developed world has put in place on Russia, whose economy is already suffering as a result. The ruble has lost nearly half its value over the past month, food prices are soaring and Russia is in danger of defaulting on its sovereign debt. Its stock market has remained closed since the war began.Mr. Biden said on Friday that the moves “will be another crushing blow to the Russian economy.” He said Russia was “already suffering very badly” from the sanctions, adding that the West’s economic pressure was a reason the Russian stock market had not reopened.“It’ll blow up” once it opens, Mr. Biden predicted.The White House has been under pressure in recent days to respond to Russian attacks in Ukraine, including the shelling of hospitals, other buildings and civilian evacuation routes. The White House has warned that Russia may also use chemical weapons against Ukrainians, but it has repeatedly said that Mr. Biden will not send American troops into the fray.Instead, the administration has focused on ratcheting up economic pressure. Earlier in the week, Mr. Biden banned imports of Russian oil, gas and coal and imposed restrictions on U.S. energy investments in Russia.The move to strip Russia of its preferential trade status would allow some of its biggest trading partners to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods. The Group of 7 countries, which also include Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, purchased about half of Russia’s exports in 2019.Russia’s preferential trade status is conveyed by its membership in the World Trade Organization, whose rules require that all members grant each other “most favored nation” trading status in which goods can flow between countries at lower tariff rates.Taking away that status — which the United States calls “permanent normal trade relations” — would most likely have a much larger impact for the European Union, which is Russia’s largest trading partner and a major importer of Russian fuel, minerals, wood, steel and fertilizer.In the United States, the move would carry heavy symbolism, but it could have a limited economic impact compared with other sanctions that have already been imposed, according to trade experts.Chad P. Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the measure would raise U.S. tariffs on Russian products to an average of about 32 percent from 3 percent.“However, the trade impact on Russia of such a tariff hike would be small, as the United States is not a particularly sizable export destination for Russian products,” he said. Russia was the 20th-largest supplier of goods to the United States in 2019, sending mainly energy products and minerals.And many of those goods would be subject to far lower tariffs — in some cases none at all — as a result of a decades-old trade law that would kick into place if the preferential trade status were revoked.Each country will follow its own domestic process to make this change, the Biden administration said. The European Union has begun to pave the way for higher tariffs on Russian goods, but the bloc’s 27 member countries must agree on how to carry that out. Canada announced last week that it would withdraw most favored nation tariffs for both Russia and Belarus, a close Russian ally.In the United States, the task falls to Congress, which had been pressuring the administration to consider such a move.House Democrats proposed two weeks ago to strip Russia of its trading status and begin a process to expel the country from the World Trade Organization. This week, top Democratic and Republican lawmakers said they would include the measures in a bill to penalize Russia, but at the White House’s request, Democrats ultimately stripped out the provision to remove Russia’s special trading status. The bill passed the House on Wednesday but has yet to pass the Senate.“It was taken out because the president wants to talk to our allies about that action, which I think is appropriate,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, told reporters this week.Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that the House would take up legislation next week to formalize the revocation of Russia’s trading status.“It is our hope that it will receive a strong, bipartisan vote,” she said.If approved, the measure would add to an array of harsh sanctions already announced by the United States and its allies. Western governments have reduced their energy trade with Russia, frozen the assets of Russian officials and oligarchs, and cut off the country from the dollar-denominated global financial system.An icebreaker cut a path for a cargo ship near the Franz Josef Land archipelago in Russia last year. The move to strip Russia of its preferential trade status would allow some of its biggest trading partners to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods. Emile Ducke for The New York TimesGovernments have also banned exports of advanced technology and transactions with Russia’s central bank. On Friday, the Bank for International Settlements, which provides banking services to the world’s central banks, said it was no longer conducting transactions with Russia. And the Treasury Department placed new economic sanctions on three immediate family members of Mr. Putin’s spokesman, along with 12 members of the Russian Duma and the management board of VTB Bank, which has already been sanctioned.The Treasury Department said it was specifically targeting a plane and a yacht of the Russian billionaire Viktor F. Vekselberg, which together are worth an estimated $180 million. Mr. Vekselberg is an ally of Mr. Putin, the department said.The Russian government has fired back by announcing it would place its own restrictions on its exports, including of raw materials.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Urges Americans to Blame Rising Prices on Putin. Many Do, for Now.

    by

    News that inflation has hit a 40-year high is another blunt reminder of just how much the president is asking voters to sacrifice in an election year.WASHINGTON — The price of gasoline has risen every day since Russia invaded Ukraine. Record-high inflation in the United States is causing sticker shock. And now, President Biden is blaming the pinch on Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president.“There will be costs at home as we impose crippling sanctions in response to Putin’s unprovoked war,” Mr. Biden said in a statement on Thursday.The president is betting that Americans are willing to endure the financial pain that comes from waging an economic war with Russia. But Thursday’s news that inflation has hit a 40-year high is another blunt reminder of just how much he is asking voters to sacrifice in an election year.With the midterm elections eight months away, the urgent political question for Mr. Biden is whether the American people are prepared to go along with blaming the Russians, and not him, for rising costs. Experts have said that prices have risen over the past year primarily because strong demand, stoked in part by government relief spending, outstripped pandemic-disrupted supply. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is just beginning to compound the problem.“It’s certainly a challenge, but it’s not one that we really have a choice about making,” Josh Schwerin, a Democratic strategist, said about imposing financial penalties on Russia. “There’s broad support for standing up to Putin and putting these sanctions in place, including those that will increase the cost of gas.”Mr. Biden’s approval ratings have been pulled down for months by frustration among many Americans about inflation and the pandemic. But recent surveys of voter attitudes suggest that many Democrats and Republicans support the administration’s sanctions on Russia, even if the penalties are bad for their pocketbooks.In an Economist/YouGov poll released this week, 66 percent of Americans said they approved of sanctions aimed at punishing Russia for its invasion. In a Wall Street Journal survey, 79 percent of voters supported a ban on Russian oil even if it meant that energy prices would rise as a result.Those findings are good news for Mr. Biden, who has been the subject of Republican attacks for failing to keep inflation in check. Republicans have blamed him for the rise in gas prices even as they supported his decision to impose a ban on Russian oil. Officials familiar with his decision said Mr. Biden had struggled for days over whether to cut off Russian oil amid fears of accelerating the already rapid rise in the price of gasoline.Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, accused the Biden administration on Thursday of refusing to take responsibility for rising costs.“Prices continue to skyrocket under Biden and Democrats’ reckless policies,” Ms. McDaniel said in a statement. “Biden’s attempt to deflect blame is an insult to every American and small-business owner struggling to afford the cost of everyday goods.”Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Thursday that there was “no question that inflation may be higher for the next few months than it would have been” without the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and that the administration’s focus would be to mitigate the long-term effects of rising costs.Democratic strategists pointed out that much of the criticism of Mr. Biden from Republicans is that he has not done even more to confront Russia. The president has repeatedly said he is unwilling to send American troops into Ukraine, and the United States declined this week to take fighter jets from Poland and station them at an American air base for eventual use in Ukraine.Each decision Mr. Biden is making, the strategists from his party argue, is rooted in strategic decision making, not political calculation.Russia-Ukraine War: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 4On the ground. More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Republicans Wrongly Blame Biden for Rising Gas Prices

    by

    They have pointed to the Biden administration’s policies on the Keystone XL pipeline and certain oil and gas leases, which have had little impact on prices.WASHINGTON — As gas prices hit a high this week, top Republican lawmakers took to the airwaves and the floors of Congress with misleading claims that pinned the blame on President Biden and his energy policies.Mr. Biden warned that his ban on imports of Russian oil, gas and coal, announced on Tuesday as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, would cause gas prices to rise further. High costs are expected to last as long as the confrontation does.While Republican lawmakers supported the ban, they asserted that the pain at the pump long preceded the war in Ukraine. Gas price hikes, they said, were the result of Mr. Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, the temporary halt on new drilling leases on public lands and the surrendering of “energy independence” — all incorrect assertions.Here’s a fact check of their claims.What Was Said“This administration wants to ramp up energy imports from Iran and Venezuela. That is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and a thuggish South America dictator, respectively. They would rather buy from these people than buy from Texas, Alaska and Pennsylvania.”— Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, in a speech on Tuesday“Democrats want to blame surging prices on Russia. But the truth is, their out-of-touch policies are why we are here in the first place. Remember what happened on Day 1 with one-party rule? The president canceled the Keystone pipeline, and then he stopped new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters.”— Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and the minority leader, in a speech on Tuesday“In the four years of the Trump-Pence administration, we achieved energy independence for the first time in 70 years. We were a net exporter of energy. But from very early on, with killing the Keystone pipeline, taking federal lands off the list for exploration, sidelining leases for oil and natural gas — once again, before Ukraine ever happened, we saw rising gasoline prices.”— Former Vice President Mike Pence in an interview on Fox Business on TuesdayThese claims are misleading. The primary reason for rising gas prices over the past year is the coronavirus pandemic and its disruptions to global supply and demand.“Covid changed the game, not President Biden,” said Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, which tracks gasoline prices. “U.S. oil production fell in the last eight months of President Trump’s tenure. Is that his fault? No.”“The pandemic brought us to our knees,” Mr. De Haan added.In the early months of 2020, when the virus took hold, demand for oil dried up and prices plummeted, with the benchmark price for crude oil in the United States falling to negative $37.63 that April. In response, producers in the United States and around the world began decreasing output.As pandemic restrictions loosened worldwide and economies recovered, demand outpaced supply. That was “mostly attributable” to the decision by OPEC Plus, an alliance of oil-producing countries that controls about half the world’s supply, to limit increases in production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Domestic production also remains below prepandemic levels, as capital spending declined and investors remained reluctant to provide financing to the oil industry.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has only compounded the issues.“When you throw a war on top of this, this is possibly the worst escalation you can have of this,” said Abhiram Rajendran, the head of oil market research at Energy Intelligence, an energy information company. “You’re literally pouring gasoline on general inflationary pressure.”These factors are largely out of Mr. Biden’s control, experts agreed, though they said he had not exactly sent positive signals to the oil and gas industry and its investors by vowing to reduce emissions and fossil fuel reliance.Mr. De Haan said the Biden administration was “clearly less friendly” to the industry, which may have indirectly affected investor attitudes. But overall, he said, that stance has played a “very, very small role pushing gas prices up.”President Biden announced a ban on imports of Russian oil in response to the country’s invasion of Ukraine.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesMr. Rajendran said the Biden administration had emphasized climate change issues while paying lip service to energy security.“There has been a pretty stark miscalculation of the amount of supply we would need to keep energy prices at affordable levels,” he said. “It was taken for granted. There was too much focus on the energy transition.”But presidents, Mr. Rajendran said, “have very little impact on short-term supply.”“The key relationship to watch is between companies and investors,” he said.It is true that the Biden administration is in talks with Venezuela and Iran over their oil supplies. But the administration is also urging American companies to ramp up production — to the dismay of climate change activists and contrary to Republican lawmakers’ suggestions that the White House is intent on handcuffing domestic producers.Speaking before the National Petroleum Council in December, Jennifer M. Granholm, the energy secretary, told oil companies to “please take advantage of the leases that you have, hire workers, get your rig count up.”Understand Rising Gas Prices in the U.S.Card 1 of 5A steady rise. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    How a Ban Russian Oil Imports Could Affect the U.S. Economy

    by

    The ban on Russian oil imports announced by President Biden on Tuesday could have meaningful consequences for the U.S. economy, pushing prices at the gas pump higher when inflation is already rapid, although how long-lasting that impact might be remains uncertain.“We’re banning all imports of Russian oil and gas and energy,” Mr. Biden said, speaking at a White House briefing. He said the plan would target the “main artery” of the Russian economy. While he acknowledged that the move would likely push gas prices up, he blamed Russian aggression for that reality.The ban applies to imports of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas and coal. It also prohibits new U.S. investments in Russia’s energy sector. And it blocks Americans from financing or enabling foreign companies that are making investments to produce energy in Russia.Europe imports far more of its supply from Russia than the United States, but energy markets are global, and the mere threat of a ban has pushed commodity prices higher in recent days.“Things have been so volatile,” said Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights, noting that it was difficult to tell how much of the rise in oil prices in recent days traces back to this specific ban. But the conflict in Ukraine is clearly pushing commodity gas prices higher — so much so that the national average gas price could rise to nearly $4.50 this month, he said, “assuming we don’t move any more.”While the oil and gas ban is almost sure to push inflation higher in the United States, economists have said that the scale of the economic consequences would depend in large part on how it was structured. For instance, it would likely make a big difference globally and in markets if Europeans also ban Russian oil and gas imports, and it is not yet clear whether or to what extent that will happen.A ban across many countries “would severely reduce and disrupt energy supply on a global scale and already high commodity prices would rise,” Caroline Bain, an economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a research note ahead of the announcement, estimating that the price of the global oil benchmark, Brent crude, would settle in at about $160 per barrel in that case.The Brent crude price jumped by about 6 percent to roughly $130 per barrel by the middle of the day Tuesday. By comparison, it was about $78 per barrel at the end of 2021.The 10 Largest Oil Producers in 2020

    Source: Energy Information AdministrationBy The New York TimesIt is not yet clear how many countries will adopt a similar ban: The White House signaled this week that the United States could act separately in blocking imports of Russian oil, noting that countries in Europe are more reliant on Russian energy, something Mr. Biden also alluded to on Tuesday.“Many of our European allies and partners may not be in a position to join us,” he said, but added that allies “remain united in our purpose” to inflict pain on Russia’s war effort. That includes efforts by the European Union to lessen its dependence on Russian energy.Britain indicated on Tuesday that it would take its own steps to ban imports of Russian energy products. Kwasi Kwarteng, the country’s business and energy secretary, said that it would phase out imports of Russian oil and oil products by the end of 2022.Other European countries are under increasing pressure to follow suit.“Everything’s on the table,” Franck Riester, the French minister for foreign trade, told the franceinfo radio station on Monday, adding that France had to look at potential bans on oil and gas imports from Russia with regard to “consequences in terms of pressure on Russia and in terms of economic, financial and social impacts in Europe.”The office of President Emmanuel Macron of France said on Tuesday evening that the country had to coordinate with the European Union before taking any further steps, but acknowledged Europe’s need to reduce its reliance on Russia.“The United States is not dependent on Russian oil and gas, but the European partners are,” Mr. Macron’s office said in a statement. “We have a long-term policy of getting rid of the dependence on Russian oil and gas, but in the immediate future we need to discuss this with our European partners.”While Italy is very dependent on Russian gas, the nation’s government has said that if the European Union decided to cut off its consumption of Russian gas and oil, Italy would not oppose the effort.The direct U.S. economic impact from the loss of Russian oil is likely to be notable, though less severe than what would happen in Europe. According to the International Energy Agency, the United States imported less than 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Russia in 2021. That represents less than 10 percent of what the United States imports globally.Higher global oil and gas commodity prices and rising prices at the pump will add to the inflationary pain that is already dogging consumers. Prices are climbing at the fastest pace in 40 years, and data this week is expected to show that the annual increase climbed higher in February.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Bans Oil Imports From Russia, Warning Gas Prices Will Rise

    by

    Officials said President Biden had struggled for days over the move amid deep concerns about accelerating the already rapid rise in the price of gasoline.WASHINGTON — President Biden on Tuesday banned imports of Russian oil, gas and coal in response to what he called President Vladimir V. Putin’s “vicious war of choice” in Ukraine, but warned Americans that the decision to inflict economic pain on Russia would inevitably mean higher gas prices at home.“Defending freedom is going to cost,” Mr. Biden said in televised remarks announcing the ban at the White House.The president’s move immediately shut off a relatively small flow of oil into the United States, but it was quickly followed by a British pledge to phase out imports of Russian oil by the end of the year and a declaration from the European Commission — the executive arm of the European Union, which is heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas — to make itself independent of that supply in the coming years.The impact of the decisions quickly rippled across the global energy market amid fears that the supply of oil would shrink. In the United States, the national average price of a gallon of regular gasoline, which had already surged in recent weeks, reached $4.173, not adjusted for inflation, a new high and an average increase of about 72 cents from only a month ago, according to AAA.“If we do not respond to Putin’s assault on global peace and stability today, the cost of freedom and to the American people will be even greater tomorrow,” Mr. Biden said.He vowed to “do everything I can to minimize Putin’s price hike here at home.”Under intense, bipartisan pressure from lawmakers to deny Russia any more oil revenue from Americans, Mr. Biden acted without the unity among allies that has characterized most of the response to Russia’s aggression during the past several months.The moves by Britain and the E.U. fell short of Mr. Biden’s ban. Franck Riester, the French minister for foreign trade, told the Franceinfo radio station on Monday that “everything’s on the table,” but that officials would need to consider “consequences” from an energy ban. In Italy, which imports more than 40 percent of its energy as Russian gas, Prime Minister Mario Draghi has said the overdependence on Russian gas is a strategic weakness for the country.Even as Mr. Biden spoke, describing his ban as “another powerful blow to Putin’s war machine,” a new wave of major corporations across the world began shutting down their operations in Russia on Tuesday.Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, said it would begin withdrawing from its involvement “in all Russian hydrocarbons,” including an immediate halt to all spot purchases of Russian crude and the shuttering of its service stations in the country. McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Pepsico and Starbucks announced that they would temporarily close all restaurants and pause all operations in Russia in response to the invasion in Ukraine. Amazon stopped letting customers in Russia and Belarus open new cloud computing accounts.An oil refinery in Omsk, Russia. About 12 percent of the world’s oil and 17 percent of its natural gas comes from Russia, according to estimates from J.P. Morgan.Alexey Malgavko/ReutersOfficials said Mr. Biden had struggled for days over whether to cut off Russian oil amid fears of accelerating the already rapid rise in the price of gasoline. It is a potent political issue for Americans in an election year and a test of how much voters are willing to sacrifice in defense of Ukraine.Even into the weekend, as a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House tried to finalize legislation to impose a ban on Russian oil, the White House expressed deep concerns, according to officials monitoring the discussions, who said the administration appeared wary of letting Congress take the lead on enacting a ban.A vote on the House bill, which is supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, was delayed late Tuesday.The president and his aides have discussed a series of additional moves to blunt the impact of the ban, including additional releases from strategic oil reserves. Last week, the United States committed to releasing 30 million barrels of oil, joining 30 other nations for a total release of 60 million barrels.Administration officials have also held diplomatic conversations with other oil-producing nations, including Venezuela, about increasing the flow of oil to keep prices stable. Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, on Monday confirmed discussions with Venezuela about “energy security” and other issues, but declined to elaborate.Any barrels the United States imports to replace Russian oil will come from a global market that is already stretched. Unless and until Russia finds alternative buyers, the constraint on available supplies is likely to keep prices high.U.S. consumers are already feeling the squeeze. In California, prices for some types of gas has hovered around $6 in recent days; on Tuesday the state average was well over $5.Republicans on Tuesday largely backed Mr. Biden’s decision to cut off Russian oil, giving the president a rare moment of bipartisan support. But even as they did so, many Republicans once again seized on high prices at the pump to criticize him and his party.“Democrats want to blame surging prices on Russia,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader, said on Tuesday. “But the truth is, their out-of-touch policies are why we are here in the first place.”In his remarks, Mr. Biden cast the decision as a moral one, aimed at further crippling Mr. Putin’s economy as Russian forces continued their brutal bombardment of civilians in several of Ukraine’s cities and suburbs after two grueling weeks of war in Europe.“Ukrainian people have inspired the world and I mean that in the literal sense,” Mr. Biden said. “They’ve inspired the world with their bravery, their patriotism, their defiant determination to live free. Putin’s war has caused enormous suffering and needless loss of life of women, children, and everyone in Ukraine.”He added: “Putin seems determined to continue on his murderous path, no matter the cost.”Battles continued to rage across Ukraine on Tuesday as humanitarian officials reported that two million refugees have fled the country seeking safety. But casualties increased as evacuations though supposed “green corridors” continued to come under fire.About 2,000 civilians were able to escape Irpin, a suburb just northwest of Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, which has spent days without water, power and heat because of the heavy fighting in the area. In the war-battered city of Sumy, east of Kyiv, one humanitarian corridor lasted long enough to allow hundreds of civilians to escape in a convoy of buses led by the Red Cross.Civilians were evacuated from Irpin, Ukraine on Tuesday.Lynsey Addario for The New York TimesBut hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians remain trapped in the besieged southern city of Mariupol.The Ukrainian military claimed to have shot down three Russian fighter jets and a cruise missile early Tuesday, an assertion that appeared to be backed up by several loud explosions over Kyiv, a potential sign that Ukraine’s air defense systems and air force are still functioning.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine taunted Mr. Putin on Tuesday with a video showing him in his office in Kyiv and saying: “I’m not hiding. And I’m not afraid of anyone.” Mr. Zelensky also spoke by video link to a packed meeting of Britain’s Parliament.The Pentagon on Tuesday rejected an offer by Poland to send its MiG-29 fighter planes to a U.S. air base in Germany to aid the Ukrainians, saying that for such jets to depart a U.S./NATO base “to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance.”Separately, the Pentagon said it was sending two Patriot anti-missile batteries to Poland to protect U.S., Polish and other allied troops there, reflecting an increasing fear in Warsaw and in Washington that Russian missiles fired in neighboring Ukraine could end up in Poland, whether on purpose or by accident.White House officials said the president signed an executive order on Tuesday that prohibits anyone in the United States from importing “Russian crude oil and certain petroleum products, liquefied natural gas and coal.” It also bans new U.S. investment directly in Russia’s energy sector or in foreign companies that are investing in energy production in Russia, officials said.In announcing his decision, Mr. Biden acknowledged that some European countries, including Germany and France, would most likely not follow suit because they rely much more heavily on energy from Russia.“A united response to Putin’s aggression has been my overriding focus to keep all of NATO and all of the E.U. and our allies totally united,” Mr. Biden said. “We’re moving forward with this ban understanding that many of our European allies and partners may not be in a position to join us.”Russia-Ukraine War: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 4Russian oil imports. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Employer Practices Limit Workers’ Choices and Wages, U.S. Study Argues

    by

    A Biden administration report says collusion and other constraints on competition hold down pay and prospects in the labor market.The recent narrative is that there is a tight labor market that gives workers leverage. But a new report from the Biden administration argues that the deck is still stacked against workers, reducing their ability to move from one employer to another and hurting their pay.The report, released Monday by the Treasury Department, contends that employers often face little competition for their workers, allowing them to pay substantially less than they would otherwise.“There is a recognition that the idea of a competitive labor market is a fiction,” said Ben Harris, assistant Treasury secretary in the office of economic policy, which prepared the report. “This is a sea change in economics.”The report follows up on a promise made by President Biden last summer when he issued an executive order directing his administration to address excessive concentration in the market for work.Drawing from recent economic research, the report concludes that lack of competition in the job market costs workers, on average, 15 to 25 percent of what they might otherwise make. And it emphasizes that the administration will deploy the tools at its disposal to restore competition in the market for work.“This is the administration declaring where it is on the enforcement of antitrust in labor markets,” Tim Wu, a special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy on the National Economic Council, said in an interview in which he laid out the report’s findings. “It is sending a strong signal about the direction in which antitrust enforcement and policy is going.”Across the economy, wage gains generally come about when a worker changes jobs or has a credible offer from outside that will encourage the current employer to provide an increase, argues Betsey Stevenson, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan who was on President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.The State of Jobs in the United StatesEmployment growth accelerated in February, as falling coronavirus cases brought customers back to businesses and workers back to the office.February Jobs Report: U.S. employers added 678,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent ​​in the second month of 2022.Wages and Prices: A labor shortage is helping to push up workers’ pay. With inflation running hot, that could be a problem for the Federal Reserve.Service Workers:  Even as employers scramble to fill vacancies, service workers are seeing few gains. Part-time work is partly to blame.Unionization Efforts: The pandemic has fueled enthusiasm for organized labor. But the pushback has been brutal, especially in the private sector.New to the Work Force: Graduating college seniors will start their career without the memory of prepandemic work life. Here is what they expect.“Companies are well aware of this,” she said in an interview, so they rally around a simple solution: “If we just stop competing, it will be better for everybody.”The Treasury report lays out the many ways in which employers do this. There are noncompete agreements that bar workers from moving to a competitor, and nondisclosure agreements that keep them from sharing information about wages and working conditions — critical information for workers to understand their options. Some companies make no-poaching deals.“There is a long list of insidious efforts to take power out of the hands of workers and seize it for employers’ gain,” said Seth Harris, deputy director at the National Economic Council and deputy assistant to the president for labor and the economy.This is happening against a backdrop of broad economic changes that are hemming in the options of many workers, especially at the bottom end of the job market.The outsourcing of work to contractors — think of the janitors, cafeteria workers and security guards employed by enormous specialist companies, not by the companies they clean, feed and protect — reduces the options for low-wage workers, the report argues.The mergers and acquisitions that have consolidated hospitals, nursing homes, food processing companies and other industries have also reduced competition for workers, the study says, curtailing their ability to seek better jobs.The report notes, for instance, that mergers trimmed the number of hospitals in the United States to 6,093 in 2021, from 7,156 in 1975. It cites research into how some of these mergers have depressed the wage growth for nurses, pharmacy employees and other health workers.The Treasury’s document is drawn from a body of research that has been growing since the 1990s, when a seminal paper by David Card and Alan B. Krueger found that raising the minimum wage did not necessarily reduce employment and could even produce more jobs.The conclusion by Mr. Card and Mr. Krueger, which economists would consider impossible in a competitive labor market in which rising labor costs would reduce employer demand, started the discipline down a path to investigate the extent to which employers competed for workers. If a few employers had the power to hold wages below the competitive equilibrium, raising the wage floor might draw more workers in.Lack of competition, the Biden administration argues, goes a long way to explain why pay for a large share of the American work force is barely higher, after accounting for inflation, than it was a half-century ago. “The fact that workers are getting less than they used to is a longstanding problem,” Ms. Stevenson, who was not involved in the Treasury report, noted.Anticompetitive practices thrive when there are fewer competitors. If workers have many potential employers, they might still agree to sign a noncompete clause, but they could demand a pay increase to compensate.Even if there is no conclusive evidence that the labor market is less competitive than it used to be, the report says, researchers have concluded that there is, in fact, very little competition.Suresh Naidu, a professor of economics at Columbia University, argues, moreover, that institutions like the minimum wage and unions, which limited employers from fully exercising their market power, have weakened substantially over time. “The previously existing checks have fallen away,” Mr. Naidu said.Unions are virtually irrelevant across much of the labor market. Only 6 percent of workers in the private sector belong to one. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is so low that it matters little even for many low-wage workers. The Treasury report argues that an uncompetitive labor market is reducing the share of the nation’s income that goes to workers while increasing the slice that accrues to the owners of capital. Moreover, employers facing little competition for workers, it argues, are more likely to offer few benefits and impose dismal working conditions: unpredictable just-in-time schedules, intrusive on-the-job monitoring, poor safety, no breaks.The damage runs deeper, the report says, arguing that uncompetitive labor markets reduce overall employment. Productivity also suffers when workers have a hard time moving to new jobs that could offer a better fit for their skills. Noncompete clauses discourage business formation when they limit entrepreneurs’ ability to find workers for their ventures.Addressing the issues that the report singles out is likely to be an uphill task. The administration’s push to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 has been unsuccessful. In Congress, bills that would ease the path for workers to join a union face long odds. Going after noncompete clauses, no-poaching deals and other forms of anticompetitive behavior would be an easier task.Last year, the Justice Department’s antitrust division brought several cases challenging no-poaching and wage-setting agreements. In January, four managers of home health care agencies in Maine were indicted on federal charges of conspiring to suppress the wages and restrict the job mobility of essential workers during the pandemic.Still, deploying antitrust enforcement in the job market is somewhat new. It has been used mostly to ward off anticompetitive behavior that raises prices for consumers in product and service markets. Persuading courts to, say, prevent a merger because of its impact on wages might be tougher.A note by the law firm White & Case, for instance, complained that the move to block Penguin Random House’s attempt to buy Simon & Schuster on the grounds that it would reduce royalties to authors is “emblematic of the Biden administration’s and the new populist antitrust movement’s push to direct the purpose of antitrust away from consumer welfare price effects and towards other social harms.” More