Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

More stories

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Spike in Inflation Reignites Debate on Price Controls

    by

    A discussion over whether price controls would work to stem inflation is sweeping progressives. So far, it has little political acceptance.America’s recent inflation spike has prompted renewed interest in an idea that many economists and policy experts thought they had long ago left behind for good: price controls.The federal government last imposed broad-based limits on how much private companies could charge for their goods and services in the 1970s, when President Richard M. Nixon ushered in wage and price freezes over the course of a few years. That experiment was widely regarded as a failure, and ever since, the phrase “price controls” has, at least for many people, called to mind images of product shortages and bureaucratic overreach. In recent decades, few economists have bothered to study the idea at all.As consumer prices soared this fall, however, a handful of mostly left-leaning economists reignited the long-dormant debate, arguing in opinion columns, policy briefs and social-media posts that the idea deserves a second look. Few if any are arguing for a return to the Nixon-era policies. Many say they aren’t yet ready to endorse price controls, and just want the idea to be taken seriously.Even so, the renewed discussion brought a swift reaction from many mainstream economists on both the right and left, some of whom suggested it would be a mistake to even open the door to the idea. So far, decision makers in Washington haven’t embraced price caps, even in a more modest form.Here’s what to know about the push for price controls, the history of the idea and the possible outcomes if they were to be tried in 2022.Why do (most) economists dislike price controls?In the most basic economic models, prices are a function of supply and demand. If prices for a product are too high, people won’t buy as much of it. If prices are too low, companies won’t make as much money, and will make less of the product. In a free market, prices naturally settle at the point that balances out those two forces.In that model, when the government imposes an artificial cap on prices, supply falls (since companies won’t make as much money) and demand rises (since more people will want to buy at the government-imposed lower price). As a result, supply can’t meet demand, resulting in shortages.That’s the theory. In the real world, a variety of factors — imperfect competition between producers, unpredictable behavior by consumers, practical limits on how quickly operations can ramp up and down — mean that prices don’t always behave the way simple models predict.Still, most economists argue that the basic logic of that theory still holds: Artificially holding down prices leads to shortages, inefficiencies or other unintended consequences, like an increase in black-market activity. And while some economists say price controls on specific products can make sense in specific situations — to prevent price-gouging after a natural disaster, for example — most argue that they are a poor tool for fighting inflation, which is a broad increase in prices.In a recent survey of 41 academic economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 61 percent said that price controls similar to those imposed in the 1970s would fail to “successfully reduce U.S. inflation over the next 12 months.” Others said the policy might bring down inflation in the short-term but would lead to shortages or other problems.“Price controls can of course control prices — but they’re a terrible idea!” David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in response to the survey.Have price controls worked in the past?In August 1971, with consumer prices rising at their fastest pace since the Korean War, Mr. Nixon announced that he was imposing a 90-day freeze on most wages, prices and rents. Once the freeze ended, companies were allowed to raise prices, but subject to limits set by a council headed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, who later served as defense secretary for Presidents Gerald R. Ford and George W. Bush.The controls initially looked like a success. Inflation fell from a peak of more than 6 percent in 1970 to below 3 percent in the middle of 1972. But almost as soon as the government began to ease the restrictions, prices shot back up, leading Mr. Nixon to impose another price freeze, followed by another round of even more stringent controls. This time, the controls failed to tame inflation, in part because of the first Arab oil embargo. The price controls expired in 1974, shortly before Mr. Nixon resigned from office.Not all attempts at reining in prices have been such clear failures. During World War II, the Roosevelt administration imposed strict price controls to prevent wartime shortages from making food and other basic supplies unaffordable. Those rules were generally viewed as necessary at the time, and economists have tended to view them more favorably. In fact, there have been plenty of instances of wartime price controls throughout history, often paired with rationing and wage growth limits.Why do some economists want to reopen the debate?Few economists today defend the Nixon price controls. But some argue that it is unfair to consider their failure a definitive rebuttal of all price caps. The 1970s were a period of significant economic turmoil, including the Arab oil embargo and the end of the gold standard — hardly the setting for a controlled experiment. And the Nixon-era price caps were broad, whereas modern proponents suggest a more tailored approached.Many progressive economists in recent years have reconsidered once-scorned ideas like the minimum wage in response to evidence suggesting that real-world markets often don’t behave the way simple economic models would predict. Price controls, some economists argue, are due for a similar reappraisal.“This is a great suppressed topic,” said James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas. “It was absolutely mainstream from the start of World War II until the Reagan administration.”Isabella Weber, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has pointed to the period after World War II, when the government quickly lifted wartime price controls and inflation spiked. In a recent opinion column in the Guardian newspaper, Dr. Weber argued that had the controls been removed more slowly, as many prominent economists suggested at the time, inflation might have been lower. The huge, unexpected wartime disruption, she said, might offer parallels for today.But other experts said there were key differences between the two periods. Wartime price caps typically came alongside rationing, in which the quantity of goods people were allowed to buy was limited, said Rebecca L. Spang, a money historian at Indiana University.“If you try to have price controls without rationing, you end up with shortages, you end up with purveyors pulling their goods from the market,” she said.Enforcing price controls is also difficult: It requires popular acceptance, agency personnel and wide governmental support. Broad buy-in of shared ideas is not a feature of the modern political landscape.“The cultural context has changed so much,” she said, noting that the world since World War II has begun to treat economics as an individual pursuit, emphasizing freedom and low regulation.What would price controls look like in 2022?Shoppers at a grocery store in Queens, N.Y., last year. As consumer prices soared this past fall, a handful of mostly left-leaning economists argued that price controls deserved a second look.Janice Chung for The New York TimesSo far, few people have offered specific proposals for price controls in response to the recent jump in inflation. But economists who are exploring the idea are focused on areas where the pandemic has disrupted supply chains.Those disruptions, this argument goes, may take time to resolve. In the meantime, if needed products — meat, computer chips, gas — come up short, it is not clear that market forces will be able to rapidly expand production to meet demand. That could lead to a situation where companies can make big profits by charging more for goods in short supply, and in which only the rich can afford some products.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change an ‘Emerging Threat’ to U.S. Financial Stability, Regulators Say

    by

    The Financial Stability Oversight Council issued a formal warning on the economic damage that global warming could inflict.WASHINGTON — Federal regulators warned for the first time in an annual report to Congress on Friday that climate change was an “emerging threat” to the U.S. financial system, laying out how the costs associated with more hurricanes, wildfires and floods caused by global warming could lead to a cascade of damage throughout the economy.The Financial Stability Oversight Council, a group of top financial regulators led by the Treasury secretary, offered a grim assessment of how the fallout from rising temperatures could spread, hurting property values and saddling insurers, banks and pensions that are associated with the sector with heavy losses. The report follows a similar analysis of climate risk that the council released in October.“Increased frequency and severity of acute physical risk events and longer-term chronic phenomena associated with climate change are expected to lead to increased economic and financial costs,” the new document said.However, the report stopped short of the kinds of policy prescriptions that environmental groups and progressive Democrats have been calling for, such as tougher rules requiring banks to assess their ability to withstand climate-related losses, new capital requirements or curbs on extending financing to fossil fuel companies. Instead, it echoed a set of recommendations from the October report that called for improved data for evaluating climate-related financial risks and more uniform disclosure requirements to help investors make better informed decisions.Climate change was not mentioned last year in the Trump administration’s final F.S.O.C. report.The warning on climate change was one of several looming threats to the financial system, which faces ongoing uncertainty nearly two years into a global pandemic that is being gripped by a new variant.What to Know About Inflation in the U.S.Inflation, Explained: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? We answered some common questions.The Fed’s Pivot: Jerome Powell’s abrupt change of course moved the central bank into inflation-fighting mode.Fastest Inflation in Decades: The Consumer Price Index rose 6.8 percent in November from a year earlier, its sharpest increase since 1982.Why Washington Is Worried: Policymakers are acknowledging that price increases have been proving more persistent than expected.The Psychology of Inflation: Americans are flush with cash and jobs, but they also think the economy is awful.In its annual report, the panel also issued a warning about the risk of higher than expected inflation, suggesting that it would lead to higher interest rates and losses at some financial institutions, blunting the momentum of the recovery.The report comes as the Federal Reserve said this week that it would accelerate the end of its monthly bond buying program, which it has used to buttress economic growth during the pandemic, and raise interest rates three times next year to combat inflation.The F.S.O.C. regulators attributed inflation in advanced economies to “an increase in commodity prices, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages.” They warned that a rapid or unexpected rise in interest rates to blunt rising prices could induce “sharp contractionary forces” and acknowledged that it was unclear how long inflation would persist.“The advent of higher inflation also raises the question of whether longer-term inflation expectations of households and businesses will rise or become unanchored,” the report said.The trajectory of the global economy is also a concern, as lockdowns and downturns in other countries could spill over into the U.S. financial system. Regulators pointed specifically to the prospect of a “hard landing” in China as a potential worry and noted that the Chinese real estate sector is “heavily leveraged.” A slowdown in the real estate market there could hurt global commodity markets because China is such a major consumer of steel, copper and iron ore.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Gig Worker Protections Get a Push in European Proposal

    by

    A proposal with widespread political support would entitle drivers and couriers for companies like Uber to a minimum wage and legal protections.LONDON — In one of the biggest challenges yet to the labor practices at popular ride-hailing and food-delivery services, the European Commission took a major step on Thursday toward requiring companies like Uber to consider their drivers and couriers as employees entitled to a minimum wage and legal protections.The commission proposed rules that, if enacted, would affect up to an estimated 4.1 million people and give the European Union some of the world’s strictest rules for the so-called gig economy. The policy would remake the relationship that ride services, food delivery companies and other platforms have with workers in the 27-nation bloc.Labor unions and other supporters hailed the proposal, which has strong political support, as a breakthrough in the global effort to change the business practices of companies that they say depend on exploiting workers with low pay and weak labor protections.Uber and other companies are expected to lobby against the rules, which must go through several legislative steps before becoming law. The companies have long classified workers as independent contractors to hold down costs and limit legal liabilities. The model provided new conveniences for traveling across town and ordering takeout, and gave millions of people a flexible new way to work when they want.A courier in Paris last year, when lockdown measures highlighted the fragile nature of gig work.Dmitry Kostyukov for The New York TimesBut in Europe, where worker protection laws are traditionally more robust than in the United States, there has been growing momentum for change, particularly as the pandemic highlighted the fragile nature of gig work when food couriers and others continued to work even amid lockdowns and rising Covid-19 cases.While there have been some important legal victories and laws passed in some countries targeting Uber and others, the policy released by the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, is the most far-reaching legislative attempt to regulate companies to date.The rules would affect drivers, couriers, home cleaners, home health care aides, fitness coaches and others who use apps and online platforms to find work. As employees, they would be entitled to a minimum wage, holiday pay, unemployment and health benefits, and other legal protections depending on the country where they worked.“New forms of work organization do not automatically translate into quality jobs,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s commissioner for trade, said as he presented the new rules. “People involved in platform work can sometimes find themselves exposed to unsafe living and working conditions.” The European Union estimates that 28 million people work through digital labor platforms in the bloc, with their number expected to grow to 43 million by 2025. The commission said on Thursday that 5.5 million workers were at risk of what it called misclassification, and that up to 4.1 million of them could be reclassified as employees through the directive.“This is not just bike riders in big cities,” said Johanna Wenckebach, a lawyer and scientific director at the Hugo Sinzheimer Institute for Labor and Social Security Law in Germany. “This is a phenomenon with millions of workers and many more ahead.”The rules are part of a broader digital agenda that European Union leaders hope to pass in the coming year. Proposals include tougher antitrust regulations targeting the largest tech companies, stricter content moderation rules for Facebook and other internet services to combat illicit material, and new regulations for the use of artificial intelligence.The new labor rules follow a landmark case in February, when Britain’s top court ruled that Uber drivers should be classified as workers entitled to a minimum wage and holiday pay. In the Netherlands, a court ruled in September that Uber drivers should be paid under collective rules in place for taxi drivers.Dutch Uber drivers calling for expanded workers’ rights outside a court in June that would later rule in their favor.Koen Van Weel/EPA, via ShutterstockSupporters of the new worker regulations said companies like Uber behave like employers by controlling workers through software that sets wages, assigns jobs and measures performance — a practice the commission called “algorithmic management.”The new European rules would require companies to disclose more about how their software systems made decisions affecting workers. For those who may remain independent, the new rules would also require companies to grant more autonomy that self-employment entails.The policy threatens the business models of Uber and other platforms, like the food delivery service Deliveroo, that already struggle to turn a profit. The E.U. law could result in billions of dollars in new costs, which are likely to be passed on to customers, potentially reducing use of the apps.Uber opposes the E.U. proposal, saying it would result in higher costs for customers. The company said roughly 250,000 couriers and 135,000 drivers across Europe would lose work under the proposal.Rather than help workers, Uber said the proposal “would have the opposite effect — putting thousands of jobs at risk, crippling small businesses in the wake of the pandemic and damaging vital services that consumers across Europe rely on.”Just Eat, the largest food-delivery service in Europe, said it supported the policy. Jitse Groen, the company’s chief executive, said on Twitter that it would “improve conditions for workers and help them access social protections.”The E.U. rules are being closely watched as a potential model for other governments around the world. Negotiations could last through 2022 or longer as policymakers negotiate a compromise among different European countries and members of the European Parliament who disagree about how aggressive the regulations should be. The law is unlikely to take effect until 2024 or later.Enforcement would be left to the countries where the companies operated. The policy contrasts Europe with the United States, where efforts to regulate app-based ride and delivery services have not gained as much momentum except in a few states and cities.A protest in Bakersfield, Calif., against Proposition 22, a 2020 state ballot question backed by gig economy companies.Tag Christof for The New York TimesLast year, gig economy companies staged a successful referendum campaign in California to keep drivers classified as independent contractors while giving them limited benefits. Although a judge ruled in August that the result violated California’s Constitution, his decision is being appealed, and the companies are pursuing similar legislation in Massachusetts.The Biden administration has suggested that gig workers should be treated as employees, but it has not taken significant steps to change employment laws. In May, the Labor Department reversed a Trump-era rule that would have made it more difficult to reclassify gig workers in the country as employees.In Europe, Spain offers a preview of the potential effects of the E.U. proposal. The country’s so-called Riders Law, enacted in August, required food delivery services such as Uber and Deliveroo to reclassify workers as employees, covering an estimated 30,000 workers.Uber responded by hiring several staffing agencies to hire a fleet of drivers for Uber Eats, a strategy to comply with the law but avoid responsibility for managing thousands of people directly. Deliveroo, which is partly owned by Amazon, abandoned the Spanish market.The companies prefer policies like those in France, where the government has proposed allowing workers to elect union representation that could negotiate with companies on issues like wages and benefits. Uber also pointed to Italy, where a major union and food delivery companies struck a deal that guarantees a minimum wage, insurance and safety equipment, but does not classify the workers as employees.Kim van Sparrentak, a Green lawmaker in the European Parliament who helped draft a report on platform workers that was published this year, praised the commission’s proposal as “quite radical.”“It can set a new standard for workers’ rights,” Ms. Van Sparrentak said.Adam Satariano More

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Warns Meme Stocks Could Pose Some Risks

    by

    Stocks that experience major volatility as a result of social media attention — often called meme stocks — have not threatened broader financial stability so far but could open the door to vulnerabilities, the Federal Reserve said in a report on Monday.The Fed’s twice-yearly update on America’s financial system included a special section on the meme stock phenomenon. It attributed the trend, in which attention on Twitter, Reddit and other platforms encourages rapid inflows into or out of buzzy stocks, to new trading technologies including mobile apps and to changing demographics, as younger people enter the retail trading market.“Along with the rise in risk appetite and the growing share of younger retail investors, access to retail equity trading opportunities has expanded over the past decade,” the report said.Social media can pump up interest in stocks, and it can also create an echo chamber, one in which “investors find themselves communicating most frequently with others with similar interests and views, thereby reinforcing their views, even if these views are speculative or biased.”Still, internet-inspired pile-ons do not necessarily create conditions that will spur a broad market crash, the Fed’s report suggested.“To date, the broad financial stability implications of changes in retail equity investor characteristics and behaviors have been limited,” the Fed said. The central bank specifically assessed what happened to shares of AMC Entertainment and GameStop in January, noting that activity and volatility in those stocks came alongside high activity on Twitter.While the report concluded that “recent episodes of meme stock volatility did not leave a lasting imprint on broader markets,” the Fed said a few trends “should be monitored.”The report pointed out that young and debt-laden investors may be more vulnerable to stock price swings, especially since they are now using “options,” which allow traders to place bets on whether prices will rise or fall and which can magnify leverage and potential losses.The Fed also warned that “episodes of heightened risk appetite may continue to evolve with the interaction between social media and retail investors and may be difficult to predict,” and that financial firms may not have calibrated their risk-management systems to reflect the volatility and losses that meme stock episodes might trigger.“More frequent episodes of higher volatility may require further steps to ensure the resilience of the financial system,” it said.Looking across a broader range of asset classes and recent trading activity, the Fed’s financial stability analysis generally suggested that the vulnerabilities have moderated compared with earlier in the pandemic — but it did flag high asset prices and a number of lingering risks.Stock prices have increased “notably,” the report said, and prices relative to forecast earnings remain near historical highs. Home prices have climbed, it noted, though mortgage lending standards have not deteriorated too badly. When lenders start to lower their standards, that can make the market more vulnerable.The Fed noted that “corporate bond issuance remained robust, supported by low interest rates,” also pointing out that “across the ratings spectrum, the composition of newly issued corporate bonds has become riskier.”And while many markets show signs of investor optimism, some financial strains from the pandemic shock persist.Some commercial real estate sectors continue to face challenges because “office vacancies are elevated and hotel occupancy rates remain depressed,” the report noted. Plus, “structural vulnerabilities persist in some types of money market funds,” which could amplify a future shock to the system.Money market mutual funds melted down during the pandemic and required a Fed rescue for the second time in a dozen years, and regulators are now looking at how to make them more resilient.The report also warned that life insurers might struggle to raise cash in a pinch.And it delved into climate risks. The central bank is among regulators now trying to understand what risks climate change might pose to banks, insurers and the broader financial system.“The Federal Reserve is developing a program of climate-related scenario analysis,” the report noted. “The Federal Reserve considers an effective scenario analysis program, which is designed to be forward looking over a period of years or decades, to be separate from its existing regulatory stress-testing regime.” More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    OSHA, citing Covid failures, moves to strip three states of workplace safety authority.

    by

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said Tuesday that it was taking steps that could strip three states — Arizona, South Carolina and Utah — of their authority to regulate workplace safety, citing shortcomings in policies on coronavirus protection.Under federal law, states can assume responsibility for occupational safety if the government approves their plan for doing so and if the plan remains at least as effective as federal enforcement.Federal officials said Tuesday that the three states had failed to adopt a rule that OSHA issued in June — or to adopt one at least as effective — requiring certain Covid-related safety measures by employers, like providing protective equipment.“OSHA has worked in good faith to help these three state plans come into compliance,” Jim Frederick, the agency’s acting director, said on a call with reporters. “But their continued refusal is a failure to maintain their state plan commitment to thousands of workers in their state.”Emily H. Farr, the director of South Carolina’s Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, expressed disappointment in the action, saying that the state’s program had “proven effective as South Carolina has consistently had one of the lowest injury and illness rates in the nation.”Officials in Arizona and Utah did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Twenty-eight states or territories have OSHA-approved plans for enforcing workplace safety. Where no plan has been approved, OSHA retains primary authority.The action comes as OSHA prepares to release a rule mandating that companies with 100 or more workers require employees to be vaccinated or to submit to weekly Covid-19 testing. Some states have indicated that they will challenge the rule, though the legal basis for doing so appears weak.OSHA, which is part of the Labor Department, will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing its proposal to reconsider and revoke approval of the three states’ self-regulation plans. There will be a 35-day comment period on the proposal before it can be finalized.Seema Nanda, the Labor Department solicitor, said that as a result of the process, the states’ authority to regulate workplace safety could be revoked entirely or partially, such as for certain industries. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Are Tesla and Texas a Perfect Match? It’s Questionable.

    by

    While its C.E.O., Elon Musk, and the state’s conservative lawmakers share libertarian sensibilities, they differ greatly on climate change and renewable energy.Tesla’s move from Silicon Valley to Texas makes sense in many ways: The company’s chief executive, Elon Musk, and the conservative lawmakers who run the state share a libertarian philosophy, favoring few regulations and low taxes. Texas also has room for a company with grand ambitions to grow.“There’s a limit to how big you can scale in the Bay Area,” Mr. Musk said Thursday at Tesla’s annual meeting hosted at its new factory near the Texas capital. “Here in Austin, our factory’s like five minutes from the airport, 15 minutes from downtown.”But Texas may not be the natural choice that Mr. Musk makes it out to be.Tesla’s stated mission is to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” and its customers include many people who want sporty cars that don’t spew greenhouse gases from their tailpipes. Texas, however, is run by conservatives who are skeptical of or oppose efforts to address climate change. They are also fiercely protective of the state’s large oil and gas industry.And, despite the state’s business-friendly reputation, Tesla can’t sell vehicles directly to customers there because of a law that protects car dealerships, which Tesla does not use.Tesla’s move is not surprising: Mr. Musk threatened to leave California in May 2020 after local officials, citing the coronavirus, forced Tesla to shut down its car factory in the San Francisco Bay Area. But his decision to move to Texas highlights some gaping ideological contradictions. His company stands at the vanguard of the electric car and renewable energy movement, while Texas’ lawmakers, who have welcomed him enthusiastically, are among the biggest resisters to moving the economy away from oil and natural gas.“It’s always a feather in Texas’ hat when it takes a business away from California, but Tesla is as much unwelcome as it is welcome,” said Jim Krane, an energy expert at Rice University in Houston. “It’s an awkward juxtaposition. This is a state that gets a sizable chunk of its G.D.P. from oil and gas and here comes a virulent competitor to that industry.”In February, a rare winter storm caused the Texas electric grid to collapse, leaving millions of people without electricity and heat for days. Soon after, the state’s leaders sought — falsely, according to many energy experts — to blame the blackout on renewable energy.“This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America,” Gov. Greg Abbott said of the blackout on Fox News. “It just shows that fossil fuel is necessary for the state of Texas as well as other states to make sure we will be able to heat our homes in the wintertimes and cool our homes in the summertimes.”Mr. Musk, a Texas resident since last year, seemed to offer a very different take on Thursday, suggesting that renewable energy could in fact protect people from power outages.“I was actually in Austin for that snowstorm in a house with no electricity, no lights, no power, no heating, no internet,” he said. “This went on for several days. However, if we had the solar plus Powerwall, we would have had lights and electricity.”Tesla is a leading maker of solar panels and batteries — the company calls one of its products Powerwall — for homeowners and businesses to store renewable energy for use when the sun has gone down, when electricity rates are higher or during blackouts. The company reported $1.3 billion in revenue from the sale of solar panels and batteries in the first six months of the year.Mr. Musk’s announcement that Tesla would be moving its headquarters from Palo Alto, Calif., came with few details. It is not clear, for example, how many workers would move to Austin. It’s also unknown whether the company would maintain a research and development operation in California in addition to its factory in Fremont, which is a short drive from headquarters and which it said it would expand. The company has around 750 employees in Palo Alto and about 12,500 in total in the Bay Area, according to the Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies.It is also not clear how much money Tesla will save on taxes by moving. Texas has long used its relatively low taxes, which are less than California’s, to attract companies. County officials have already approved tax breaks for the company’s new factory, and the state might offer more.Over the years, California granted Tesla hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, something that Gov. Gavin Newsom noted on Friday. But because Tesla will continue to have operations in California, it may still have to pay income tax on its sales in the state, said Kayla Kitson, a policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center.Whatever incentives they offer Tesla, Texas officials are not likely to change their support for the fossil fuel industries with which the company competes.In a letter to state regulators in July, Mr. Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission to incentivize the state’s energy market “to foster development and maintenance of adequate and reliable sources of power, like natural gas, coal and nuclear power.”A Tesla factory under construction in Austin in September.Joe White/ReutersThe governor also ordered regulators to charge suppliers of wind and solar energy “reliability” fees because, given the natural variability of the wind and the sun, suppliers could not guarantee that they would be able to provide power when it was needed.Mr. Abbott’s letter made no mention of battery storage, suggesting that he saw no role for a technology that many energy experts believe will become increasingly important in smoothing out wind and solar energy production. Tesla is a big player in such batteries. Its systems have helped electric grids in California, Australia and elsewhere, and the company is building a big battery in Texas, too, Bloomberg reported in March.Texas has no clean energy mandates, though it has become a national leader in the use of solar and wind power — driven largely by the low cost of renewable energy. The state produces more wind energy than any other.Another issue that divides Tesla and Texas is the state’s law about how cars can be sold there.As in some other states, Texas has long had laws to protect car dealers by barring automakers, including Tesla, from selling directly to consumers. California, the company’s biggest market by far, has long allowed the company to sell cars directly to buyers, which lets it earn more money than if it had to sell through dealers.Tesla has showrooms around Texas, but employees are not even allowed to discuss prices with prospective buyers and the showrooms cannot accept orders. Texans can buy Teslas online and pick the vehicles up at its service centers.Once the Austin factory starts producing vehicles, including a new pickup truck Tesla calls Cybertruck, those vehicles will have to leave the state before they can be delivered to customers in Texas.Efforts to change the law by Tesla and some state lawmakers have gone nowhere, including during the legislative session that concluded this year. That’s partly because car dealers have tremendous political influence in the state.Perhaps once Tesla has moved to Austin and started producing cars, Mr. Musk might have enough political clout to get the Legislature to act. Texas lawmakers typically meet only every two years, however, so it would most likely take at least until 2023 for the company’s customers to receive a car directly from its factory there.Michael Webber, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, said Mr. Musk’s decision to move to Texas might have been influenced in part by the ability to pressure the state to change its law.“The Texas car market is the second-largest car market in America after California, so if you are selling cars it kind of makes sense to get closer to your customers,” Mr. Webber said. “The Texas car market is particularly difficult outside of cities because of the legislative barriers.”There were already signs on Friday that some in Texas, including those involved in oil and gas and related industries, were happy to have Tesla because it could eventually employ thousands of people.“It can only be positive for Texas, because it brings more business to Texas,” said Linda Salinas, vice president for operations at Texmark Chemicals, which is near Houston. “Even though it’s not fossil business, it’s still business.”She said Texmark might even benefit from Tesla’s manufacturing operations in the state. “Texmark produces and sells mining chemicals to people who mine copper, and guess what batteries are made out of?”Peter Eavis More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Elizabeth Warren Calls Jerome Powell a ‘Dangerous Man’

    by

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, blasted the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome H. Powell, for his financial regulation track record and said that she would not support him if the White House renominated him, calling him a “dangerous man to head up the Fed.”Mr. Powell’s term as head of the central bank ends in early 2022, and the Biden administration is considering whether to reappoint him. Mr. Powell, a Republican, was nominated to the Fed’s Board of Governors by former President Barack Obama and elevated to chair by former President Donald J. Trump.While some prominent Democratic economists and advocacy groups support Mr. Powell, who has been intensely focused on the labor market during his term as Fed chair, some progressives openly oppose him. They often cite his track record on financial regulation — as Ms. Warren did to his face on Tuesday, as he testified before the Senate Banking Committee.“The elephant in the room is whether you’re going to be renominated,” Ms. Warren said, looking down at the Fed chair during the hearing. “Renominating you means gambling that, for the next five years, a Republican majority at the Federal Reserve, with a Republican chair who has regularly voted to deregulate Wall Street, won’t drive this economy over a financial cliff again.”Ms. Warren, and those who agree with her, have worried that leaving Mr. Powell in place will prevent the Fed from taking a tougher stance on financial regulation. Mr. Powell has said that when it comes to regulatory matters, he defers to the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, noting that Congress created that job to lead up bank oversight following the 2008 financial crisis.“I respect that that’s the person who will set the regulatory agenda going forward,” Mr. Powell said during a news conference last week. “And furthermore, it’s fully appropriate to look for a new person to come in and look at the current state of regulation and supervision and suggest appropriate changes.”Ms. Warren’s colleague Senator Michael Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, followed her scathing comments by saying that Mr. Powell deserved to be renominated, and that he looked forward to working with him for the next several years.The White House has so far given little indication of whom it will pick to lead the central bank.President Biden already has the opportunity to fill one open governor position at the Fed, and several other roles will soon become available: The governor seat of the Fed’s vice chair, Richard Clarida, will expire in the coming months, as will Randal K. Quarles’s position as vice chair for supervision. The openings could give the administration a chance to remake the central bank from the top with its nominations, who must pass Senate confirmation.Other lawmakers at the Senate hearing pushed Mr. Powell to focus on improving diversity at the central bank — highlighting another key concern among Democrats as the leadership shuffle gets underway.Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio and the head of the Senate Banking Committee, pointed out that there had never been a Black woman on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors in Washington, while also referring to reporting from earlier this year that showed a dearth of Black economists at the central bank.He asked if Mr. Powell believed that the central bank should have a Black woman on its Board of Governors.“I would strongly agree that we want everyone’s voice heard around the table, and that would of course include Black women,” Mr. Powell said. “We of course have no role in the selection process, but we would certainly welcome it.”Lisa Cook, a Michigan State University economist, and William Spriggs, chief economist of the labor union AFL-CIO, are often raised as possible candidates for governor positions or leadership roles. Both are Black. Lael Brainard, a white woman who is currently a Fed governor, is frequently raised as a possible replacement for Mr. Powell if he is not renominated, and Sarah Bloom Raskin, a white woman who is a former top Fed and Treasury official, is often suggested as a replacement for Mr. Quarles.Mr. Powell, as he noted, has no formal role in selecting his future colleagues at the Fed Board.He and his colleagues at the Fed Board will, however, have a chance to weigh in on who will take over two newly open positions around the Fed’s decision-making table. The central bank has 19 total officials at full strength, seven governors and 12 regional bank presidents.Robert S. Kaplan, the Dallas Fed president, and Eric S. Rosengren, the Boston Fed president, both announced their imminent retirements on Monday, amid widespread criticism of the fact that they were trading securities in 2020 — during a year in which the Fed unrolled a widespread market rescue in response to the pandemic.Mr. Powell addressed that scandal on Tuesday, pledging to lawmakers that the Fed would change its ethics rules and saying that the Fed was looking into the trading activity to make sure it was in compliance with those rules and with the law.“Our need to sustain the public’s trust is the essence of our work,” Mr. Powell said, adding that “we will rise to this moment.”Beyond grabbing headlines, the departures will leave two regional bank jobs available at the Fed. The regional branches’ boards, except for bank-tied members, will search for and select replacement presidents. The Fed’s governors in Washington have a “yes” or “no” vote on the pick.The Fed has never had a Black woman as a regional bank president, either. Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is the first Black man to serve in one of those roles.At the Board of Governors, Mr. Quarles’s leadership term ends most imminently, on Oct. 13. His position as governor does not expire until 2032, and he has signaled that he will likely stay on as a Fed governor at least through the end of his leadership term at the Financial Stability Board, a global oversight body, in December. Mr. Powell’s leadership term ends in early 2022, though he could stay on as governor since his term in that role does not expire until 2028. Mr. Clarida will have to leave early next year unless he is reappointed. More

  • 63 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why Washington Worries About Stablecoins

    by

    Stablecoins might be the most ironically named innovation of the cryptocurrency era, at least in the eyes of many Washington regulators and policymakers.These digital currencies promise to maintain their value, which is generally pegged to a government currency like the dollar or euro, by relying on stable financial backing like bank reserves and short-term debt. They are exploding in popularity because they are a practical and cheap way to transact in cryptocurrency. Stablecoins have moved from virtual nonexistence to a more than $120 billion market in a few short years, with the bulk of that growth in the past 12 months.But many are built more like slightly risky investments than like the dollars-and-cents cash money they claim to be. And so far, they are slipping through regulatory cracks.The rush to oversee stablecoins — and the industry’s lobbying push to either avoid regulation or get on its profitable side — might be the most important conversation in Washington financial circles this year. How officials handle sticky questions about a relatively new phenomenon will set the precedent for a technology that is likely to last and grow, effectively writing the first draft of a rule book that will govern the future of money.The debate over how to treat stablecoins is also inescapably intertwined with another hot conversation: whether the Federal Reserve ought to offer its own digital currency. A Fed offering could compete with private-sector stablecoins, depending on its features, and the industry is already bracing for the possibility.Below is a rundown of what stablecoins are, why they may be risky, the possible regulatory solutions and the government’s likely next moves when it comes to policing them.What is a stablecoin?A stablecoin — stablevalue coin, if you’re feeling proper — is a type of cryptocurrency that is typically pegged to an existing government-backed currency. To promise holders that every $1 they put in will remain worth $1, stablecoins hold a bundle of assets in reserve, usually short-term securities such as cash, government debt or commercial paper.Stablecoins are useful because they allow people to transact more seamlessly in cryptocurrencies that function as investments, such as Bitcoin. They form a bridge between old-world money and new-world crypto.But many stablecoins are backed by types of short-term debt that are prone to bouts of illiquidity, meaning that they can become hard or impossible to trade during times of trouble. Despite that somewhat shaky backing, the stablecoins themselves promise to function like perfectly safe holdings.That makes them the type of financial product “macroeconomic disasters usually come from,” said Morgan Ricks, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and former policy adviser at the Treasury Department. “The stakes are really, really high here.”That said, some people — including George Selgin, director of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the Cato Institute — argue that because stablecoins are used as a niche currency and not as an investment, they may be less prone to runs in which investors try to withdraw their funds all at once. Even if their backing comes into question, people will not want the potential taxes and paperwork that come with changing stablecoins into actual dollars.Given that the technology is so nascent, it is hard to know who is correct. But regulators are worried that they may find out the hard way.Are they all equally risky?Stablecoins are not all created equal. The largest stablecoin, Tether, says it is roughly half invested in a type of short-term corporate debt called commercial paper, based on its recent disclosures. The commercial paper market melted down in March 2020, forcing the Fed to step in to fix things. If those types of vulnerabilities strike again, it could be difficult for Tether to quickly convert its holdings into cash to meet withdrawals.Other stablecoins claim different backing, giving them different risks. But there are big questions about whether stablecoins actually hold the reserves that they claim.The company Circle had said its U.S.D. Coin, or U.S.D.C., was backed 1:1 by cashlike holdings — but then it disclosed in July that 40 percent of its holdings were actually in U.S. Treasurys, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, corporate bonds and municipal debt. A Circle representative said U.S.D.C. will, as of this month, hold all reserves in cash and short-term U.S. government Treasurys.The New York attorney general investigated Tether and Bitfinex, a cryptocurrency exchange, alleging in part that Tether had at one point obscured what the stablecoins had in reserve. The companies’ settlement with the state included a fine and transparency improvements.Tether, in a statement, noted that it has never refused a redemption and that it has amended its disclosures in the wake of the New York attorney general’s investigation. The common thread is that, without standard disclosure or reporting requirements, it is hard to know exactly what is behind a stablecoin, so it is tough to gauge how much risk it entails.It is also difficult to track just how stablecoins are being used.Stablecoins “may facilitate those seeking to sidestep a host of public policy goals connected to our traditional banking and financial system: anti-money-laundering, tax compliance, sanctions and the like,” Gary Gensler, who heads the Securities and Exchange Commission, told Senator Elizabeth Warren in a letter this year.What can regulators do?The trouble with stablecoins is that they slip through the regulatory cracks. They aren’t classified as bank deposits, so the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have limited ability to oversee them. The S.E.C. has some authority if they are defined as securities, but that is a matter of active debate.State-level regulators have managed to exert some oversight, but the fact that significant offerings — including Tether — are based overseas could make it harder for the federal government to exercise authority. Regulators are looking into their options now.What are the government’s next steps?Treasury, the Fed and other financial oversight bodies have a few choices. It’s not obvious what they will choose, but the issue is clearly top-of-mind: The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, anchored by Treasury, is expected to issue a report on the topic imminently. An upcoming Fed report on central bank digital currencies could also touch on stablecoin risks.A few of the top regulatory options include:Designate them as systemically risky. Because stablecoins are intertwined with other important markets, the Financial Stability Oversight Council could designate them a systemically risky payments system, making them subject to stricter oversight.While the market may not be big enough to count as a systemic risk now, the Dodd Frank Act gives regulators the ability to apply that designation to a payments activity if it appears to be poised to become a threat to the system in the future. If that happened, the Fed or other regulators would then need up to come up with a plan to deal with the risk.Treat them as if they were securities. The government could also label some stablecoins securities, which would bring bigger disclosure requirements. Mr. Gensler told lawmakers during a recent hearing that stablecoins “may well be securities,” which would give his institution broader oversight.Regulate them as if they were money market mutual funds. Many financial experts point out that stablecoins operate much like money market mutual funds, which also act as short-term savings vehicles that offer rapid redemptions while investing in slightly risky assets. But money funds themselves have required two government rescues in a little more than a decade, suggesting their regulation is imperfect.“Stablecoins don’t look new,” said Gregg Gelzinis, who focuses on financial markets and regulation at the Center for American Progress. “I see them either as an unregulated money market mutual fund or an unregulated bank.”Treat them as if they were banks. Given flaws in money fund oversight, many financial regulation enthusiasts would prefer to see stablecoins treated as bank deposits. If that were to happen, the tokens could become subject to oversight by a bank regulator, such as the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, Mr. Gelzinis said. They could also potentially benefit from deposit insurance, which would protect individuals if the company backing the stablecoin went belly up.Try to compete with central bank digital currency. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, has signaled that outcompeting stablecoins could be one appeal of a central bank digital currency — a digital dollar that, like paper money, ties back directly to the Fed.“You wouldn’t need stablecoins, you wouldn’t need cryptocurrencies, if you had a digital U.S. currency. I think that’s one of the stronger arguments in its favor,” Mr. Powell said during testimony this year.But how a central bank digital currency is designed would be critical to whether it succeeded at replacing stablecoins. And industry experts point out that since stablecoin users prioritize privacy and independence from the government, a new form of government-backed currency might do little to supplant them.Cooperate internationally. If there’s one point everyone in the conversation agrees on, it’s that different jurisdictions will need to collaborate to make stablecoin regulation work. Otherwise, coins will be able to move overseas if they face unattractive oversight in a given country.The Financial Stability Board, a global oversight body, is working on establishing stablecoin-related standards and plans for cooperation, aiming for final adoption in 2023. More