Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

More stories

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How Kamala Harris’s Economic Plan Has Been Shaped by Business Leaders

    by

    The vice president has repeatedly incorporated suggestions from business executives into her economic agenda.When two of Vice President Kamala Harris’s closest advisers arrived in New York last month, they were seeking advice. The Democratic nominee was preparing to give her most far-reaching economic speech, and Tony West, Ms. Harris’s brother-in-law, and Brian Nelson, a longtime confidant, wanted to know how the city’s powerful financiers thought she should approach it.Over two days, the pair held meetings across Wall Street, including at the offices of Lazard, an investment bank, and the elite law firm Paul, Weiss. Among the ideas the attendees pitched was to provide more lucrative tax breaks for companies that allowed their workers to become part owners, according to two people at the meetings. The campaign had already been discussing such an idea with an executive at KKR, the private equity firm.A few days later, Ms. Harris endorsed the idea during her speech in Pittsburgh. “We will reform our tax laws to make it easier for businesses to let workers share in their company’s success,” she said.The line, while just a piece of a much broader speech, was emblematic of Ms. Harris’s approach to economic policy since she took the helm of the Democratic Party in July. As part of a bid to cut into former President Donald J. Trump’s polling lead on the economy, her campaign has carefully courted business leaders, organizing a steady stream of meetings and calls in which corporate executives and donors offer their thoughts on tax policy, financial regulation and other issues.The private feedback has, in sometimes subtle ways, shaped Ms. Harris’s economic agenda over the course of her accelerated campaign. At several points, she has sprinkled language into broader speeches that business executives say reflects their views. And, in at least one instance, Ms. Harris made a specific policy commitment — to pare back a tax increase on capital gains — after extended talks with her corporate allies.This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen campaign officials, policy experts, donors, lobbyists and business leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Could Be Forced to Treat Drivers as Employees

    by

    Amazon’s delivery system depends on third-party companies. But labor regulators have challenged that model, possibly opening the way for unionization.Vans marked with Amazon’s arrow logo have become ubiquitous on residential streets, a symbol of the nearly instantaneous delivery that has transformed online shopping.But behind the wheel, that image of high-tech efficiency is being overshadowed by drivers’ complaints about working conditions. Recent federal labor rulings could pave the way for unionization in the company’s last-mile delivery network and change how it does business.Hundreds of thousands of drivers who deliver Amazon packages don’t work directly for the e-commerce giant; instead, they’re employed by third-party logistics companies, called delivery service partners. Last year, Amazon ended a contract with a delivery company in Palmdale, Calif., after drivers started organizing with the Teamsters union.A regional director for the National Labor Relations Board in Los Angeles issued the first formal complaint last week targeting the company’s delivery model, arguing in the Palmdale case that Amazon is a joint employer of the drivers and, as such, must bargain with the union.Last month, another N.L.R.B. regional director issued a preliminary finding that Amazon is a joint employer of drivers in Atlanta seeking to unionize with the Teamsters, and that it must be held liable for unlawfully discouraging unionization.Amazon contracts over 3,000 delivery service partners, which determine pay, schedules and work conditions for drivers, the company said.By Christopher Smith For The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    World Braces for Bigger Trade Wars if Trump Wins

    by

    Business owners and foreign governments are preparing for high tariffs and trade disruptions, depending on the outcome of the election.When you’re in the whiskey business, you’re always making predictions about the future.From the time grain grown around the Midwest enters Sonat Birnecker Hart’s distillery on the North Side of Chicago, it will be four to 10 years before the whiskey is shipped to buyers. So running her business requires careful projections about demand.Those calculations have become harder of late. With the U.S. presidential election looming, many businesses around the world are facing uncertainty about the future of American trade policy and the tariffs that products will face in global markets.For the whiskey industry, the stakes are particularly high. In March, a 50 percent tariff on American whiskey exports to Europe will snap into effect unless the European Union and the United States can come to an agreement to stop the levies.The outcome may depend on who is in office. Both former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have embraced tariffs, but their plans differ significantly. Ms. Harris’s campaign has said she would use tariffs in a “targeted” fashion — possibly mirroring the approach of President Biden, who recently imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, silicon chips and solar panels. Like Mr. Biden, she has emphasized working closely with allies.Mr. Trump, in contrast, has said his approach to trade would be even more aggressive than the trade wars of his first term, when he imposed stiff tariffs on allies and rivals to obtain concessions and try to bolster American manufacturing. He has proposed a 60 percent tariff on products from China and a tariff of more than 10 percent on other goods from around the world.A 50 percent tariff on American whiskey exports to Europe will take effect in March unless the United States and European Union reach an agreement.Taylor Glascock for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Raises New Concerns Over Chinese Lending Practices

    by

    A Treasury official will call for greater transparency over emergency currency “swap” loans to struggling countries by China’s central bank.The United States is raising new concerns about China’s practice of making emergency loans to debt-ridden countries, warning that a lack of transparency surrounding such financing can mask the fiscal predicaments facing fragile economies that have turned to China for help.A senior Treasury official, Brent Neiman, publicly aired concerns about the practice in a speech on Tuesday in which he urged the International Monetary Fund to push China for greater clarity about its lending terms. The Biden administration broached the issue directly with Chinese officials in Washington this year during a meeting of a recently created bilateral economic and financial working group.Chinese loans to countries already struggling to repay their debts are being made through China’s central bank using so-called swap agreements. These agreements allow countries to borrow Chinese renminbi and keep those funds in their central reserves while using the U.S. dollars that they hold to repay foreign debts.The financing is essentially a line of credit, in which a country swaps its own currency for renminbi and agrees to pay Beijing a high interest rate. The arrangement allows those countries to use their dollar reserves to finance trade or other government needs. They can also use the funds to pay debts owed to Chinese banks or to make purchases from China, creating even deeper ties to its economy.China has provided more than $200 billion in emergency financing in recent years. Chinese state media reported this year that the central bank had 31 currency swap agreements in force worth a combined $586 billion. Chinese currency loans tend to come with higher interest rates than those offered by the Federal Reserve or the I.M.F.Such currency loans do not always appear on the balance sheet of the borrowing nation, obscuring the extent of its liabilities. That lack of information can make it harder for other investors to know how deeply in debt a country is and has fueled criticism that the Chinese loans could leave the recipients worse off.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Ramps Up Hunt for Uranium to End Reliance on Russia

    by

    More than 1,400 feet below an Arizona pine forest, miners are blasting tunnels in search of a radioactive element that can be used to make electricity.Two states north, in central Wyoming, drillers have been digging well after well in the desert, where that element — uranium — is buried in layers of sandstone.Uranium mines are ramping up across the West, spurred by rising demand for electricity and federal efforts to cut Russia out of the supply chain for U.S. nuclear fuel.Those twin pressures have helped lift uranium prices to their highest levels in more than 15 years, according to the consulting firm TradeTech, helping to resuscitate mining regions that entered a steep decline toward the end of the Cold War.Pinyon Plain miners working hundreds of feet beneath Kaibab National Forest.Uranium ore held by Matthew Germansen, an assistant mine superintendent at Pinyon Plain.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    As Strike Looms, Port Operators Ask Regulator to Force Dockworkers to Negotiate

    by

    The group that represents port terminal operators said the International Longshoremen’s Association was refusing to negotiate a new contract before a Monday deadline.Days ahead of a possible strike by longshoremen on the East and Gulf Coasts, port employers said on Thursday that they were asking a federal labor regulator to force the dockworkers’ union to resume negotiating a new contract.The United States Maritime Alliance, which is made up of port terminal operators, said it had filed an “unfair labor practice” complaint at the National Labor Relations Board after, it said, the International Longshoremen’s Association repeatedly refused to negotiate. The alliance said it wanted the labor board to rule that the union must negotiate with the employers.In a statement on Thursday, Jim McNamara, an I.L.A. spokesman, called the charge a “publicity stunt” that illustrated that the port employers were “poor negotiating partners.”Last week, the union said the two sides had “communicated multiple times in recent weeks,” and it contended that a stalemate existed because the Maritime Alliance was offering “an unacceptable wage increase.”A strike could begin on Tuesday, after the current labor contract expires on Monday. The I.L.A. broke off talks in June, contending that it had discovered that an employer was using labor-saving technology at the port in Mobile, Ala., that it claimed was unauthorized under the current contract.A strike would close down nearly all activity at ports from Maine to Texas — including at the Port of New York and New Jersey, the third busiest in the country. Analysts say even a short walkout could deal a blow to the economy. Fearing a strike, importers have been bringing in goods before next week and diverting some shipments to West Coast ports.Officials in the Biden administration have said President Biden is not planning to force dockworkers back to work, which the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act authorizes him to do. But economists said Mr. Biden might well end up invoking the act if a strike dragged on.Under the expiring contract, longshoremen earn $39 an hour. A person familiar with the negotiations said the union was asking for a $5-an-hour raise in each year of the new contract, which would last for six years. The person said employers were offering annual raises of $2.50 an hour.The Maritime Alliance said Monday that it had been contacted by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a government agency that helps management and unions negotiate labor contracts.Federal labor law says it is unlawful for a labor organization to refuse to negotiate on behalf of its members. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans Could Spur Inflation While Slowing Growth, Study Finds

    by

    A nonpartisan economic analysis warned that deporting migrants and increasing tariffs would damage the U.S. economy.Former President Donald J. Trump’s proposals to deport millions of migrants and impose new tariffs on imports from around the world would slash U.S. economic growth and employment and cause inflation to rebound sharply, according to a new analysis published on Thursday by the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics.That analysis also assumed that Mr. Trump would try to encroach on the independence of the Federal Reserve. He has not floated such a proposal but has suggested that presidents should have input into the central bank’s policies and in the past tried to publicly push the Fed to lower interest rates.The assessment of Mr. Trump’s policies was published days after the Republican presidential candidate pitched his plan to create a manufacturing “renaissance” in America by cutting corporate taxes and regulations and increasing tariffs by as much as 200 percent. Economists have been skeptical about the viability of many of Mr. Trump’s proposals, and some of them could be difficult to enact. But the new report argued that if taken together, the policies would inflict significant damage on the U.S. economy.“While Trump promises to ‘make the foreigners pay,’ our analysis shows his policies will end up making Americans pay the most,” Warwick J. McKibbin, Megan Hogan and Marcus Noland wrote in their report.The study from the Peterson Institute, which tends to favor free trade, examined the effects of three prominent parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda: deporting 8.3 million unauthorized migrants, levying 10 percent tariffs on all imports and 60 percent tariffs on imports from China, and eroding the Federal Reserve’s independence by allowing the president to influence interest rate policy.The study suggested that Mr. Trump wanted to weaken the Fed’s independence, citing a Wall Street Journal article that said his allies were drawing up a plan to blunt the central bank’s ability to freely set interest rates. It also noted that Mr. Trump has said he believes presidents should have a “say” on interest rate policy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    What Trump Has Said About Interest Rates, and Why It Matters

    by

    Federal Reserve officials do not answer to the White House and they insist that they do not take politics into account when they are setting interest rates. But because borrowing costs have a big effect on the economy and the nation’s economic vibe, the central bank’s decision on Wednesday is sure to draw political attention.Former President Donald J. Trump regularly promises to bring interest rates down if he is elected president again — even though the president has little to no direct impact on borrowing costs. While in office he publicly railed against the Fed for taking too long to cut rates, to little avail.And Mr. Trump has remained focused on the Fed as it approaches its first rate cut in more than four years.“You’ll see, they’ll do the interest rate cut and all of the political stuff tomorrow,” Mr. Trump said during a town hall in Michigan this week. “Will he do a half a point? Will he do a quarter of a point? But the reason is that the economy is not good. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to do it.”In fact, Mr. Trump has suggested repeatedly that it would be political of the Fed to cut borrowing costs in the weeks leading up to the election. Rate cuts are “something that they know they shouldn’t be doing,” he told Bloomberg Businessweek earlier this year. At another point he told Fox News that lower rates would “help the Democrats.” He has since suggested that presidents should “have a say” on interest rates, though he later walked the comment back.Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has largely avoided talking about the Fed. While President Biden steers clear of saying what the Fed should do, he has at times tiptoed close to doing so, including earlier this year when he said he “bet” that interest rates were going to come down.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More