Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

More stories

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Sought Tariff Loophole Used by Chinese Rivals. Now Biden Is Closing It.

    by

    Under pressure from Chinese competitors, Amazon, Walmart and other U.S. retailers have been exploring ways to avoid tariffs. Could a new Biden administration rule change that?Major American retailers including Amazon and Walmart have been quietly exploring shifting toward a business model that would ship more goods directly to consumers from Chinese factories and require fewer U.S. workers in retail stores and logistics centers.The plans have been driven by the rocketing popularity of Chinese e-commerce platforms like Shein and Temu, which have won over consumers with their low prices. These platforms ship inexpensive products directly to consumers’ doorsteps, allowing them to bypass American tariffs on Chinese goods, along with the hefty costs associated with brick-and-mortar stores, warehousing and distribution networks.Rising competition from Shein, Temu and other Chinese companies is pushing many major U.S. retailers to consider shifting to a similar model to qualify for an obscure, century-old U.S. trade law, according to several people familiar with the plans. The law, known as de minimis, allows importers to bypass U.S. taxes and tariffs on goods as long as shipments do not exceed $800 in value.But that trend toward changing business models may have been disrupted on Friday, when the Biden administration abruptly moved to close off de minimis eligibility for many Chinese imports, including most clothing items. In an announcement Friday morning, the Biden administration said it would clamp down on the number of packages that come into the country duty-free using de minimis shipping, particularly from China.The Biden administration’s changes will not go into effect immediately. The proposal will be subject to comment by industry before being finalized in the coming months, and some imports from China would still qualify for a de minimis exemption.But Friday’s action may head off a change that has been looming in global retail. Amazon has been preparing a new discount service that would ship products directly to consumers, allowing those goods to bypass tariffs, according to people familiar with the plans. Even companies that preferred to keep their business models as-is — like Walmart — have been forced to consider using more de minimis to compete.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 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris Economic Plan Focuses on Prices, a Key Vulnerability

    by

    Vice President Kamala Harris has been balancing the challenges of defending “Bidenomics” and charting her own course on the economy.As Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled her economic plans in recent weeks, former President Donald J. Trump has accused her of being a Marxist, a communist and a socialist.When they meet on Tuesday night for their only scheduled presidential debate, Ms. Harris will have the opportunity to rebut those claims and confront Mr. Trump about his record of managing the U.S. economy.She will also lay out her vision, which has been challenging as she tries to defend “Bidenomics” and demonstrate that she has a plan to chart a new course amid widespread economic discontent among many Americans who are struggling with high prices and other affordability issues.In a compressed presidential campaign, Ms. Harris indicated that she would continue many of President Biden’s policies, which aim to raise taxes on companies and punish them for price gouging, while also trying to strike a more business-friendly tone. In some cases, such as her embrace of ending taxation of tips, the vice president has even shown a willingness to adopt the policies put forward by Mr. Trump.How Ms. Harris would ultimately govern if elected will depend largely on the makeup of Congress, but her initial suite of proposals — from taxes to trade to child care — suggests that she would take the economy in a vastly different direction than her Republican opponent.Cost of LivingPerhaps Ms. Harris’s biggest political vulnerability is the run-up in prices that occurred during the Biden administration. Mr. Trump has repeatedly blamed the vice president for causing inflation to surge after the coronavirus pandemic, a phenomenon that stemmed from a mix of factors such as supply chain issues, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and repeated bursts of fiscal stimulus to keep families and businesses afloat. The higher cost of goods initially hurt Mr. Biden when he was running against Mr. Trump, and Ms. Harris is now facing many of the same concerns from Americans who are feeling negative about a relatively strong economy.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

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Promises to Cut Inflation Are Unrealistic, Many Economists Say

    by

    Economists and analysts are dubious of Trump’s promises to slash gas prices or prod interest rates lower.As he seeks to return to the White House, former President Donald J. Trump has pledged to cut Americans’ energy costs in half in the span of a year, part of a plan to reduce inflation and drive mortgage rates back toward record lows.But economists and analysts — and Mr. Trump’s own record from his first term — suggest that it is unlikely that Mr. Trump can deliver on those promises.Mr. Trump’s vow to dramatically reduce Americans’ cost of living hinges in part on his plans to quickly expand oil and gas drilling and reduce government impediments to power plant construction, which he says would slash energy bills by “more than half.” As prices fall, he regularly states, interest rates will come down, along with mortgage rates.But Mr. Trump has not cited modeling or other economic analysis to support his assertions. Economic research and historical experience suggest that presidents have only a limited effect on locally regulated electric utilities or on the cost of oil, which is a globally traded commodity.“He doesn’t really have the tools to lower oil prices enough to cut gasoline prices in half,” said Steven Kamin, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and former Federal Reserve economist.In all, experts and past evidence suggest that Mr. Trump is over-promising on key economic issues related to prices and interest rates. And that fits with a pattern he established during his earlier campaigns — one in which he emphasizes big, catchy outcomes with little attention to costs or how he might make good on his pledges.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

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    4 Big Airlines Face U.S. Inquiry Over Frequent Flier Programs

    by

    The Transportation Department ordered American, Delta, Southwest and United to share more information about their rewards practices to ensure they are fair to consumers and rivals.The Transportation Department announced on Thursday that it was investigating the rewards programs of the country’s four biggest airlines, part of the agency’s continuing efforts to bolster protections for air travelers.As part of the inquiry, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg ordered the carriers — United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines — to furnish the agency with records and detailed information about their loyalty programs.The agency said its investigation was “focused on the ways consumers participating in airline rewards programs are impacted by the devaluation of earned rewards, hidden or dynamic pricing, extra fees, and reduced competition and choice.”Mr. Buttigieg said in a statement that such programs “are controlled by a company that can unilaterally change their value.”“Our goal is to ensure consumers are getting the value that was promised to them,” he added, “which means validating that these programs are transparent and fair.”Airlines’ policies have been in the Biden administration’s cross hairs for months as it has tried to clamp down on practices that it sees as unfavorable to consumers. In April, the Transportation Department issued new rules requiring airlines to offer refunds when flights are canceled or delayed and to reveal all fees before a ticket is purchased.Mr. Buttigieg expressed concerns about loyalty programs in May during a joint hearing of the Transportation Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on airline loyalty and credit card programs. He said the agency was examining whether the companies were being straightforward with customers about what they would receive and whether they were “getting the deal that they were promised.”The agency, he added at the time, was also looking into the impact of the programs on competition in the industry, and whether some were “being operated in a way that has the potential to block the entry or growth of smaller airline competitors, which could ultimately limit options for consumers.”In statements, Delta and Southwest defended their loyalty programs. American and United referred requests for comment to Airlines for America, a trade association that represents the country’s biggest airlines, which said in a statement that “U.S. carriers are transparent about these programs, and policymakers should ensure that consumers can continue to be offered these important benefits.”Last year, Delta prompted an outcry among travelers when it announced changes to its SkyMiles frequent flier program. The airline later adjusted its modifications. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed’s Preferred Inflation Gauge Stays Cool, Keeping a Rate Cut Imminent

    by

    Inflation remained cool in July, based on the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, keeping the Federal Reserve on track for rate cuts.Inflation held steady in July on a yearly basis and consumer spending was robust, fresh data released on Friday showed, the latest sign that progress toward cooler price increases remains firmly intact even as the economy holds up.The release of the Federal Reserve’s favorite inflation number, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, showed that yearly inflation was 2.5 percent. That was in line with both the previous month and with economist forecasts.After stripping out food and fuel prices, both of which jump around, a “core” index was up 2.6 percent from a year earlier. That figure gives economists a clearer grasp on the underlying trend in inflation.This month, Fed officials and Wall Street analysts are likely to look closely at the monthly inflation numbers. Because inflation climbed slowly last summer, the annual numbers are being measured against cool readings from last year. When comparing July’s prices to June’s, inflation climbed slightly: 0.2 percent in both the headline and the core measures.The likely takeaway for Fed officials is that inflation continues to gradually moderate — keeping them on track to begin lowering interest rates next month. While the yearly number remains above the Fed’s 2 percent goal, it is down substantially from a peak of more than 7 percent in 2022.This is the last P.C.E. report the Fed will receive before its Sept. 17-18 policy meeting, although officials will get a Consumer Price Index report on Sept. 11. That inflation measure comes out earlier in the month than the personal consumption measure and feeds into the P.C.E. report.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

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Kroger and Albertsons Confront a Skeptical F.T.C. in federal court

    by

    The Federal Trade Commission, which is trying to block Kroger’s plan to acquire Albertsons, said in court that the merger of grocery giants would also hurt workers’ pay and benefits.A trial that could determine whether the two largest supermarket chains in the United States can merge opened in Portland, Ore., on Monday, pitting the grocery giant Kroger against regulators who argue that its takeover of Albertsons would eliminate competition at the expense of consumers and workers.Before Judge Adrienne Nelson of U.S. District Court, the Federal Trade Commission and the supermarket chains laid out their arguments in court for the first time, as union representatives and workers protested the deal on the courthouse steps. Less competition, the agency’s lawyers said, would give Kroger more leverage to raise prices on millions of consumers.The highly anticipated proceedings, set to last three weeks, come as high food prices have become a critical focus in the presidential race. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has backed a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries to combat high grocery costs.Kroger and Albertsons defended the $24.6 billion deal, which would be the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history, saying it would bolster their leverage with suppliers and improve competition against major retailers like Costco, Amazon and Walmart. But the F.T.C. — backed by a chorus of unions, consumer advocates, politicians and independent grocery chains — reiterated its position that the merger would probably result in higher prices for groceries and worse conditions for workers.The deal “would eliminate the competition that shoppers and workers depend on in one fell swoop,” Susan Musser, the F.T.C.’s chief trial counsel, said in her opening statement. “This lawsuit is part of an effort aimed at helping Americans feed their families.”In bringing the case, the F.T.C. has been joined by the attorneys general of eight states, including California and Illinois, as well as the District of Columbia. It’s part of a regulatory push under the Biden administration to rein in corporate consolidation in an array of industries, including airlines, Big Tech, book publishing and pharmaceuticals.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

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Stocks Rise as Fed Chair Powell Signals Rate Cuts in Jackson Hole Speech

    by

    Jerome H. Powell made it clear that the Federal Reserve will cut rates on Sept. 18, as the central bank turns the corner in its fight against inflation.Speaking in his most closely watched speech of the year, Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, clearly signaled on Friday that the central bank was poised to cut interest rates in September.And while Mr. Powell stopped short of giving a clear hint at just how large that move might be, he forcefully underscored that the central bank stands prepared to adjust policy to protect the job market from weakening further and to keep the economy on a path for a soft landing.“The time has come for policy to adjust,” Mr. Powell said during the Kansas City Fed’s annual conference at Jackson Hole in Wyoming. “The direction of travel is clear, and the timing and pace of rate cuts will depend on incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks.”He then added: “We will do everything we can to support a strong labor market as we make further progress toward price stability.”Mr. Powell’s speech was his firmest declaration yet that the Fed is turning a corner in its fight against inflation. After more than a year of holding interest rates at 5.3 percent, the highest level in more than two decades, officials finally have enough confidence to change their stance by cutting rates at their Sept. 17-18 meeting.Policymakers have been using those high rates to try to cool the economy and, by doing so, wrestle down rapid inflation. But as price increases slow substantially and the job market shows signs of wobbling, officials no longer need to hit the brakes quite so hard.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

  • 63 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Blocks F.T.C.’s Noncompete Rule

    by

    The Federal Trade Commission was deemed to lack the authority to bar companies from restricting their employees’ ability to go to work for rivals.A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, blocking it from taking effect in September as scheduled.Judge Ada Brown of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the antitrust agency lacked authority to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition, including the noncompete rule, which would have prohibited companies from restricting their employees’ ability to work for rivals.The push to adopt the rule is part of the Biden administration’s effort to crack down on practices that regulators argue are anticompetitive, unfairly constraining workers.Judge Brown had temporarily blocked the ban in July. Her decision on Tuesday renders that injunction permanent, and nationwide in scope.Banning noncompete agreements would increase workers’ earnings by at least $400 billion over the next decade, the F.T.C. has estimated. The agreements affect roughly one in five American workers, or around 30 million people, according to the agency, whose purview includes antitrust and consumer protection issues.Victoria Graham, an F.T.C. spokeswoman, said the agency was disappointed by Judge Brown’s decision and would “keep fighting to stop noncompetes that restrict the economic liberty of hardworking Americans, hamper economic growth, limit innovation and depress wages.”“We are seriously considering a potential appeal, and today’s decision does not prevent the F.T.C. from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions,” Ms. Graham added.A tax firm, Ryan, sued to block the rule just hours after the F.T.C. voted 3 to 2 in April to adopt it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce later joined the case as a plaintiff, as did the Business Roundtable and two Texas business groups.The Chamber of Commerce and other groups have asserted that the F.T.C. lacks constitutional and statutory authority to adopt the rule, with Ryan calling it “arbitrary, capricious and otherwise unlawful” — a position with which Judge Brown agreed. Business groups have also argued that the ban would limit their ability to protect trade secrets and confidential information.In response to Judge Brown’s ruling, G. Brint Ryan, chief executive of Ryan, called the rule “continuing overreach and overregulation” by the federal government, adding that the firm was “happy we were able to successfully stop the overreach in this instance.”But the three Democrats on the five-member F.T.C. maintain that it can legally issue rules defining unfair methods of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the law that created the agency.In a separate case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania declined last month to block the rule. Diverging rulings on the fate of the ban could leave the door open to review by higher courts.“Many businesses will welcome the reprieve, but the uncertainty continues as the fight now moves to the appellate courts,” said Kevin Goldstein, an antitrust partner at Winston & Strawn. More