Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

More stories

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans to Scrap Climate Policies Has Unnerved Green Energy Investors

    by

    President-elect Donald J. Trump is expected to roll back many of the rules and subsidies that have attracted billions of dollars from the private sector to renewable energy and electric vehicles.Money is the mother’s milk of politics, but the outcome of elections also determines where it flows — and last month’s was especially crucial for the energy industry.Clean investment — including renewable energy as well as the manufacturing of electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels — has boomed since the passage of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, championed by President Biden. In the third quarter of 2024, it reached a record $71 billion, according to a tracker maintained by the Rhodium Group, an energy-focused research firm, and M.I.T.The big question looming now on Wall Street: Will President-elect Donald J. Trump, who called Mr. Biden’s policies the “green new scam” during the campaign, pull back enough of those subsidies and regulations to meaningfully change the economics of investing in decarbonization?Market reactions right after the election seemed clear. Clean energy stocks dropped sharply, while shares of oil companies bounced, indicating a divergent view of how the two sectors will fare in the coming years.Near the top of Mr. Trump’s agenda next year is extending his 2017 tax cuts. He will most likely need to reduce spending elsewhere to do that. Clean energy tax credits — worth about $350 billion over just the next three years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation — would be a tempting target. The more those subsidies are pared, the more projects would no longer make financial sense.President Biden has championed the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and other policies designed to address climate change and spur investment in cleaner forms of energy.Kenny Holston/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 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How a Government Shutdown Could Affect the Economy

    by

    A federal government shutdown probably wouldn’t be enough to derail the solid U.S. economy. But it could inject more uncertainty into an already murky economic outlook.Funding for the federal government will lapse at the end of Friday if Congress doesn’t reach a deal to extend it. It is still possible that legislators will act in time to prevent a shutdown, or will restore funding quickly enough to avoid significant disruptions and minimize any economic impact.But if the standoff lasts beyond the weekend, most federal offices will not open Monday, and hundreds of thousands of government employees will be told not to work. Others will be required to work without pay until the government reopens.For those workers and their families, the consequences could be serious, especially if the impasse drags on. Federal law guarantees that government workers will eventually receive back pay, but that may not come in time for those living paycheck to paycheck. And the back-pay provisions don’t apply to consultants or contractors. During the last government shutdown — a partial lapse in funding in late 2018 and early 2019 — federal workers lined up at food pantries after going weeks without pay.For the economy as a whole, the effects of a shutdown are likely to be more modest. Many of the most important government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, would not be affected, and government services that are deemed “essential,” such as air traffic control and aviation security, can continue at least temporarily. Federal workers who put off purchases are likely to make them once their paychecks restart.Forecasters at Goldman Sachs estimate that a shutdown would exert a small but measurable drag on the economy, reducing quarterly economic growth by about 0.15 percentage points for every week the lapse in funding continues. Most of that toll, though not all, would reverse in the next quarter. Other forecasters have released similar estimates.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 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Nvidia’s Global Chips Sales Could Collide With US-China Tensions

    by

    The chipmaker expects more than $10 billion in foreign sales this year, but the Biden administration is advancing rules that could curb that growth.In early August, the king of Bhutan, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, traveled from the mountains of his landlocked Asian country to the headquarters of Nvidia, a maker of artificial intelligence chips in the flatlands of Silicon Valley.King Wangchuck did a two-hour tour and listened as Jay Puri, Nvidia’s head of global business, discussed how Bhutanese investment in data centers and Nvidia chips could combine with the kingdom’s biggest natural resource, hydropower, to create new A.I. systems.The pitch was one of dozens that Nvidia has made over the past two years to kings, presidents, sheikhs and government ministers. Many of those countries went on to pour billions of dollars into government efforts to build supercomputers or generative A.I. systems, hoping to gain a competitive foothold in what could be the century’s defining technology.But in Washington, officials worry that Nvidia’s global sales spree could empower adversaries. Now the Biden administration is working on rules that would tighten control over A.I. chip sales and turn them into a diplomatic tool.The proposed framework would allow U.S. allies to make unfettered purchases, adversaries would be blocked entirely, and other nations would receive quotas based on their alignment with U.S. strategic goals, according to four people familiar with the proposed restrictions, who did not have permission to speak publicly about them.The restrictions would threaten an international expansion plan that Nvidia’s chief executive, Jensen Huang, calls “sovereign A.I.” Mr. Huang has hopscotched the globe this fall, logging over 30,000 miles in three months, and the company expects to make more than $10 billion in sales this year from countries outside the United States.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 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    The Economy Is Finally Stable. Is That About to Change?

    by

    President-elect Donald J. Trump’s proposals on tariffs, immigration, taxes and deregulation may have far-reaching and contradictory effects, adding uncertainty to forecasts.After five years of uncertainty and turmoil, the U.S. economy is ending 2024 in arguably its most stable condition since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.Inflation has cooled. Unemployment is low. The Federal Reserve is cutting interest rates. The recession that many forecasters once warned was inevitable hasn’t materialized.Yet the economic outlook for 2025 is as murky as ever, for one major reason: President-elect Donald J. Trump.On the campaign trail and in the weeks since his election, Mr. Trump has proposed sweeping policy changes that could have profound — and complicated — implications for the economy.He has proposed imposing steep new tariffs and deporting potentially millions of undocumented immigrants, which could lead to higher prices, slower growth or both, according to most economic models. At the same time, he has promised policies like tax cuts for individuals and businesses that could lead to faster economic growth but also bigger deficits. And he has pledged to slash regulations, which could lift corporate profits and, possibly, overall productivity. But critics warn that such changes could increase worker injuries, cause environmental damage and make the financial system more prone to crises over the long run.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 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    High on Hope, Wall St. Hears What It Wants From Trump

    by

    Investors and executives are often emphasizing what they like in the president-elect’s agenda, while dismissing what they don’t as mere posturing.If you ask many a Wall Street investor, tax cuts are poised for extension, deregulation is all but guaranteed, immigration reform for high-skill workers has real potential and President-elect Donald J. Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) might just cut the deficit.Tariffs, by contrast, are a mere bargaining chip. Immigrant expulsions will probably be limited, and there is no way on earth that the incoming White House would meddle with the independent Federal Reserve.Hope has been riding high in financial markets and corporate boardrooms in the month-and-change since the presidential election. But it is often predicated on a bet: Many of the optimists are choosing to believe that the Trump promises they want to see fulfilled are going to become reality, while dismissing those they think would be bad for the economy as mere posturing.“A lot of people are using deductive reasoning and concluding that he’ll only do things that are good for the market,” said Julia Coronado, founder of the research firm MacroPolicy Perspectives. “They can ride this wave of hope-ium through the end of January,” she said, adding that much of it “feels delusional.”There’s a reason for the hope: Many investors believe that markets themselves will act as a bulwark against extreme proposals.Mr. Trump does care enormously about financial markets, and particularly the stock market. He points to it as a marker of success in a way that few if any presidents have ever done. And during his first term in office, he sometimes backed away from more extreme plans — like an idea to oust the Fed chair — when they caused markets to plummet.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 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How U.S. Firms Battled a Government Crackdown to Keep Tech Sales to China

    by

    An intense struggle has unfolded in Washington between companies and officials over where to draw the line on selling technology to China.At a meeting in Washington this spring, tech company representatives and government officials once again found themselves at odds over where to draw the line when it came to selling coveted technology to China.The Biden administration was considering cutting off the sales of equipment used to manufacture semiconductors to three Chinese companies that the government had linked to Huawei, a technology giant that is sanctioned by the United States and is central to China’s efforts to develop advanced chips.Applied Materials, KLA Corporation and Lam Research, which make semiconductor equipment, argued that the three Chinese companies were a major source of revenue. The U.S. firms said that they had already earned $6 billion by selling equipment to those Chinese companies, and that they planned to sell billions more, two government officials said.U.S. officials, who view the flow of U.S. technology to Huawei as a national security threat, were stunned by the argument. In regulations issued this month, they ultimately rejected the American companies’ plea.Over the past year, an intense struggle has played out in Washington between companies that sell machinery to make semiconductors and Biden officials who are bent on slowing China’s technological progress. Officials argue that China’s ability to make chips that create artificial intelligence, guide autonomous drones and launch cyberattacks is a national security threat, and they have clamped down on U.S. technology exports, including in new rules last week.But many in the semiconductor industry have fought to limit the rules and preserve a critical source of revenue, more than a dozen current and former U.S. officials said. Most requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal government interactions or exchanges with the industry.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 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Fannie and Freddie, the Big Mortgage Backers, Face Climate Risks

    by

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac know increasing floods and wildfires are a problem. Dealing with them, however, would require trade-offs.As sea levels rise and natural disasters become more intense, homes in low-lying coastal areas or tinder-dry mountains are starting to lose value.That’s a problem for the finances of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that back half of the nation’s outstanding mortgages — and keep the residential real estate market liquid by buying mortgages from banks and repackaging them into securities.In the first year of the Biden administration, financial regulators seemed to recognize the risk, identifying the mortgage market as one of the main channels through which climate change could destabilize the financial system.Since then, reports have been published, comments gathered and summits held. But when it comes to insulating the two enterprises and borrowers from climate-related catastrophe, the Federal Housing Finance Agency — which regulates Fannie and Freddie — has issued only vague guidance.“It came out and I thought, where’s the rest of it?” said Carlos Martín, director of the Remodeling Futures Program at the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.The issue comes with risk for taxpayers as well, since the federal government took Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship in 2008 after the financial crisis. Fannie and Freddie have reserve capital buffers, but large losses could force the government to intervene.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 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Minutes Show Options Are Open on Interest Rate Cuts

    by

    Minutes from a Nov. 6-7 meeting showed that Federal Reserve policymakers favored lowering rates “gradually.”Minutes from the Federal Reserve’s November meeting offered little signal about whether officials would cut interest rates at their next gathering, though they suggested that policymakers did expect to continue to lower borrowing costs “gradually” over time.The account of the central bank’s Nov. 6-7 meeting, released on Tuesday, showed that Fed officials still planned to cut interest rates further. But with the job market holding up better than expected and the economy growing at a solid clip, they are in no rush to slash them rapidly.Fed officials thought it “would likely be appropriate to move gradually toward a more neutral stance of policy over time,” the minutes showed.At the moment, central bankers think that their policy rate — which is set to a range of 4.5 percent to 4.75 percent — is “restrictive,” which means it is high enough to weigh on growth.That’s by design. Policymakers lifted rates to high levels in 2022 and 2023 to make borrowing more expensive, hoping to cool the economy and wrestle rapid inflation under control. But over the past year, inflation has been slowing toward the Fed’s 2 percent goal, and the unemployment rate had begun to nudge higher.Given that, officials began to cut rates in September, then made a second rate cut in November. The goal was to ease off the economic brakes a little, allowing the economy to slow gently without risking a painful crash. When Fed officials last released economic forecasts, in September, policymakers expected to make one final quarter-point rate cut in 2024.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