Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

More stories

  • 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

  • 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