United States Politics and Government

More stories

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Democrats Renew Push for Industrial Policy Bill Aimed at China

    by

    A major competitiveness bill passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support, only to stall. Democrats hope to revive it in the House, but first they will have to bridge big differences.WASHINGTON — Biden administration officials and Democrats in Congress are pushing to revive stalled legislation that would pour billions of dollars into scientific research and development and shore up domestic manufacturing, amid deep differences on Capitol Hill about the best way to counter China and confront persistent supply chain woes.House Democrats unveiled a 2,900-page bill on Tuesday evening that would authorize $45 billion in grants and loans to support supply chain resilience and American manufacturing, along with providing billions of dollars in new funding for scientific research. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that she hoped lawmakers would quickly begin negotiations with the Senate, which passed its own version of the bill last June, to settle on compromise legislation that could be sent to President Biden for his signature.But the effort faces obstacles in Congress, where attempts to sink significant federal resources into scientific research and development to bolster competitiveness with China and combat a shortage of semiconductors have faltered. The Senate-passed measure fizzled last year amid ideological disputes with the House and a focus on efforts to pass Mr. Biden’s infrastructure and social policy bills. For months, the competitiveness measure was rarely even mentioned, except perhaps by Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, who has personally championed it.But facing a disruptive semiconductor shortage that has broken down supply chains and helped fuel inflation, Democrats are now vigorously pressing ahead on the bill. With Mr. Biden’s domestic agenda sputtering, the party is eager for a legislative victory, and top administration officials and lawmakers have said they hope to send a compromise bill to the president’s desk in a matter of months.“We have no time to waste in improving American competitiveness, strengthening our lead in global innovation and addressing supply chain challenges, including in the semiconductor industry,” Mr. Schumer said.Both the House bill and the one that passed the Senate last year would send a lifeline to the semiconductor industry during a global chip shortage that has shut auto plants and rippled through the economy. The bills would offer chip companies $52 billion in grants and subsidies with few restrictions.The measures would also pour billions more into scientific research and development pipelines in the United States, create grants and foster agreements between companies and research universities to encourage breakthroughs in new technologies, and establish new manufacturing jobs and apprenticeships.“The proposals laid out by the House and Senate represent the sort of transformational investments in our industrial base and research and development that helped power the United States to lead the global economy in the 20th century,” Mr. Biden said in a statement. “They’ll help bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, and they’re squarely focused on easing the sort of supply chain bottlenecks like semiconductors that have led to higher prices for the middle class.”The semiconductor shortage has disrupted the economy, broken down supply chains and helped fuel inflation.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesLawmakers will still need to overcome differing views in the House and Senate over how best to take on China and, perhaps more crucially, how to fund the nation’s scientific research.“There are disagreements, legitimate disagreements,” Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said in an interview. “How do we do this? How do we get it right? There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement over the core $52 billion appropriation for chips. There is disagreement around how we make investments in research and development in basic science.”One major difference is that while the Senate bill invests heavily in specific fields of cutting-edge technology, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, the House bill places few stipulations on the new round of funding, other than to say that it should go toward fundamental research.In a memo on the legislation, House aides wrote that their measure was “focusing on solutions first, not tech buzzwords.”Some experts argue that approach lacks urgency. Stephen Ezell, the vice president for global innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a policy group that receives funding from telecommunications and tech companies, called the House bill “not sufficient to enable the United States to win the advanced technology competition with China.” He argued that the focus on advanced technology in the Senate-passed bill would do more to increase American competitiveness.How the Supply Chain Crisis UnfoldedCard 1 of 9The pandemic sparked the problem. More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Commerce Dept. Survey Uncovers ‘Alarming’ Chip Shortages

    by

    Increased demand for the semiconductors that power cars, electronics and electrical grids have stoked inflation and could cause more factory shutdowns in the United States.WASHINGTON — The United States is facing an “alarming” shortage of semiconductors, a government survey of more than 150 companies that make and buy chips found; the situation is threatening American factory production and helping to fuel inflation, Gina M. Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said in an interview on Monday.She said the findings showed a critical need to support domestic manufacturing and called on Congress to pass legislation aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness with China by enabling more American production.“It’s alarming, really, the situation we’re in as a country, and how urgently we need to move to increase our domestic capacity,” Ms. Raimondo said.The findings show demand for the chips that power cars, electronics, medical devices and other products far outstripping supply, even as global chip makers approach their maximum production capacity.While demand for semiconductors increased 17 percent from 2019 to 2021, there was no commensurate increase in supply. A vast majority of semiconductor fabrication plants are using about 90 percent of their capacity to manufacture chips, meaning they have little immediate ability to increase their output, according to the data that the Commerce Department compiled.The need for chips is expected to increase, as technologies that use vast amounts of semiconductors, like 5G and electric vehicles, become more widespread.The combination of surging demand for consumer products that contain chips and pandemic-related disruptions in production has led to shortages and skyrocketing prices for semiconductors over the past two years.Chip shortages have forced some factories that rely on the components to make their products, like those of American carmakers, to slow or suspend production. That has dented U.S. economic growth and led to higher car prices, a big factor in the soaring inflation in the United States. The price of a used car grew 37 percent last year, helping to push inflation to a 40-year high in December.The Commerce Department sent out a request for information in September to global chip makers and consumers to gather information about inventories, production capacity and backlogs in an effort to understand where bottlenecks exist in the industry and how to alleviate them.The results of that survey, which the Commerce Department published Tuesday morning, reveal how scarce global supplies of chips have become.The median inventory among buyers had fallen to fewer than five days from 40 days before the pandemic, meaning that any hiccup in chip production — because of a winter storm, for example, or another coronavirus outbreak — could cause shortages that would shut down U.S. factories and again destabilize supply chains, Ms. Raimondo said.“We have no room for error,” she added.To help address the issue, Biden administration officials have coalesced behind a bill that the Senate passed in June as an answer to some of the nation’s supply chain woes.The bill, known in the Senate as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, would pour nearly a quarter-trillion dollars into scientific research and development to bolster competitiveness against China and prop up semiconductor makers by providing $52 billion in emergency subsidies.Momentum on the legislation stalled amid ideological disputes between the House and Senate over how to direct the funding. In June, House lawmakers passed a narrower bill, eschewing the Senate’s focus on technology development in favor of financing fundamental research.But administration officials, led by Ms. Raimondo, have begun prodding lawmakers behind the scenes in an effort to help bridge their differences to swiftly pass the bill, emphasizing the urgency of quickly signing solutions into law.“There’s no getting around this. There is no other solution,” Ms. Raimondo said. “We need more facilities.”On Tuesday evening, House Democrats unveiled a sweeping, 2,900-page bill that lawmakers said they hoped would be a starting point for negotiations with the Senate, in an effort to ultimately pass a manufacturing and supply chain bill into law. In a statement minutes after the bill text was made public, President Biden hailed both proposals and encouraged “quick action to get this to my desk as soon as possible.”Understand the Global Chip ShortageCard 1 of 7In short supply. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why Critics Fear the Fed's Policy Shift May Prove Late and Abrupt

    by

    The Federal Reserve is still buying bonds as prices surge. Some praise the central bank’s continuing policy pivot; others ask if it was fast enough.The Federal Reserve has moved at warp speed by central banking standards over the past six months as it prepares to lean against a surge in prices: first slowing its economy-stoking bond purchases, then deciding to end that buying program earlier and finally signaling that interest rate increases are coming.Some on Wall Street and in Washington are questioning whether it moved rapidly enough.Consumer prices increased by 7 percent in December from the prior year, the fastest pace since 1982, as rapid spending on goods collides with limited supply as a result of shuttered factories and backlogged ports. While price increases were initially expected to fade quickly, they have instead lasted and broadened to rents and restaurant meals.The Fed is charged with maintaining full employment and stable prices. The burst in inflation is causing some to question whether the central bank was too slow to recognize how persistent price increases were becoming, and whether it will be forced to respond so rapidly that it pushes markets into a free fall and the economy into a sharp slowdown or even recession.“The first policy mistake was completely misunderstanding inflation,” said Mohamed El-Erian, the chief economic adviser at the financial services company Allianz. He thinks the Fed now runs the risk of having to pull support away so rapidly that it disrupts markets and the economy. The Fed’s Board of Governors “maintained its transitory inflation narrative for 2021 way too long, missing window after window to slowly ease its foot off the stimulus accelerator.”Plenty of economists disagree with Mr. El-Erian, pointing out that the Fed reacted swiftly as it realized that conditions did not match its expectations. And market forecasts for inflation have remained under control, suggesting that investors believe that the Fed will manage to stabilize prices over the long run. Even so, stocks are shuddering and consumers are watching nervously as the central bank prepares for what could an unusually rapid withdraw of monetary support — ramping up pressure on its policymakers.“The downturn was faster, the upturn was faster: It was an unprecedented event, so not forecasting it properly was not the end of the world,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, a senior U.S. rates strategist at TD Securities. “What matters is what their readjustment is once the forecast has changed.”Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, and his colleagues meet this week in Washington and will release their latest policy decision at 2 p.m. on Wednesday.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.The Fed is on track to end its asset buying program in March, at which point markets expect policymakers to begin raising interest rates. Investors expect officials to raise interest rates as many as four times this year, while allowing their balance sheet of asset holdings to shrink. Both policy changes would work together to remove juice from the rapidly recovering economy.The path the Fed is now following differs starkly from the one it was projecting as recently as September, when many Fed officials had not come around to the idea that rates would rise in 2022. Likewise, the Fed began tapering off its bond buying program only in late 2021, so it is now in the uncomfortable position of making its final purchases — giving markets and the economy an added lift — even as inflation comes in hot.The central bank’s critics argue that it should have started to withdraw its help earlier and faster. That would have begun to cool off demand and inflation sooner, and it would allow for a more gradual drawdown of support now.“I don’t think the Fed caused this inflation problem, but I do think they were late to recognize it,” said Aneta Markowska, chief financial economist at Jefferies, an investment bank. “And, therefore, they will have to catch up very quickly.”Sudden Fed moves carry an economic risk: Failing to give markets time to digest and adjust often sends them into tumult. Rocky markets can make it hard for households and businesses to borrow money, causing the economy to slow sharply, and perhaps more than the central bank intended.That is why the Fed typically tries to engineer what policymakers often refer to as a “soft landing.” The goal is to avoid upending markets, and to allow the economy to decelerate without slowing it down so abruptly that it tips into recession.But the economy has surprised the central bank lately.In 2021, Fed policymakers bet that rapid inflation would fade as the economy got through an unusual reopening period and the pandemic abated. They wanted to be patient in removing support as the labor market healed, and they did not meaningfully change their plans for policy after Democrats took the White House and Senate and it became clear that they would pass a large stimulus package.The path the Fed is now following differs starkly from the one it was projecting as recently as September.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesAs those dollars trickled out into the economy and the pandemic persisted, though, demand remained strong, supply chains remained roiled, and inflation began to broaden out from pandemic-disrupted products like cars and airfares into rents, which move slowly and matter a lot to overall price increases. Workers returned to the job market more slowly than many economists expected, and wages began to pick up sharply as labor shortages surfaced.That caused the Fed to change course late last year — and to do so fairly abruptly.“Inflation really popped up in the late spring last year, and we had a view — it was very, very widely held in the forecasting community — that this would be temporary,” Mr. Powell said in December. But officials grew more concerned as employment cost data moved higher and inflation indicators showed hot readings, he said, so they pivoted on policy.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Cash Aid to Poor Mothers Increases Brain Activity in Babies, Study Finds

    by

    The research could have policy implications as President Biden pushes to revive his proposal to expand the child tax credit.WASHINGTON — A study that provided poor mothers with cash stipends for the first year of their children’s lives appears to have changed the babies’ brain activity in ways associated with stronger cognitive development, a finding with potential implications for safety net policy.The differences were modest — researchers likened them in statistical magnitude to moving to the 75th position in a line of 100 from the 81st — and it remains to be seen if changes in brain patterns will translate to higher skills, as other research offers reason to expect.Still, evidence that a single year of subsidies could alter something as profound as brain functioning highlights the role that money may play in child development and comes as President Biden is pushing for a much larger program of subsidies for families with children.“This is a big scientific finding,” said Martha J. Farah, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, who conducted a review of the study for the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, where it was published on Monday. “It’s proof that just giving the families more money, even a modest amount of more money, leads to better brain development.”The payments will continue until the children are at least 4 years old, and the researchers plan further tests.via Lauren Meyer/Baby’s First YearsAnother researcher, Charles A. Nelson III of Harvard, reacted more cautiously, noting the full effect of the payments — $333 a month — would not be clear until the children took cognitive tests. While the brain patterns documented in the study are often associated with higher cognitive skills, he said, that is not always the case.“It’s potentially a groundbreaking study,” said Dr. Nelson, who served as a consultant to the study. “If I was a policymaker, I’d pay attention to this, but it would be premature of me to pass a bill that gives every family $300 a month.”A temporary federal program of near-universal children’s subsidies — up to $300 a month per child through an expanded child tax credit — expired this month after Mr. Biden failed to unite Democrats behind a large social policy bill that would have extended it. Most Republicans oppose the monthly grants, citing the cost and warning that unconditional aid, which they describe as welfare, discourages parents from working.Sharing some of those concerns, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, effectively blocked the Biden plan, though he has suggested that he might support payments limited to families of modest means and those with jobs. The payments in the research project, called Baby’s First Years, were provided regardless of whether the parents worked.Evidence abounds that poor children on average start school with weaker cognitive skills, and neuroscientists have shown that the differences extend to brain structure and function. But it has not been clear if those differences come directly from the shortage of money or from related factors like parental education or neighborhood influences.The study released on Monday offers evidence that poverty itself holds children back from their earliest moments.“This is the first study to show that money, in and of itself, has a causal impact on brain development,” said Dr. Kimberly G. Noble, a physician and neuroscientist at Teachers College, Columbia University, who helped lead the study.Dr. Noble and colleagues from six universities recruited a thousand mother-infant pairs within days of the babies’ birth and randomly divided the families into two groups. One group received a nominal $20 a month and another received $333.Using electroencephalograms, or EEG tests, to evaluate the children at age 1, the researchers found that those in the high-cash group had more of the fast brain activity other research has linked to cognitive development than those in the low-cash group. The differences were statistically significant by most, but not all, measures and were greatest in parts of the brain most associated with cognitive advancement.The payments will continue until the children are at least 4 years old, and the researchers plan further tests.Researchers are still trying to determine why the money altered brain development. It could have purchased better food or health care; reduced damaging levels of parental stress; or allowed mothers to work less and spend more time with their infants.The question of whether cash aid helps or hurts children is central to social policy. Progressives argue that poor children need an income floor, citing research that shows even brief periods of childhood poverty can lead to lower adult earnings and worse health. Conservatives say unconditional payments erode work and marriage, increasing poverty in the long run.President Bill Clinton changed the Democratic Party’s stance a quarter-century ago by abolishing welfare guarantees and shifting aid toward parents who work. Though child poverty subsequently fell to record lows, the reasons are in dispute, and rising inequality and volatility have revived Democratic support for subsidies.There are a variety of public and private programs underway in the United States to measure the effects of a guaranteed income on poor families, and many other rich countries offer broad children’s allowances without condition.The temporary expansion of the child tax credit, passed last year, offered subsidies to all but the richest parents at a one-year cost of more than $100 billion. Representative Suzan DelBene, Democrat of Washington, said the study strengthened the case for the aid by showing that “investing in our children has incredible long-term benefits.”Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine, who was one of nine co-authors of the study, said he hoped the research would refocus the debate, which he said was “almost always about the risks that parents might work less or use the money frivolously” toward the question of “whether the payments are good for kids.”But a conservative welfare critic, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, argued that the study vindicated stringent welfare laws, which he credited with reducing child poverty by incentivizing parents to find and keep jobs.“If you actually believe that child poverty has these negative effects, then you should not be trying to restore unconditional cash aid,” he said. “You certainly don’t want to go in the business of reversing welfare reform.”Economists and psychologists once dominated studies of poor children, but neuroscientists have increasingly weighed in. Over the past 15 years, they have shown that poor children on average differ from others in brain structure and function, with the disparities greatest for the poorest children.EEG tests have found differences in electrical activity. Magnetic resonance imaging, or M.R.I.s, have shown differences in the size of the cerebral cortex, especially in areas linked to language development and executive functioning. One study found differences in cerebral cortex size may account for up to 44 percent of the achievement gap between high- and low-income adolescents.As with any group differences, averages do not predict individual outcomes. Many other factors beyond brain features influence cognitive development, and many low-income children thrive.To test the effects of cash aid, Baby’s First Years raised more than $20 million from public and private sources, including the National Institutes of Health. Researchers recruited participants from maternity wards in New York City, Minneapolis-St. Paul and the metro areas of New Orleans and Omaha, randomly assigning them to the high- and low-payment groups.The families had average incomes of about $20,000, below the official poverty line for an average-sized family, meaning those who received $333 a month experienced an income gain of approximately 20 percent. The mothers were told they could use the money as they wished.The researchers predicted that children in the high-cash group would show more high-frequency brain activity than those in the low-cash group and less low-frequency activity. Previous research has found such patterns are associated with higher cognitive skills and fewer attention problems.The results largely conformed to predictions, with the children who received the higher grants showing more of the fast brain activity (though no differences in slow brain activity).The scientists wrote that the money “appeared” to cause the changed brain patterns, though they were less equivocal in interviews. Dr. Noble said the evidence, though strong, was not “airtight,” in part because the coronavirus pandemic allowed them to test only 435 infants.Researchers are still trying to determine why the money altered brain development. It could have purchased better food or health care.Cody O’Loughlin for The New York TimesJohn Gabrieli, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the evidence that cash aid altered brain activity was persuasive and “very important scientifically,” though he added, “We want to see if these differences result in improvements to cognition.”While the size of the recorded differences are modest (about a fifth of a standard deviation), the researchers said they were comparable to those produced by the average school experiment, like giving children tutors. While those services are often hard to administer, they added, cash can be distributed on a mass scale.Katherine Magnuson, a co-author of the study who directs the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, said she was surprised that only a year’s worth of aid made a difference. “It shows how sensitive the brain is to environments,” she said.Critics of unrestricted cash aid often warn that families will waste or abuse it. But Lisa A. Gennetian, an economist at Duke University and a co-author of the study, said the results indicated that parents could be trusted to make good decisions. “For one family, that might be food; for another, it might be housing,” she said. Additional research will examine how parents spent the money.Unlike last year’s expansion of the child tax credit, the experimental payments were narrowly targeted to poor newborns, which would make it less costly to replicate and possibly ease conservatives’ concerns about deterring work.One critic of the broader payments, Angela Rachidi of the American Enterprise Institute, said the study suggested the importance of infant bonding. Should the initial results hold up, she said, they could lend support for policies that help mothers spend more time with their newborns, including paid leave.But any cash aid, she said, should be “targeted to those with low incomes, time limited, and not erode work incentives in the long term.” More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Looks to Intel’s U.S. Investment to Buoy His China Agenda

    by

    The president said passage of a China competition bill was needed “for the sake of our economic competitiveness and our national security.”The $20 billion investment would bring the new plant to Ohio, with operations expected to begin in 2025.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesWASHINGTON — In celebrating a $20 billion investment by Intel in a new semiconductor plant in Ohio, President Biden sought on Friday to jump-start a stalled element of his economic and national security agenda: a huge federal investment in manufacturing, research and development in technologies that China is also seeking to dominate.With two other major legislative priorities sitting moribund in Congress — the Build Back Better Act and legislation to protect voting rights — Mr. Biden moved to press for another bill, and one that has significant bipartisan support.But he has lost seven critical months since the Senate passed the measure, a sprawling China competition bill that would devote nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars to domestic chip manufacturing, artificial intelligence research, robotics, quantum computing and a range of other technologies. The bill amounts to the most expansive industrial policy legislation in U.S. history.Speaking at the White House, Mr. Biden said that America was in a “stiff economic and technological competition” with China. He chose the words deliberately, knowing that while it sounds obvious to American ears, Chinese officials in recent months have protested the use of the word “competition,” declaring that it has echoes of a Cold War-like contest.“We’re going to insist everyone, including China, play by the same rules,” Mr. Biden continued. “We’re going to invest whatever it takes in America, in American innovation, in American communities, in American workers.”He argued that the initiative would be a long-term solution to supply chain disruptions and rising inflation and would free American weapons systems from depending on foreign parts.After months in which he rarely mentioned the China competition bill so that he did not lose focus on other elements of his agenda, Mr. Biden said on Friday that its passage was needed “for the sake of our economic competitiveness and our national security.”Understand the Supply Chain CrisisThe Origins of the Crisis: The pandemic created worldwide economic turmoil. We broke down how it happened.Explaining the Shortages: Why is this happening? When will it end? Here are some answers to your questions.Lockdowns Loom: Companies are bracing for more delays, worried that China’s zero-tolerance Covid policy will shutter factories and ports.A Key Factor in Inflation: In the U.S., inflation is hitting its highest level in decades. Supply chain issues play a big role.“Today, we barely produce 10 percent of the computer chips despite being the leader in chip design and research,” he said. “We don’t have the ability to make the most advanced chips now, right now.”Pervasive shortages of chips, which are needed to power everything from cars and washing machines to medical equipment and electrical grids, have forced some factories to shutter their production lines and knocked a full percentage point off U.S. growth last year, according to some estimates.While the Biden administration has billed Intel’s new investment near Columbus, Ohio, as a partial remedy for supply chain disruptions that have led to global chip shortages and spurred inflation, the project would do little to resolve any economic problems in the short term. The Ohio plant, the first phase of what Intel said could be an investment of up to $100 billion, is not expected to begin operation until 2025, and many analysts have forecast chip shortages to begin to abate later this year.Intel’s chief executive, Patrick Gelsinger, presented Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio with a silicon wafer on Friday. The Biden administration has billed Intel’s new investment as a partial remedy for supply chain disruptions.Paul Vernon/Associated PressBut in addition to providing positive headlines for a beleaguered White House, Intel’s plans may help build momentum for a key element of Mr. Biden’s agenda that was set aside as lawmakers contended with ambitious bills on infrastructure, social spending and voting rights. Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated on Thursday that House committees would soon turn to negotiations with the Senate to move the China competition legislation toward a vote.When the bill passed the Senate by a wide margin in June, it was sold in part as a jobs plan and in part as a move to avoid leaving the United States perilously dependent on its biggest geopolitical adversary.China is not yet a major producer of the world’s most advanced chips, and it does not have the capability to make semiconductors with the smallest circuits — in part because the United States and its allies have blocked it from purchasing lithography equipment needed to make those chips.But Beijing is pumping vast amounts of government funding into developing the sector, and it is also flexing its military reach over Taiwan, one of the largest manufacturers of advanced chips. China accounted for 9 percent of global chip sales in 2020, barely trailing the global market share of Japan and the European Union, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association. That was up from only 3.8 percent of global chip sales five years ago.At the World Economic Forum this week, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, announced plans for Europe to propose its own legislation early next month to promote the development of the semiconductor industry and to anticipate shortages.John Neuffer, the chief executive of the Semiconductor Industry Association, said Japan, South Korea, India and other countries were also introducing their own incentives in a bid to attract a strategically important industry.“The clock is ticking,” Mr. Neuffer said. “None of us are working in a vacuum. This is a global industry.”Mr. Biden’s push to enact the China competition bill comes amid growing frustration in corporate circles with his economic policies toward the country. Executives have complained that the administration still has not clarified whether it will lift any of the tariffs that President Donald J. Trump placed on China or how it will press Beijing for further trade concessions.How the Supply Chain Crisis UnfoldedCard 1 of 9The pandemic sparked the problem. More

  • 163 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Intel to Invest at Least $20 Billion in New Chip Factories in Ohio

    by

    Building up U.S. chip production has been a focus of lawmakers and companies alike amid a global shortage of the crucial components.Intel has selected Ohio for a new chip manufacturing complex that would cost at least $20 billion, ramping up an effort to increase U.S. production of computer chips as users grapple with a lingering shortage of the vital components.Intel said Friday that the new site near Columbus would initially have two chip factories and would directly employ 3,000 people, while creating additional jobs in construction and at nearby businesses. Patrick Gelsinger, who became Intel’s chief executive last year, has rapidly increased the company’s investments in manufacturing to help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign chip makers while lobbying Congress to pass incentives aimed at increasing domestic chip production. He has said that Intel might invest as much as $100 billion over a decade in its next U.S. manufacturing campus, linking the scope and speed of that expansion to expected federal grants if Congress approves a spending package known as the CHIPS Act.“We will go bigger and broader if it gets funded,” Mr. Gelsinger, 60, said in a recent interview. “But our recovery plans don’t rely on the CHIPS act.”President Biden will meet with Mr. Gelsinger at the White House on Friday to discuss the project, Intel said. Administration officials have aggressively pushed the CHIPS Act.Intel’s move has geopolitical implications, as well as significance for supply chains. Chips, which act as the brains of computers and many other devices, are largely manufactured in Taiwan, which China has expressed territorial claims toward. During the pandemic, they have also been in short supply because of overwhelming demand and Covid-related disruptions to manufacturing and labor supply, raising questions about how to ensure a consistent chip pipeline. The move is Intel’s first to a new state for manufacturing in more than 40 years. The company, based in Silicon Valley, has U.S. factories in Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona. Last March, Mr. Gelsinger chose an existing complex near Phoenix for a $20 billion expansion, which is now underway.But Mr. Gelsinger had also asserted that a new location was needed to provide additional talent, water, electrical power and other resources for the complex process of making chips. Intel has combed the country for sites, prompting states to compete for one of the biggest economic development prizes in recent memory.The site chosen for the new plant, in New Albany, a suburb east of Columbus, is in an area known for inexpensive land and housing. Nearby Ohio State University is a major source of graduates with engineering degrees whom Intel could recruit. Columbus is also centrally located for receiving supplies and for shipping finished chips.Construction of the first two factories is expected to begin later this year with production to start by 2025, Intel said. The site is more than 1,000 acres — enough space to hold up to eight total factories and related operations, Intel said.“Intel’s new facilities will be transformative for our state, creating thousands of good-paying jobs in Ohio manufacturing strategically vital semiconductors,” Mike DeWine, the governor of Ohio, said in a statement.Mr. Gelsinger, a 30-year Intel veteran who became chief of the software maker VMware in 2012, returned to the chip maker last year to become chief executive as the semiconductor shortage began hobbling carmakers and other companies. While the shortage was partly rooted in the pandemic, another long-term factor was the shifting of chip manufacturing to Asian countries that offer subsidies to companies that build factories there. The United States accounts for about 12 percent of global chip production, down from 37 percent in 1990. Europe’s share has declined to 9 percent from 40 percent over that period.Many of the most advanced chips come from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, whose proximity to China has worried Pentagon officials.Legislation passed by the Senate with bipartisan support last June would provide $52 billion in subsidies for the chip industry, including grants to companies that build new U.S. factories. The package has since gotten caught up in House bickering over the Biden administration’s priorities, though Mr. Gelsinger and others have said they are hopeful it will pass in the coming months.In Europe, Mr. Gelsinger has also lobbied officials for a similar package of subsidies that could aid the construction of a big new Intel factory there, with a projected price tag comparable to the U.S. expansion.Ohio has not previously had a chip manufacturing presence. Moving to a state without existing chip factories presents challenges, such as obtaining permits and persuading suppliers of gases, chemicals and production machines to set up nearby offices, said Dan Hutcheson, an analyst at VLSI Research. On the other hand, having plants in more states provides lobbying leverage in Washington, he said.Intel is not the only company expanding U.S. production. T.S.M.C. began construction last year on a $12 billion complex about 50 miles from Intel’s site near Phoenix. Samsung Electronics selected Taylor, Texas, for a $17 billion factory, with construction set to begin in 2022.Mr. Gelsinger’s strategy is based partly on a bet that Intel can rival T.S.M.C. and Samsung in manufacturing chips to order for other companies. For most of its existence, Intel has built only the microprocessors and other chips it designs and sells itself.The strategy is risky, as Intel has fallen behind its Asian rivals in packing more circuitry onto each slice of silicon, which increases the capabilities of devices like smartphones and computers. Mr. Gelsinger has said that Intel is on track to catch up over several years, but it won’t be easy, as those companies continue to make new developments of their own.Intel “is catching up, but they have not caught up,” Mr. Hutcheson said. More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Will Nominate Three New Fed Officials

    by

    The nominees would bring more diverse leadership to the Fed, which has struggled to expand its ranks.President Biden plans to nominate three new Federal Reserve officials as he seeks to remake the central bank at a critical economic moment, a White House official familiar with the matter said on Thursday.If confirmed, his picks would result in the most diverse Fed board in the institution’s history.The White House plans to nominate Lisa Cook, an economist at Michigan State University who has researched racial disparities and labor markets, and Philip Jefferson, an economist and administrator at Davidson College, to open seats on the Fed’s Board of Governors. Both Ms. Cook and Mr. Jefferson are Black.Mr. Biden will also nominate Sarah Bloom Raskin to serve as the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, a job created to help police the nation’s largest banks after the 2008 financial crisis.Mr. Biden had previously nominated Jerome H. Powell for a second stint as Fed chair and Lael Brainard, now a governor, as vice chair of the central bank. If they are confirmed to their posts, the seven-person Fed board would have four women, one Black man and two white men — the most diverse team in the Fed’s roughly 108 years of existence.The administration had promised to make the Fed — historically dominated by white men — look more like the public it served, and prominent lawmakers have pushed for a focus on tougher financial regulation. The picks seek to deliver along those dimensions.“The headline is, and should be, about diversity,” said Kaleb Nygaard, a senior research associate at the Yale Program on Financial Stability who studies the Fed, explaining that personnel choices are a big moment for Mr. Biden. “This is the biggest chance he’s got to send a message about what he wants the Fed to be focused on.”Ms. Raskin, who served as a Fed governor during the Obama administration, has a track record of arguing for more forceful bank oversight and would be likely to usher in an era of stricter rules for the titans of global finance, a priority of some powerful congressional Democrats.If confirmed, Ms. Raskin would be in charge of determining the need for new financial regulations, enacting existing rules and running large and globally important banks through their annual health checks, which are commonly called stress tests.Ms. Raskin would succeed Randal K. Quarles, who was appointed by former President Donald J. Trump and had criticized some of the rules that were imposed on banks after the 2008 financial crisis. As vice chair, Mr. Quarles instituted a number of adjustments to regulation and supervision that made oversight less onerous for banks, and that critics argued weakened financial rules.Mr. Quarles’s term as vice chair expired in October, and he left the Fed at the end of December.Ms. Raskin, a Harvard-trained lawyer who studied economics as an undergraduate at Amherst College, has spent time in the private sector. She is a former deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, where she focused on financial system cybersecurity, among other issues. She also spent several years as Maryland’s commissioner of financial regulation. Ms. Raskin is married to Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat.If confirmed, Ms. Raskin will face a number of pressing issues. The vice chair for supervision serves as the Fed’s chief connection with banks and markets, a role that will take on more prominence as the central bank considers whether to issue a digital currency. The vice chair will have to navigate new technologies, like stablecoins and cryptocurrencies, and assess what those mean for banks.The Fed is developing climate-risk scenarios to judge banks’ exposure, something the vice chair for supervision will be highly involved in. And the person will need to work with other regulators at the Financial Stability Oversight Council — an interagency group focused on guarding against systemic financial risks — to deal with weaknesses in money market funds and other financial instruments that the pandemic laid bare.Mr. Biden’s other picks for the Fed would also enter their jobs at a challenging juncture, as unemployment falls swiftly and inflation remains high, but millions of former workers are still missing from jobs.The Fed is contemplating how quickly to react by removing support from the economy, and all governors hold a constant vote on monetary policy, giving the new picks a potential say in the matter.Dr. Cook — who would be the first Black woman ever to sit on the Fed’s board — is well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics, including through the American Economic Association Summer Program, which helps to prepare undergraduates for potential careers in the field.She attended Spelman College and the University of Oxford and earned a doctorate in economics from the University of California, Berkeley. She was an economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.She has not said much publicly about her monetary policy philosophy, though she has spoken favorably about keeping the Fed independent from politics. Her published work examines a wide range of topics: her doctoral thesis focused on credit markets in tsarist and post-Soviet Russia, while some of the work she is most famous for looked into mortality and race, and segregation and lynching.Dr. Cook is an academic focused on macroeconomics, but “she is not a traditional one — she has looked at what we get wrong, sometimes, in the economy,” Julia Coronado, founder of the research firm MacroPolicy Perspectives, said in an interview before the pick was announced. “She is somebody who can hold her own, I think, in that room.”Mr. Jefferson has worked as a research economist at the Fed board, and studied at the University of Virginia and Vassar College. He has written about the economics of poverty, and his research has delved into whether monetary policy that stokes investment with low interest rates helps or hurts less-educated workers.“My findings suggest that opportunities start to open up for them as the labor market gets tight,” he said in an interview with the Minneapolis Fed in 2018.He has also spoken candidly about his experience as a minority in economics.“In graduate school at the University of Virginia, I was the only African American in the program the entire time there,” he said in that 2018 interview, noting that that had followed him into his professional appointments. “It has been a long, lonely road professionally.”And he said economics needed more diverse voices.“We need to be sitting around the table,” he said. “I think it is crucially important for public policy that we hear voices that represent diversity.”With the new slate of candidates, what is arguably the top policymaking body in global economics will become much more varied in both race and gender.There were briefly three women on the board in the early 1990s, and again in the 2010s. The Fed has had three Black board members in its history, all men, and none of them sat on the board contemporaneously.It is unclear how the reworked board might alter debate over current monetary policy, which could involve sticky choices about how quickly to slow an economy struggling with rapid price increases. The Fed has signaled it is prepared to raise interest rates, which could choke off inflation but also slow the job market and wage growth.Mr. Powell, the Fed chair, emphasized this week that achieving full employment — a goal that the Fed has emphasized in recent years as a way to foster inclusion and opportunity across the economy — depended on maintaining price stability.“If inflation does become too persistent, if these high levels of inflation get entrenched in our economy, and in people’s thinking, then inevitably that will lead to much tighter monetary policy from us, and it could lead to a recession, and that would be bad for workers,” Mr. Powell said while testifying before lawmakers on Tuesday. More

  • 138 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Lael Brainard, Nominee for Fed Vice Chair, Calls Inflation ‘Too High’

    by

    Lael Brainard, a Federal Reserve governor whom President Biden has nominated to be the central bank’s new vice chair, plans to tell lawmakers that the central bank will use its policies to wrestle inflation under control when she testifies at her confirmation hearing.Ms. Brainard, who will face vetting before the Senate Banking Committee at 10 a.m. on Thursday, is likely to garner considerable support among Democrats and may pick up some Republican votes, though how many are unclear at this point.Her nomination — and her new role at the Fed if the Senate confirms her — comes at a challenging economic moment. While unemployment is falling rapidly, inflation has taken off, with a report on Wednesday showing that a key price index rose in December at the fastest pace since 1982.“We are seeing the strongest rebound in growth and decline in unemployment of any recovery in the past five decades,” Ms. Brainard will say, according to her prepared remarks. “But inflation is too high, and working people around the country are concerned about how far their paychecks will go.”Ms. Brainard will also tell lawmakers that the Fed’s policies are “focused on getting inflation back down to 2 percent while sustaining a recovery that includes everyone,” calling that the central bank’s “most important task.”After nearly two years of propping up a virus-stricken economy by keeping interest rates at rock bottom and buying government-backed debt, Fed officials began to slow their large bond purchases late last year. That program is on track to end in March. Officials have signaled in recent weeks that they also expect to lift interest rates to make borrowing more expensive, slowing demand and helping to cool the economy.Markets increasingly expect four rate increases in 2022, which would put the Fed’s short-term policy interest rate just above 1 percent.“Today the economy is making welcome progress, but the pandemic continues to pose challenges,” Ms. Brainard will say. “Our priority is to protect the gains we have made and support a full recovery.”Ms. Brainard has been at the Fed since 2014, spanning the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Before that, she was a top international official at the Treasury Department. An economist and a Democrat, she had been seen as a potential contender to be Treasury secretary or Fed chair during the Biden administration.She has a good working relationship with Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, whom Mr. Biden has renominated for a second term. She will use her prepared statement to emphasize that she has worked for many administrations in Washington — Democrats and Republicans alike — while pledging to take the Fed’s mission to fight inflation and its independence from partisan wrangling seriously.“I will bring a considered and independent voice to our deliberations,” she will say. More