Protectionism (Trade)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Chinese Automakers Show Force at Paris Auto Show

      by

      Weeks after Europe imposed additional tariffs on electric vehicles made in China, the country’s car companies were defiant at France’s leading auto event.China’s ambitions to become a force in the European car market were on full display this week at the Paris Auto Show, where a record number of the country’s automakers unveiled cutting-edge electric models despite a recent European Union decision to impose anti-subsidy tariffs on their vehicles.At the event, designed to showcase Europe’s top automakers, the displays that drew some of the biggest crowds were those from the likes of BYD, Leapmotor and Xpeng, which boasted how the speed of their technological advances — including the use of artificial intelligence — would help them compete with, or even surpass, their European rivals in the electric vehicle revolution.Europe has an ambitious goal of fully transitioning to electric vehicles by 2035, and the continent’s biggest carmakers — among them Renault, Stellantis, BMW and Volkswagen — all put forward new models aimed at appealing to European consumers. But Beijing is also eager to get in on that game, with the nine Chinese automakers at the Paris show appearing undeterred by what they view as protectionist efforts to slow their advance.BYD, which made its European debut at the show two years ago, displayed seven models, which its officials said used electric and hybrid technology that surpassed that of its European rivals.At the BYD stand, a large-screen video displayed landmarks from around the world, from the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. It was a visual reminder of the company’s ambition to make a Chinese car appealing to Western buyers.The BYD Yangwang U8 at the Paris Auto Show. BYD displayed seven models, which its officials said used electric and hybrid technology that surpassed that of its European rivals.Dmitry Kostyukov for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Swing State Politics Are Sinking a Global Steel Deal

      by

      As the Biden administration nears a decision to block the proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel, the debate over national and economic security is being dwarfed by presidential politics.The Biden administration has spent the past three years promoting a policy of “friend-shoring,” which aims to contain China and Russia by forging closer ties with U.S. allies like Europe and Japan.That policy appears to stop at the state lines of Pennsylvania.As the administration nears a decision to block the proposed acquisition of the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel, the traditional debate over national security and economic security is being dwarfed by a more powerful force: presidential politics.Legal experts, Wall Street analysts and economists expressed concern about the precedent that would be set if President Biden uses executive power to block a company from an allied nation from buying an American business. They warn that scuttling the $15 billion transaction would be an extraordinary departure from the nation’s culture of open investment — one that could lead international corporations to reconsider their U.S. investments.“This was a purely political decision, and one that stomps on the Biden administration’s stated focus on building alliances among like-minded countries to advance the economic competition with China,” said Christopher B. Johnstone, a senior adviser and the Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “At the end of the day, it represents pure protectionism that draws no apparent distinction between our friends and our adversaries.”Administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who leads a government panel that is reviewing the steel deal, have espoused the benefits of deepening economic ties with U.S. allies to make supply chains more resilient. Those sentiments are being disregarded in the heat of an election year, where domestic political dynamics take priority.The Biden administration has been under pressure to find a way to justify blocking the Nippon acquisition amid backlash against the deal from the powerful steelworkers’ union. The labor organization believes that Nippon, which has pledged to invest in Pennsylvania factories and preserve jobs, could jeopardize pension agreements and lay off employees.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

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris and a New Economic Vision

      by

      Kamala Harris is beginning to offer the first definitive clues of a new economic vision — one with the potential not only to offer a unifying vision for the Democratic Party but also to serve as the foundation for a governing philosophy that crosses party lines.In recent years, both parties have broken with a markets-know-best default setting. The question is, what comes next?One influential school of thought, advanced by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, argues for increasing the supply of essentials such as housing, health care and clean energy, in part by using government to break the choke points that make these goods too scarce and costly in the first place. This has truth — the much-criticized million-dollar-toilet problem gets at something real.But it doesn’t fully reflect the realities of how powerful interests hold captive parts of our economy, and then our political system. A second intellectual camp focuses on these forces, and its avatars include Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission and the modern antitrust movement, and the U.A.W. leader Shawn Fain and re-energized labor unions. Yet it, too, is incomplete as a governing wisdom, as it lacks affirmative answers for our largest challenges, like how to decarbonize quickly and at scale, and how to contend with a rising geopolitical competitor in China.Ms. Harris’s early proposals suggest she is drawing from both strands in telling a more holistic and entirely new story about how the economy works and the aims it should serve. Put differently, her slogan “We’re not going back” might well extend beyond political and social rights to include a different brand of economics.This new story has two themes — call them “build” and “balance.” The first focuses on pointing and shaping markets toward worthy aims; the second corrects upstream power imbalances so that market outcomes are fairer and need less after-the-fact redistribution.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 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Europe Slashes Tariffs for Tesla Vehicles Made in China

      by

      The European Commission will charge the U.S. automaker an additional duty of 9 percent, much lower than tariffs levied on its Chinese peers for electric vehicles imported to Europe.The European Union is proposing to charge Tesla an additional tariff of 9 percent on its vehicles imported from China while other automakers face rates as high as 36.3 percent, as part of efforts to protect European producers from unfair competition.The updated tariffs, announced in Brussels on Tuesday, would represent a significant increase for major companies making electric vehicles in China and are meant to level the playing field with Chinese E.V. manufacturers, many of which enjoy subsidies from Beijing. Final tariffs will come on top of the existing 10 percent already charged for electric vehicles produced in China.The European Union began investigating Chinese automakers in October. Officials said they lowered the rate for Tesla, down from a proposed 21 percent, because the company did not benefit from the same level of subsidies from the Chinese government as leading Chinese automakers. Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The tariffs for Chinese automakers, which would go into effect for five years, all dropped slightly from an original proposal in June, ranging from 17 percent for China’s largest producer of electric vehicles, BYD, to 36.3 percent for SAIC Motor, the state-owned maker of MG Motor. Geely Auto, the parent company of Volvo Car, faces a rate of 19.3 percent.Companies that cooperated with the investigation, including the German automakers BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen, face tariffs of 21.3 percent for cars they produce in China. Unlike Tesla, which has its own independent production site in Shanghai, the German car companies are all involved in joint ventures with Chinese automakers. Because Volkswagen also has an entity with SAIC, some of its cars will be subject to the highest tariffs.Compared with the 100 percent tariffs the Biden administration imposed on Chinese E.V.s in May, the European proposals reflect what experts say is a desire to maintain trade with China, while protecting domestic production. Since the initial tariffs were announced several Chinese automakers have announced plans to shift production to Europe.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 Elections

      With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue

      by

      The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues.In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.”But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known.William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.”In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.”Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change.While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.”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

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Will Regret a Second Trump Term

      by

      Now is the summer of Republican content.The G.O.P. is confident and unified. Donald Trump has held a consistent and widening lead over President Biden in all the battleground states. Never Trumpers have been exiled, purged or converted. The Supreme Court has eased many of Trump’s legal travails while his felony convictions in New York seem to have inflicted only minimal political damage — if they didn’t actually help him.Best of all for Republicans, a diminished Joe Biden seems determined to stay in the race, leading a dispirited and divided party that thinks of its presumptive nominee as one might think of a colonoscopy: an unpleasant reminder of age. Even if Biden can be cajoled into quitting, his likeliest replacement is Vice President Kamala Harris, whose 37 percent approval rating is just around that of her boss. Do Democrats really think they can run on her non-handling of the border crisis, her reputation for managerial incompetence or her verbal gaffes?In short, Republicans have good reason to think they’ll be back in the White House next January. Only then will the regrets set in.Three in particular: First, Trump won’t slay the left; instead, he will re-energize and radicalize it. Second, Trump will be a down-ballot loser, leading to divided and paralyzed government. Third, Trump’s second-term personnel won’t be like the ones in his first. Instead, he will appoint his Trumpiest people and pursue his Trumpiest instincts. The results won’t be ones old-school Republicans want or expect.Begin with the left.Talk to most conservatives and even a few liberals, and they’ll tell you that Peak Woke — that is, the worst excesses of far-left activism and cancel culture — happened around 2020. In fact, Peak Woke, from the campus witch hunts to “abolish the police” and the “mostly peaceful” protests in cities like Portland, Ore., and Minneapolis that followed George Floyd’s murder, really coincided with the entirety of Trump’s presidency, then abated after Biden’s election.That’s no accident. What used to be called political correctness has been with us for a long time. But it grew to a fever pitch under Trump, most of all because he was precisely the kind of bigoted vulgarian and aspiring strongman that liberals always feared might come to power, and which they felt duty bound to “resist.” With his every tweet, Trump’s presidency felt like a diesel engine blowing black soot in the face of the country. That’s also surely how Trump wanted it, since it delighted his base, goaded his critics and left everyone else in a kind of blind stupor.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 Elections

      Once a G.O.P. Rallying Cry, Debt and Deficits Fall From the Party’s Platform

      by

      Fiscal hawks are lamenting the transformation of the party that claimed to prize fiscal restraint and are warning of dire economic consequences.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, the official Republican platform called for imposing “firm caps on future debt” to “accelerate the repayment of the trillions we now owe.”When Mr. Trump sought a second term in 2020, the party’s platform pummeled Democrats for refusing to help Republicans rein in spending and proposed a constitutional requirement that the federal budget be balanced.Those ambitions were cast aside in the platform that the Republican Party unveiled this week ahead of its convention. Nowhere in the 16-page document do the words “debt” or “deficit” as they relate to the nation’s grim fiscal situation appear. The platform included only a glancing reference to slashing “wasteful” spending, a perennial Republican talking point.To budget hawks who have spent years warning that the United States is spending more than it can afford, the omissions signaled the completion of a Republican transformation from a party that once espoused fiscal restraint to one that is beholden to the ideology of Mr. Trump, who once billed himself the “king of debt.”“I am really shocked that the party that I grew up with is now a party that doesn’t think that debt and deficits matter,” said G. William Hoagland, the former top budget expert for Senate Republicans. “We’ve got a deficit deficiency syndrome going on in our party.”The U.S. national debt is approaching $35 trillion and is on pace to top $56 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At that point, the United States would be spending about as much on interest payments to its lenders — $1.7 trillion — as it does on Medicare.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 Elections

      Donald Trump Doesn’t Have the Support of Corporate America

      by

      Stephan DybusRecent headlines suggest that our nation’s business leaders are embracing the presidential candidate Donald Trump. His campaign would have you believe that our nation’s top chief executives are returning to support Mr. Trump for president, touting declarations of support from some prominent financiers like Steve Schwarzman and David Sacks.That is far from the truth. They didn’t flock to him before, and they certainly aren’t flocking to him now. Mr. Trump continues to suffer from the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party.I know this because I have worked with roughly 1,000 chief executives a year, running a school for them, which I started 35 years ago, and I speak with business leaders almost every day. Our surveys show that roughly 60 percent to 70 percent of them are registered Republicans. The reality is that the top corporate leaders working today, like many Americans, aren’t entirely comfortable with either Mr. Trump or President Biden. But they largely like — or at least can tolerate — one of them. They truly fear the other.If you want the most telling data point on corporate America’s lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Trump, look where they are investing their money. Not a single Fortune 100 chief executive has donated to the candidate so far this year, which indicates a major break from overwhelming business and executive support for Republican presidential candidates dating back over a century, to the days of Taft, and stretching through Coolidge and the Bushes, all of whom had dozens of major company heads donating to their campaigns.Mr. Trump secured the White House partly by tapping into the anticorporate, populist messaging of Bernie Sanders, who was then a candidate, a move that Mr. Trump discussed with me when I met him in 2015. The strategy may have won voters but did little to enhance Mr. Trump’s image with the business community. And while a number of chief executives tried to work with Mr. Trump as they would with any incumbent president, and many celebrated his move to cut the corporate tax rate, wariness persisted. 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