Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Amazon Scraps Deal to Buy Maker of Roomba Amid Regulatory Scrutiny

      by

      Amazon walked away from the $1.7 billion acquisition of iRobot as it faces questions from regulators in the European Union and United States.Amazon said on Monday that it was abandoning plans to buy iRobot, the maker of the self-driving Roomba vacuum, after regulators raised concerns the deal would hurt competition.The announcement is a rare admission of defeat by Amazon, which has in recent years acquired an eclectic mix of companies such as Whole Foods and MGM Studios, and is a sign of how the world’s largest tech companies are being forced to adjust their business practices, products and policies as a result of stiffening regulatory scrutiny globally, particularly in the European Union.In November, E.U. antitrust regulators warned Amazon that they might try to block the deal because it could restrict competition in the market for robot vacuum cleaners. The Federal Trade Commission was also scrutinizing the deal.Amazon, which will pay iRobot a $94 million termination fee, said in a statement that “disproportionate regulatory hurdles” caused it to step away from the deal, which was first announced in 2022. IRobot’s products, which also include robotic mops and air purifiers, were to join a growing list of connected home products made by Amazon, including Ring home security systems and Echo smart speakers.Amazon said that rather than restrict competition, the deal would have given iRobot more resources to compete with other robotics companies.“This outcome will deny consumers faster innovation and more competitive prices, which we’re confident would have made their lives easier and more enjoyable,” David Zapolsky, Amazon senior vice president and general counsel, said in the statement.Amazon is not the only company facing hurdles completing acquisitions. In December, Adobe, the maker of Photoshop and Illustrator, scrapped a $20 billion takeover of Figma, a maker of design collaboration tools, after it was questioned by regulators in the United States, the European Union and Britain.In the European Union, oversight of the tech sector is expected to intensify in the coming months as a new law, the Digital Markets Act, takes full effect with the aim of increasing competition in the digital economy. Last week, Apple announced a slew of changes to comply with the law, including allowing customers to use alternatives to the App Store for the first time.IRobot, a publicly traded company grappling with declining sales and mounting losses, must regroup without the financial backing of Amazon. The company’s stock price has fallen more than 60 percent in the past month as the fate of the deal with Amazon was thrown into doubt.On Monday, iRobot said it would cut approximately 350 jobs, or about 30 percent of its work force, as well as reshuffle its management ranks.“The termination of the agreement with Amazon is disappointing, but iRobot now turns toward the future with a focus and commitment to continue building thoughtful robots and intelligent home innovations,” Colin Angle, the company’s founder, who is stepping down as chief executive, said in a statement.Glen Weinstein, iRobot’s executive vice president and chief legal officer, was appointed interim chief executive. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Key Issues for Business in a Likely Trump-Biden Rematch

      by

      Clean energy investments, trade policy and more than one kind of uncertainty could be on the line.After beating Nikki Haley in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Donald Trump reaffirmed his position as the leading candidate to win the Republican nomination. That has business leaders facing the possibility of another Trump presidency, and their investors trying to figure out what it could mean for their bottom lines.The questions are, perhaps not surprisingly, coming from seemingly every corner of the economy.During Blackstone’s quarterly earnings call on Thursday, an analyst wanted to know if uncertainty over who would win a likely Biden-Trump matchup could freeze deal flow. (“I’d say transaction activity is going to be more tied to the Fed’s activities,” said Jonathan Gray, the company’s president and chief operating officer.)Elsewhere, on a call with the financial services company Bread, an analyst wondered out loud whether a second Trump administration might overturn a proposed rule on credit card late fees. (“Hope is not a strategy,” the company’s C.E.O., Ralph Andretta, replied.) And Jeff Arnold, the chief executive of the digital health company Sharecare, responded to a question at a conference about whether the election could threaten the Affordable Care Act. (“At the end of the day, do you think he’s going to be more interested in attacking the A.C.A. or something else?” he said of a potential Trump presidency. “ I think it’s probably going to be something else.”)The November election is still many months away, and executives are certainly not eager to talk about it. “Most business leaders are trying to stay away from politics, particularly in this presidential election year, as much as possible,” said Lori Esposito Murray, the president of the Committee for Economic Development at the Conference Board.But here are some of the key issues that are at the top of their minds.On some topics, neither Trump nor President Biden has the answer that businesses want. In a survey of about 1,200 C-suite executives by the Conference Board, the executives said their biggest risk was the rising national debt. While Haley has made reducing government spending part of her campaign, neither Trump nor Biden has made it a priority. “I don’t think there’s a candidate that is particularly encouraging on that issue,” Murray said.On corporate taxes, a second Trump administration would most likely have less effect than the first, which signed into law a cut to the corporate tax rate, to 21 percent from 35 percent, said Andy Laperriere, the head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler. “I think it’s going to be a big enough challenge just to extend the individual tax cuts that are in place today that expire at the end of 2025,” he said.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?  More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Boeing Reinstalled Panel That Later Blew Out of 737 Max Jet

      by

      Employees at its Washington State factory are said to have removed the door plug for further work before the plane was delivered to Alaska Airlines.Nearly three weeks after a hole blew open on a Boeing 737 Max 9 during an Alaska Airlines flight, terrifying passengers, new details about the jet’s production are intensifying scrutiny of Boeing’s quality-control practices.About a month before the Max 9 was delivered to Alaska Airlines in October, workers at Boeing’s factory in Renton, Wash., opened and later reinstalled the panel that would blow off the plane’s body, according to a person familiar with the matter.The employees opened the panel, known as a door plug, because work needed to be done to its rivets — which are often used to join and secure parts on planes — said the person, who asked for anonymity because the person isn’t authorized to speak publicly while the National Transportation Safety Board conducts an investigation.The request to open the plug came from employees of Spirit AeroSystems, a supplier that makes the body for the 737 Max in Wichita, Kan. After Boeing employees complied, Spirit employees who are based at Boeing’s Renton factory repaired the rivets. Boeing employees then reinstalled the door.An internal system that tracks maintenance work at the facility, which assembles 737s, shows the request for maintenance but does not contain information about whether the door plug was inspected after it was replaced, the person said.The details could begin to answer a crucial question about why the door plug detached from Flight 1282 at 16,000 feet, forcing the pilots to make an emergency landing at Portland International Airport in Oregon minutes after taking off on Jan. 5. The door plug is placed where an emergency exit door would be if a jet had more seats. To stay in place, the plug relies primarily on a pair of bolts at the top and another pair at the bottom, as well as metal pins and pads on the sides.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?  More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      After New Hamphire, Business Braces for a Trump Nomination

      by

      Donald Trump cruised to victory in the state’s Republican primary, leaving anti-Trump donors and others to grapple with the reality of a near-certain nomination.Donald Trump cruised to victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTrump marches on As widely expected, Donald Trump handily won the New Hampshire Republican primary, defeating Nikki Haley by double digits.That has left anti-Trump donors and the broader business community glimpsing an increasingly likely future: The former president will become the Republican nominee, and stands a good shot of winning in November.Haley said she would fight on, arguing last night that “this race is far from over.” But the former South Carolina governor will head to her home state — she’s skipping the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 8 — badly trailing Trump in polls there, with many of her Palmetto State colleagues having endorsed her opponent.A growing number of Republicans are now suggesting that she should drop out: Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a senior G.O.P. lawmaker, said that his party needed “to unite around a single candidate.”Donors may start falling in line, too. A number of Haley supporters are reportedly heading to the exits: An unnamed Republican fund-raiser told CNBC’s Brian Schwartz that one of her donors was done with her campaign, declaring it over.Meanwhile, Puck’s Teddy Schleifer wrote on the social media platform X that the casino magnate Steve Wynn and the financier John Paulson attended Trump’s New Hampshire victory party last night. And Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who appeared at the event, told Schleifer that he expected the Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, his biggest backer before Scott dropped out of the primary race, to support Trump as well.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?  More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

      by

      The case, to be argued by lawyers linked to the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch, could sharply curtail the government’s regulatory authority.The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday that, on paper, are about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee that they consider unreasonable. But the lawyers who have helped to propel their case to the nation’s highest court have a far more powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch.The case is one of the most consequential to come before the justices in years. A victory for the fishermen would do far more than push aside the monitoring fee, part of a system meant to prevent overfishing, that they objected to. It would very likely sharply limit the power of many federal agencies to regulate not only fisheries and the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other activities, legal experts say.“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former Obama White House official. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”The lawyers who represent the New Jersey-based fishermen, are working pro bono and belong to a public-interest law firm, Cause of Action, that discloses no donors and reports having no employees. However, court records show that the lawyers work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by Mr. Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries and a champion of anti-regulatory causes.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?  More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Betting on the Presidential Election Has Begun

      by

      While two leading prediction markets are fighting regulatory restrictions in court, wagers on politics and economics are still being made.Financial journalists love Wall Street aphorisms. I use them whenever I can.“Don’t fight the Fed” has been handy this year. “The stock market climbs a wall of worry” is useful whenever investors are fretting.Here’s one I’ve never been able to drop into an article — not yet, anyway: “It is an old axiom in the financial district that Wall Street betting odds are ‘never wrong.’”But nearly a century ago, on Sept. 28, 1924, one of my anonymous predecessors at The New York Times (bylines were uncommon then) used it. That hallowed saying could be repurposed today, except for a formidable problem. It refers to the betting on elections that took place on Wall Street, which was commonplace back then — and covered extensively in The Times and other major newspapers, as an important source of information about national, state and local political contests.Today, except for indirect and elaborate financial hedges on the policy implications of election outcomes, outright betting on elections is no longer a core part of American finance.Legal battles are underway to change that, however. And in the meantime, three prediction markets — PredictIt, Kalshi and the Iowa Electronic Markets — continue to operate and generate compelling insights. With any of them, it’s possible to make bets on who will win the 2024 presidential election and on a host of other consequential matters.Markets Versus PollsI’ve used prediction markets for years, especially during election season, much as my predecessors presumably used the Wall Street election betting markets — not to place bets but to obtain information.I don’t depend on these markets, and don’t buy the notion that they are superior to other means of obtaining information — or that they have the ability to reliably predict the future or change the world.Even so, they are illuminating. Some studies have found prediction markets to compare favorably with polls, especially when you are weeks or months away from voting. And when an issue or an election is important, one can never have enough data.Right now, for instance.The latest New York Times/Siena College poll shows that for the 2024 election, President Biden is trailing former President Donald J. Trump in five of six swing states. Both PredictIt and the Iowa market indicate, however, that most people placing wagers on those sites believe that in the end Mr. Biden will win.Which Question?John Aristotle Phillips, who runs the PredictIt market on behalf of Victoria University of Wellington, a New Zealand institution, said in an interview that there were frequently major differences between the findings of the polls and the prediction markets. That’s entirely normal, he said. “Polls and prediction markets ask different questions.”A poll asks who, right now, you would prefer as a candidate. But a functioning market that demands real money for a trade asks something else, he said, “not who you want to win but who you think will win.”As a sports fan, I understand the difference.If you asked me which baseball team I wanted to win, I’d always pick the Mets. But over many decades, they have usually disappointed me. So if I had to put money down, I’d never bet on them.What do I really think? It depends on which question you ask.The State of PlayKalshi, PredictIt and the Iowa market operate legally but function under specific limitations.One general problem is that “no states allow betting on political events and, if it was allowed, it would be on a state-by-state basis,” said Cait DeBaun, vice president of the American Gaming Association, which represents the gambling industry. You can’t avoid enticements for betting on sports if you watch a game on television in most major markets, but you won’t see ads for bets on politics. They aren’t permitted.But both PredictIt and the Iowa market offer overtly political wagers under academic exemptions granted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.The Iowa market, which started in 1988, is the most purely academic of the three. It is devoted entirely to research and teaching, but is open to anyone who wants to place a wager.PredictIt is operating under an academic exemption, too, but it has had to fight to retain it. The C.F.T.C. withdrew its permission in August 2022, and ordered the site to shut down, saying it had strayed from its academic mission. But PredictIt won a court injunction allowing it to continue operating, and it is suing the C.F.T.C., seeking permanent authority to run its market.It has 19 contracts running now, but Mr. Phillips said he expected to offer “hundreds” soon. “We aren’t going anywhere,” he said. “We’re going to keep operating.”Kalshi, the biggest of the three sites, is the most constrained at the moment in betting on politics. As a commercial derivatives market, it can accept trades amounting to scores of millions of dollars.It already runs prediction markets on inflation, unemployment, oil prices, Federal Reserve policy, government shutdowns, the temperature in Austin, who will win an Oscar and President Biden’s approval rating. The consensus forecasts are often on the mark and extremely useful.But what Kalshi has been unable to do is run a market predicting which political party will control Congress. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has turned it down, saying that would violate prohibitions on election contracts implied by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. So Kalshi sued the C.F.T.C. this month.In an interview, Tarek Mansour, a founder of Kalshi, said that he would ultimately like to start markets on presidential elections and on a range of other contests. “Betting on elections is as old as the United States,” he said, adding that if that betting isn’t done through a careful marketplace like his, it will happen elsewhere anyway.Already, he pointed out, sophisticated and well-financed investors can hedge against the risks of election outcomes through bespoke derivative contracts arranged by investment banks. “Why limit these trades to the very rich?” he asked. “We want to make this kind of hedging available to the average investor.”I said that I would call these “trades” bets.He said, “I wouldn’t disagree.”Betting on U.S. elections takes place abroad. Betfair in Britain runs a robust market. And unregulated offshore betting is conducted on Polymarket, which uses cryptocurrency and was fined $1.4 million by the C.F.T.C. for running afoul of its rules. Then there’s FTX, the failed cryptocurrency exchange that was headed by Sam Bankman-Fried, who was convicted this month on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy. It ran an unregulated, offshore prediction market in the 2020 election cycle.“Driving these markets offshore doesn’t make sense to me,” Mr. Mansour said.I’ll leave these legal matters to the courts and the regulatory agencies to decide.But like my journalistic predecessors, I welcome the data trove that betting on elections provides. I’m hoping the entrepreneurs who run prediction markets will keep the information flowing, so we can really test the truth of the old saying, “Wall Street betting odds are never wrong.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Did Democrats Lose Control of State Agriculture Policy?

      by

      How Did Democrats Lose Control of State Agriculture Policy?Democrats once dominated statewide elections for the influential post of agriculture commissioner. Now they’re hoping to win just one.Kentucky is one of 12 states with elected agriculture commissioners. Clockwise from top left: A soybean farm in Adairville; harvesting apples in Nancy; a tractor caution sign in Pulaski County; a livestock auction in Somerset.Nov. 1, 2023Jonathan Robertson was preparing to start the workday on his family cattle farm when a campaign ad in the race for agriculture commissioner of Kentucky flashed across his television.He couldn’t hear the narrator, but he noticed that the candidate — the name was Shell, he believed — was shown on the screen baling hay and driving farm equipment.“I haven’t heard anything about who’s running,” Mr. Robertson, 47, recalled a few hours later, stopping with his brother for the $5.99 lunch special at the Wigwam General Store in Horse Cave., Ky. “Who’s his opponent?”Neither Mr. Robertson nor his brother, Josh, 44, knew who was in the race, but they had no doubt how they would vote: “I’m a straight-ticket Republican,” Josh said.Democrats face daunting odds in races for the under-the-radar but vitally important position of state agriculture commissioner — and not just in Kentucky, where the two people competing on Nov. 7 are Jonathan Shell, a former Republican state legislator, and Sierra Enlow, a Democratic economic development consultant.Jonathan Shell, the Republican candidate for Kentucky agriculture commissioner, is a former state legislator and a fifth-generation farmer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Israel’s Moral and Political Dilemmas

      by

      More from our inbox:The Frankfurt Book Fair’s Cancellation of a Palestinian AuthorRegulating AirlinesCount Presidential Ballot Separately Pool photo by Miriam Alster, via ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Israel Is About to Make a Terrible Mistake,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Oct. 22):Mr. Friedman’s arguments might be valid if dealing with a sane adversary. But nowhere does he mention the deep visceral hatred of Hamas and associated groups toward Israel. He does not acknowledge the euphoria of the Hamas leaders and their supporters after the attack on Israel, and the hysterical vengeance sought by the millions of pro-Palestinians.I am left-wing, and I certainly do not share any ideology with the right-wing settlers. But I do totally empathize with the rage currently felt here in Israel. It is time to “take the gloves off.”We do not intend to be the victims of the destruction of Israel (Hamas’s goal), and the subjects of Mr. Friedman’s future tearful obituary that he would write “the day after.”E. WinerTel AvivTo the Editor:Thomas L. Friedman underestimates the barbarism (his word) of Hamas. He claims that a two-state solution needs to be part of Israel’s retaliation. It was always apparent that not long after the Oct. 7 massacre Israel would lose the public relations war. The horror would be news for only a few days. Social and mainstream media would move to the next series of headlines, the unfortunate and horrific consequences for the average Palestinian in the subsequent war.While Gaza and the West Bank are inextricably linked, contending that the response to the barbarism must be accompanied by a solution to a problem that has been unresolved for ages is impractical and unrealistic.Hamas has no interest in a peaceful solution. Its antisemitic barbarism reaffirmed that it wants no state of Israel in any form.Alan MetzChapel Hill, N.C.To the Editor:Re “Do We Treat Palestinians as Lesser Victims?,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Oct. 22):Mr. Kristof does not mention that Hamas hides in and underneath crowded civilian settings, including mosques, hospitals and schools. Israel does not deliberately target civilians. Hamas, on the other hand, purposefully targets Israeli civilians (and holds hostage Israeli babies, the elderly and everyone in between), and uses Gazan men, women and children as tactical pawns and human shields.In such a case, civilian casualties are tragically unavoidable. Mr. Kristof, I appreciate your reminder of the sanctity of human life, but how would you suggest Israel proceed when its enemy does not consider this a value? Indeed, it is Hamas who is putting Gazan civilians at risk.Bina WestrichTeaneck, N.J.To the Editor:In urging readers to reject the “hierarchy of human life” purportedly embedded in support for Israeli military action, Nicholas Kristof attacks a straw man. No serious defender of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 massacres argues that the lives of Israeli children are worth more than those of Gazan children. To the contrary, they argue that a failure to destroy Hamas now — leaving it capable of and eager to repeat similar atrocities — would result in far more death, destruction and human misery (for both Israelis and Gazans) than the admittedly terrible civilian costs of a full-scale Israeli incursion.And if we are calculating human costs, we had best consider the consequences of Mr. Kristof’s proposed policy: If democratic nations adopt a policy that terrorists who butcher innocents render themselves invulnerable by shielding behind a civilian population, it is not just Israeli or Gazan children who will suffer. It is everyone’s children.Yishai SchwartzWashingtonTo the Editor:Re “Hamas Bears the Blame for Every Death in This War,” by Bret Stephens (column, Oct. 17):Imagine if Hamas, since winning control of Gaza, had put its resources into building up the community with schools, hospitals and other institutions that uplifted the Palestinian people! Hamas would be considered “heroes” in the eyes of most of the world and its leadership would have attained political legitimacy.But, no, instead it is intent on depravity and destruction to the bitter end.Marc BloomPrinceton, N.J.The Frankfurt Book Fair’s Cancellation of a Palestinian AuthorAdania ShibliFranziska RothenbühlerTo the Editor:Re “A Chill Has Been Cast Over the Book World,” by Pamela Paul (column, Oct. 19):Reading Ms. Paul’s forceful condemnation of the Frankfurt Book Fair’s decision to cancel a celebration recognizing a Palestinian author, I waited in vain for her to address one indispensable fact: Frankfurt is in Germany, a country that, for obvious reasons, has assumed a special role in defending Israel and protecting Jews around the world.For example, the German penal code prohibits public denial of the Holocaust and its Nationality Act mandates restoration of citizenship for any Jew whose forebears lost their citizenship during the Nazi regime.Contrary to Ms. Paul’s claim that it is a “false notion that there is a wrong time for certain authors or novels and that now is not the time for Palestinian literature,” the days following a Palestinian terrorist attack that resulted in the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust are precisely the wrong time for a German book fair to celebrate a novel excoriating Israel.Adania Shibli’s views are important and should be heard in Germany and elsewhere — just not in Frankfurt right now. Ms. Paul does a grave disservice to German Jews living and dead by not acknowledging the tragic history underlying the Frankfurt Book Fair’s decision.Andrew D. HermanChevy Chase, Md.Regulating Airlines Carter Johnston for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Frayed System, and 131 Lives Put in Jeopardy” (front page, Oct. 15):The article states, “The safety net that underpins air travel in America is fraying, exposing passengers to potential tragedies.”The blame seems to be focused on government air traffic controllers. They share some of it, but they are only part of a much larger system including aircraft technology, airport design, aircrew and airspace management.But there is another problem rarely talked about: competition. Since airlines were deregulated in 1978, the industry has seen bankruptcies, deterioration of comfort and service, delays and congestion, complexity in pricing and fares, and stagnation in aviation systems planning and investment.A strong argument could be made that airline competition has not worked as expected, and even worked counterproductively. A new airline regulatory program may be called for — one that combines the public and private sectors in a jointly managed and financed national aviation system with strong oversight in safety standards, infrastructure investment and passenger consumer benefits that are missing under the current deregulation.Matthew G. AnderssonChicagoThe writer was the founder and C.E.O. of Indigo Airlines and is a former aviation consultant.Count Presidential Ballot Separately Lukas VerstraeteTo the Editor:Re “Counting Ballots by Hand Ensures Only Chaos,” by Jessica Huseman (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 20):Ms. Huseman is absolutely right that counting lengthy ballots by hand would be a nightmare. But we could reduce the growing suspicion that computers can’t count our votes properly if our presidential elections were administered separately from all the other races on Election Day.If there were paper ballots just for the presidency, they could be counted in one long night, as is done in many European parliamentary elections, in which voters only cast one vote for a party.Mark WestonSarasota, Fla.The writer is the author of “The Runner-Up Presidency: The Elections That Defied America’s Popular Will.” More