adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

Can Industrial Policy Save The American Economy? – Forbes

Published

 on


As the US continues struggling with Covid-19 and economic recovery, debate is growing about the revival of “industrial policy”—government -led efforts to favor certain industries over others, in contradiction to market fundamentalist approaches.  An important new forum in the Boston Review takes on these issues and is well worth your attention.  For our future prosperity, these issues are more important than just arguing about deficits and taxes. (Disclosure:  I’ve coauthored a piece in the forum.)  

In the battle over President Biden’s economic proposals, most commentary focuses on whether the price tag of over $3.5 trillion is too large. How much should be paid for?  Which taxes should go up or down?  Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), the key Democratic vote for Senate passage of the Biden plan recently called it “the largest single spending bill in history with no regard to rising inflation, crippling debt or the inevitability of future crises.”

But there’s a second debate hidden behind these budget numbers—how and whether government should deliberately foster some industries and withdraw support from others.  Although simple introductory economics textbooks say government intervention is always “second best” to markets, in the real world government is constantly favoring some industries over others.

So the debate is really about what type of industrial policy we are going to have, not whether it exists.  The Review’s forum centers on an excellent piece by economist Marianna Mazzucato and colleagues—“Industrial Policy’s Comeback.”  They flatly (and correctly) say “market fundamentalism has failed to improve economic and social conditions,” calling for “a mission-oriented approach to the economy that embraces an active role for government in spurring growth and innovation.” 

Mazzucato is one of our best thinkers on the complex relationships between government and the private sector.  Her 2013 landmark book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths showed how government investment undergirded the tech revolution, with Apple and other firms adapting technology developed and paid for by the government, often through military spending.

Economists have long known that industrial policy is central to modern economies.  In 2008, Harvard’s Dani Rodrik asked readers to imagine “a set of policy interventions targeted on a loosely-defined set of market imperfections…implemented by bureaucrats…and overseen by politicians” while subject to “rent-seeking by powerful groups and lobbies.”  

Yikes!  Rodrik says those sound like good reasons that “governments should stay away from industrial policy.”  But he then turns the tables, saying he’s not describing industrial policy.  Rather, those complicated conditions hold for “long-standing areas of government intervention such as education, health, social insurance, and macroeconomic stabilization.” And no one thinks we should stop those policies just because they are complicated and sometimes contentious.

So complexity, political debate, attempts to capture benefits at the costs of general prosperity, and addressing critical problems possessing lots of uncertainty characterize all modern social and economic policy.  Hence Mazzucato’s emphasis on developing clear “missions” for industrial policy, with government setting overall directions and goals while avoiding “excessively top-down planning by an overbearing state.”

There’s a lot of deep thinking and clear argument in the Boston Review forum, from a wide range of viewpoints, and I won’t try to summarize it all here.  Read the forum (and buy the new book the Review is publishing on this topic.)

My contribution to the forum, co-authored with my colleague (and spouse) Teresa Ghilarducci, emphasizes the central role workers and labor unions must play in any successful industrial policy.  We hearken back to the great economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who after World War II focused on how the large firms needed to foster innovation and growth could be kept from purely self-interested behavior.

Galbraith’s answer was in the title of his 1952 book—American Capitalism:  The Concept of Countervailing Power.  Without government and union countervailing power, “private decisions could and presumably would lead to the unhampered exploitation of the public.”

Ghilarducci and I argue that successful industrial policy “promotes unionization and shared economic returns,” not just technical innovation where the gains are captured by a narrow slice of wealthy tech and finance owners.  And the politics of industrial policy mean it won’t be enacted without union and popular support.

So as you follow the twists and turns of Biden’s economic plan, where the cable news and commentary are dominated by spending, taxes, and deficits, spare a thought for what that money will be spent on.  Senator Manchin correctly warns about “the inevitability of future crises,” but those aren’t mainly budgetary issues. They are structural problems that need industrial policy solutions.

Our economy faces a short and long-term crisis of innovation, climate change, and racial, gender, and economic inequality.  Industrial policy is critical to building a long-term, sustainable, and equitable prosperity.  I commend the Boston Review forum and book to you as a way to understand this critical issue.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

A timeline of events in the bread price-fixing scandal

Published

 on

 

Almost seven years since news broke of an alleged conspiracy to fix the price of packaged bread across Canada, the saga isn’t over: the Competition Bureau continues to investigate the companies that may have been involved, and two class-action lawsuits continue to work their way through the courts.

Here’s a timeline of key events in the bread price-fixing case.

Oct. 31, 2017: The Competition Bureau says it’s investigating allegations of bread price-fixing and that it was granted search warrants in the case. Several grocers confirm they are co-operating in the probe.

Dec. 19, 2017: Loblaw and George Weston say they participated in an “industry-wide price-fixing arrangement” to raise the price of packaged bread. The companies say they have been co-operating in the Competition Bureau’s investigation since March 2015, when they self-reported to the bureau upon discovering anti-competitive behaviour, and are receiving immunity from prosecution. They announce they are offering $25 gift cards to customers amid the ongoing investigation into alleged bread price-fixing.

Jan. 31, 2018: In court documents, the Competition Bureau says at least $1.50 was added to the price of a loaf of bread between about 2001 and 2016.

Dec. 20, 2019: A class-action lawsuit in a Quebec court against multiple grocers and food companies is certified against a number of companies allegedly involved in bread price-fixing, including Loblaw, George Weston, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart Canada, Canada Bread and Giant Tiger (which have all denied involvement, except for Loblaw and George Weston, which later settled with the plaintiffs).

Dec. 31, 2021: A class-action lawsuit in an Ontario court covering all Canadian residents except those in Quebec who bought packaged bread from a company named in the suit is certified against roughly the same group of companies.

June 21, 2023: Bakery giant Canada Bread Co. is fined $50 million after pleading guilty to four counts of price-fixing under the Competition Act as part of the Competition Bureau’s ongoing investigation.

Oct. 25 2023: Canada Bread files a statement of defence in the Ontario class action denying participating in the alleged conspiracy and saying any anti-competitive behaviour it participated in was at the direction and to the benefit of its then-majority owner Maple Leaf Foods, which is not a defendant in the case (neither is its current owner Grupo Bimbo). Maple Leaf calls Canada Bread’s accusations “baseless.”

Dec. 20, 2023: Metro files new documents in the Ontario class action accusing Loblaw and its parent company George Weston of conspiring to implicate it in the alleged scheme, denying involvement. Sobeys has made a similar claim. The two companies deny the allegations.

July 25, 2024: Loblaw and George Weston say they agreed to pay a combined $500 million to settle both the Ontario and Quebec class-action lawsuits. Loblaw’s share of the settlement includes a $96-million credit for the gift cards it gave out years earlier.

Sept. 12, 2024: Canada Bread files new documents in Ontario court as part of the class action, claiming Maple Leaf used it as a “shield” to avoid liability in the alleged scheme. Maple Leaf was a majority shareholder of Canada Bread until 2014, and the company claims it’s liable for any price-fixing activity. Maple Leaf refutes the claims.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.

Companies in this story: (TSX:L, TSX:MFI, TSX:MRU, TSX:EMP.A, TSX:WN)

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

S&P/TSX composite up more than 250 points, U.S. stock markets also higher

Published

 on

 

TORONTO – Canada’s main stock index was up more than 250 points in late-morning trading, led by strength in the base metal and technology sectors, while U.S. stock markets also charged higher.

The S&P/TSX composite index was up 254.62 points at 23,847.22.

In New York, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 432.77 points at 41,935.87. The S&P 500 index was up 96.38 points at 5,714.64, while the Nasdaq composite was up 486.12 points at 18,059.42.

The Canadian dollar traded for 73.68 cents US compared with 73.58 cents US on Thursday.

The November crude oil contract was up 89 cents at US$70.77 per barrel and the October natural gas contract was down a penny at US2.27 per mmBTU.

The December gold contract was up US$9.40 at US$2,608.00 an ounce and the December copper contract was up four cents at US$4.33 a pound.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.

Companies in this story: (TSX:GSPTSE, TSX:CADUSD)

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Construction wraps on indoor supervised site for people who inhale drugs in Vancouver

Published

 on

 

VANCOUVER – Supervised injection sites are saving the lives of drug users everyday, but the same support is not being offered to people who inhale illicit drugs, the head of the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS says.

Dr. Julio Montaner said the construction of Vancouver’s first indoor supervised site for people who inhale drugs comes as the percentage of people who die from smoking drugs continues to climb.

The location in the Downtown Eastside at the Hope to Health Research and Innovation Centre was unveiled Wednesday after construction was complete, and Montaner said people could start using the specialized rooms in a matter of weeks after final approvals from the city and federal government.

“If we don’t create mechanisms for these individuals to be able to use safely and engage with the medical system, and generate points of entry into the medical system, we will never be able to solve the problem,” he said.

“Now, I’m not here to tell you that we will fix it tomorrow, but denying it or ignoring it, or throw it under the bus, or under the carpet is no way to fix it, so we need to take proactive action.”

Nearly two-thirds of overdose deaths in British Columbia in 2023 came after smoking illicit drugs, yet only 40 per cent of supervised consumption sites in the province offer a safe place to smoke, often outdoors, in a tent.

The centre has been running a supervised injection site for years which sees more than a thousand people monthly and last month resuscitated five people who were overdosing.

The new facilities offer indoor, individual, negative-pressure rooms that allow fresh air to circulate and can clear out smoke in 30 to 60 seconds while users are monitored by trained nurses.

Advocates calling for more supervised inhalation sites have previously said the rules for setting up sites are overly complicated at a time when the province is facing an overdose crisis.

More than 15,000 people have died of overdoses since the public health emergency was declared in B.C. in April 2016.

Kate Salters, a senior researcher at the centre, said they worked with mechanical and chemical engineers to make sure the site is up to code and abidies by the highest standard of occupational health and safety.

“This is just another tool in our tool box to make sure that we’re offering life-saving services to those who are using drugs,” she said.

Montaner acknowledged the process to get the site up and running took “an inordinate amount of time,” but said the centre worked hard to follow all regulations.

“We feel that doing this right, with appropriate scientific background, in a medically supervised environment, etc, etc, allows us to derive the data that ultimately will be sufficiently convincing for not just our leaders, but also the leaders across the country and across the world, to embrace the strategies that we are trying to develop.” he said.

Montaner said building the facility was possible thanks to a single $4-million donation from a longtime supporter.

Construction finished with less than a week before the launch of the next provincial election campaign and within a year of the next federal election.

Montaner said he is concerned about “some of the things that have been said publicly by some of the political leaders in the province and in the country.”

“We want to bring awareness to the people that this is a serious undertaking. This is a very massive investment, and we need to protect it for the benefit of people who are unfortunately drug dependent.” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending