adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

Why Infrastructure Is Really an Investment in the Middle Class – New York Magazine

Published

 on


This is the future liberals want.
Photo: Ziga Plahutar/Getty Images/iStockphoto

300x250x1

If President Biden’s massive and hugely ambitious infrastructure plan passes, it will touch every corner of the economy. On the latest episode of the Pivot podcast, Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway discuss how, beyond sprucing up some of the country’s moribund public spaces, it would help a wide swath of Americans who have often been given short shrift by government policy in recent years.

Twice weekly, Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher host Pivot, a New York Magazine podcast about business, technology, and politics.

Kara Swisher: This week, President Biden detailed his $2 trillion infrastructure plan. How many zeros is that? That’s bigger than the entire federal government budget. He calls it a once-in-a-generation investment, the largest since World War II, since we built the highway system and since the Space Race. It will require 15 years of higher taxes on corporations, raising their rates from 21 percent to 28 percent. He’s giving $50 billion to boost the domestic chip industry, a big boost to electric cars. He promises faster internet and better transit, with electric charging stations — a different energy future.

The second part of the plan invests in human infrastructure: aid to the poor, paid leave, help with child care. The plan also includes the Right to Organize Act to counter right-to-work laws. There’s also train stuff that Amtrak wants. This is long overdue. And let me just say, I did an interview with Mariana Mazzucato, who talked about the idea of government doing these important moon shots in areas like climate change or infrastructure. This is big.

Scott Galloway: I think this is wonderful. We are the apex species. The business model of our species responsible for our success is capitalism, and the ballast and the success of capitalism is a robust middle class. And slowly but surely, Kara, slowly but surely, we have increased social-security taxes and payroll taxes and individual income taxes and we have reduced corporate income taxes to the point where only $1 in $12 versus $1 in $2 of receipts from the government come from corporate taxes versus individual income taxes. So, essentially, what we’ve said is, “Corporations, you pay less, and individuals, you pay more.” And we continued one of the most dangerous trends in our society, where we’ve decided we don’t like people, but we love corporations. And what happens?

When the Trump Tax Cuts went through in 2017, I was on a board of a media company and a board of a retailer, both multibillion-dollar companies, and all of a sudden in a board meeting, we’re like, “Oh my gosh, what’s this earnings and cash flow surprise? It’s advantageous tax cuts.” And what did we do with that money? Did we hire more people? Did we invest in factories? No, we used it for share buybacks or cash on our balance sheet, which does what? It juices the stock price. And by the way, who owns 90 percent of stocks by dollar volume? The top one percent. So all we have done with increasing the tax liabilities of individuals as a percentage of our government — and by the way, as a percentage of total tax receipts, individual taxes have not gone up — we’ve just funded it with taxes on your daughter from when she’s old enough to be a taxpayer — we’ve racked up massive debt. We have said, “We want the top one percent or shareholders to work less and spend more time with their families, such that the middle-class and future generations can spend less time with their families.” It is criminal what’s gone on here.

Swisher: This is the kind of big thinking, the big LBJ, Great Society, FDR thinking — I like it. He went for broke. Interestingly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was talking about the things they need even more, but this was as much as the Biden administration said it was going to be, which it never is.

Galloway: It’ll get clipped back. He’s starting big.

Swisher: It’ll get clipped back, but he didn’t back down first. People were, I think, surprised by the breadth of this. Go for it. And what was really interesting was how it’s going to be paid for. I think there’s nobody against taxing corporations, even though they lobby us. But I think it’s a great thing for him. It puts money in lots of really interesting places. It has an innovative element, $50 billion to boost the domestic chip industry, cars, better trains, human infrastructure, the idea of paid leave, and help with child care. We should have full child care. That’s set in stone. That should be something we should do, but whatever, we hate children and women in this country, in a lot of ways.

Galloway: Yeah. So, again, infrastructure, what is infrastructure? Infrastructure is an investment in the middle class, because when the J train is only running every two hours instead of every 15 minutes from Brooklyn into the city, who gets hurt? The assistant or the secretary. The executive gets to take an Uber or has a driver. So infrastructure is an investment in the middle class. It’s also an investment in brand-building. I remember the first time I went to China, I flew into the new Hong Kong Airport, and then I went to the Shanghai Airport and I’m like, “Jesus, these people take themselves very seriously.” And then I fly into JFK and I think, Jesus Christ, are there chickens and goats running around here?

Swisher: It’s true.

Galloway: You go, “Okay, what happened?”

Swisher: Oh my God, you’re right.

Galloway: What happened to us and the infrastructure?

Swisher: Same thing with train stations. They’re making a big deal about this new New York one. I’m like, “Penn Station has been a pit my entire life,” and now that they have a train station that reaches basic levels with Europe, they’re going, “Yay!” Basic — not even as nice as Europe’s ones, still. Truly pathetic.

Galloway: Penn Station is supposedly one of the great architectural crimes in history. Supposedly, it was beautiful and then they tore it down to make this just disgusting architectural eyesore.

Swisher: It’s not even charming in its grossness. Some things that are old and broken down are charming.

Galloway: Are you talking about me again? Are you talking about me again? Do you know I do CrossFit? I do CrossFit.

Swisher: Penn Station is the worst place on Earth.

Galloway: Yeah.

Swisher: I’m surprised I’m not dead, having been in there 900 times. Anyway, sorry. Keep going. I had a little side train rant there.

Galloway: Yeah, anyone who’s been to Europe loves trains, even though they make no economic sense whatsoever. But look, infrastructure is an investment in the country and it’s an investment in the middle class, because the people who really need roads and public transportation are the middle class.

Swisher: And internet access.

Galloway: And oh my gosh, broadband. I think a bridge too far here is they’re now claiming that social programs that feel very UBI-like are infrastructure investments.

But I love this, and the swing back to protecting and loving Americans as opposed to American corporations is long overdue.

Pivot is produced by Rebecca Sananes. 

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

BWXT announces $80M investment for plant in Cambridge – CityNews Kitchener

Published

 on

By


BWX Technologies (BWXT) in Cambridge is investing $80-million to expand their nuclear manufacturing plant in Cambridge.

Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, was in the city on Friday to join the company in the announcement.

The investment will create over 200 new skilled and unionized jobs. This is part of the province’s plan to expand affordable and clean nuclear energy to power the economy.

300x250x1

“With shovels in the ground today on new nuclear generation, including the first small modular reactor in the G7, I’m so pleased to see global nuclear manufacturers like BWXT expanding their operations in Cambridge and hiring more Ontario workers,” Smith said. “The benefits of Ontario’s nuclear industry reaches far beyond the stations at Darlington, Pickering and Bruce, and this $80 million investment shows how all communities can help meet Ontario’s growing demand for clean energy, while also securing local investments and creating even more good-paying jobs.”

The added jobs will support BWXT’s existing operations across the province as well as help the sector’s ongoing operations of existing nuclear stations at Darlington, Bruce and Pickering.

“Our expansion comes at a time when we’re supporting our customers in the successful execution of some of the largest clean nuclear energy projects in the world,” John MacQuarrie, President of Commercial Operations at BWXT, said.

“At the same time, the global nuclear industry is increasingly being called upon to mitigate the impacts of climate change and increase energy security and independence. By investing significantly in our Cambridge manufacturing facility, BWXT is further positioning our business to serve our customers to produce more safe, clean and reliable electricity in Canada and abroad.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

AI investments will help chip sector to recover: Analyst – Yahoo Finance

Published

 on

By


The semiconductor sector is undergoing a correction as interest rate cut expectations dwindle, prompting concerns about the impact on these high-growth, technology-driven stocks. Wedbush Enterprise Hardware Analyst Matt Bryson joins Yahoo Finance to discuss the dynamics shaping the chip industry.

Bryson acknowledges that the rise of generative AI has been a significant driving force behind the recent success of chip stocks. While he believes that AI is shifting “the way technology works,” he notes it will take time. Due to this, Bryson highlights that “significant investment” will continue to occur in the chip market, fueled by the growth of generative AI applications.

However, Bryson cautions that as interest rates remain elevated, it could “weigh on consumer spending.” Nevertheless, he expresses confidence that the AI revolution “changing the landscape for tech” will likely insulate the sector from the effect of high interest rates, as investors are unwilling to miss out on the “next technology” breakthrough.

300x250x1

For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Yahoo Finance.

This post was written by Angel Smith

Video Transcript

BRAD SMITH: As rate cut bets shift, so have moves in one sector, in particular. Shares of AMD and Intel, both down over 15% in the last 30 days. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, also known as Sox, dropping over 10% from recent highs, despite a higher rate environment.

Our next guest is still bullish on the sector. Matt Bryson, Wedbush Enterprise Hardware analyst, joins us now. Matt, thanks so much for taking the time here. Walk us through your thesis here, especially, given some of the pullback that we’ve seen recently.

MATT BRYSON: So I think what we’ve seen over the last year or so is that the growth of generative AI has fueled the chip stocks. And the expectation that AI is going to shift everything in the way that technology works.

And I think that at the end of the day, that that thesis will prove out. I think the question is really timing. But the investments that we’ve seen that have lifted NVIDIA, that have lifted AMD, that have lifted the chip stock and sector, in general, the large cloud service providers, building out data centers. I don’t think anything has changed there in the near term.

So when I speak to OEMs, who are making AI servers, when I speak to cloud service providers, there is still significant investment going on in that space. That investment is slated to continue certainly into 2025. And I think, as long as there is this substantial investment, that we will see chip names report strong numbers and guide for strong growth.

SEANA SMITH: Matt, when it comes to the fact that we are in this macroeconomic environment right now, likelihood that rates will be higher for longer here, at least, when you take a look at the expectations, especially following some of the commentary that we got from Fed officials this week, what does that signal more broadly for the AI trade, meaning, is there a reason to be a bit more cautious in this higher for longer rate environment, at least, in the near term?

MATT BRYSON: Yeah. I think certainly from a market perspective, high interest rates weight on the market. Eventually, they weigh on consumer spending. Certainly, for a lot of the chip names, they’re high multiple stocks.

When you think about where there can be more of a reaction or a negative reaction to high interest rates, certainly, it has some impact on those names. But in terms of, again, AI changing the fundamental landscape for tech, I don’t think that high interest rates or low interest rates will change that.

So when you think about Microsoft, Amazon, all of those large data center operators looking at AI, potentially, changing the landscape forever and wanting to make a bet on AI to make sure that they don’t miss that change, I don’t think whether interest rates are low or high are going to really affect their investment.

I think they’re going to go ahead and invest because no one wants to be the guy that missed the next technology wave.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

If pension funds can't see the case for investing in Canada, why should you? – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on

By


It’s time to ask a rude question: Is Canada still worth investing in?

Before you rush to deliver an appropriately patriotic response, think about the issue for a moment.

A good place to begin is with the federal government’s announcement this week that it is forming a task force under former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz. The task force’s job will be to find ways to encourage Canadian pension funds to invest more of their assets in Canada.

300x250x1

Wooing pension funds has become a high-priority matter for Ottawa because, at the moment, these big institutional investors don’t invest all that much in Canada. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, for instance, had a mere 14 per cent of its massive $570-billion portfolio in Canadian assets at the end of its last fiscal year.

Other major Canadian pension plans have similar allocations, especially if you look beyond their holdings of government bonds and consider only their investments in stocks, infrastructure and real assets. When it comes to such risky assets, these big, sophisticated players often see more potential for good returns outside of Canada than at home.

This leads to a simple question: If the CPPIB and other sophisticated investors aren’t overwhelmed by Canada’s investment appeal, why should you and I be?

It’s not as if Canadian stocks have a record of outstanding success. Over the past decade, they have lagged far behind the juicy returns of the U.S.-based S&P 500.

To be fair, other countries have also fallen short of Wall Street’s glorious run. Still, Canadian stocks have only a middling record over the past 10 years even when measured against other non-U.S. peers. They have trailed French and Japanese stocks and achieved much the same results as their Australian counterparts. There is no obvious Canadian edge.

There are also no obvious reasons to think this middle-of-the-pack record will suddenly improve.

A generation of mismanagement by both major Canadian political parties has spawned a housing crisis and kneecapped productivity growth. It has driven household debt burdens to scary levels.

Policy makers appear unwilling to take bold action on many long-standing problems. Interprovincial trade barriers remain scandalously high, supply-managed agriculture continues to coddle inefficient small producers, and tax policy still pushes people to invest in homes rather than in productive enterprises.

From an investor’s perspective, the situation is not that appetizing. A handful of big banks, a cluster of energy producers and a pair of railways dominate Canada’s stock market. They are solid businesses, yes, but they are also mature industries, with less than thrilling growth prospects.

What is largely missing from the Canadian stock scene are big companies with the potential to expand and innovate around the globe. Shopify Inc. SHOP-T and Brookfield Corp. BN-T qualify. After that, the pickings get scarce, especially in areas such as health care, technology and retailing.

So why hold Canadian stocks at all? Four rationales come to mind:

  • Canadian stocks have lower political risk than U.S. stocks, especially in the run-up to this year’s U.S. presidential election. They also are far away from the front lines of any potential European or Asian conflict.
  • They are cheaper than U.S. stocks on many metrics, including price-to-earnings ratios, price-to-book ratios and dividend yields. Scored in terms of these standard market metrics, they are valued more or less in line with European and Japanese stocks, according to Citigroup calculations.
  • Canadian dividends carry some tax advantages and holding reliable Canadian dividend payers means you don’t have to worry about exchange-rate fluctuations.
  • Despite what you may think, Canada’s fiscal situation actually looks relatively benign. Many countries have seen an explosion of debt since the pandemic hit, but our projected deficits are nowhere near as worrisome as those in the United States, China, Italy or Britain, according to International Monetary Fund figures.

How compelling you find these rationales will depend upon your personal circumstances. Based strictly on the numbers, Canadian stocks look like ho-hum investments – they’re reasonable enough places to put your money, but they fail to stand out compared with what is available globally.

Canadians, though, have always displayed a striking fondness for homebrew. Canadian stocks make up only a smidgen of the global market – about 3 per cent, to be precise – but Canadians typically pour more than half of their total stock market investments into Canadian stocks, according to the International Monetary Fund. This home market bias is hard to justify on any rational basis.

What is more reasonable? Vanguard Canada crunched the historical data in a report last year and concluded that Canadian investors could achieve the best balance between risk and reward by devoting only about 30 per cent of their equity holdings to Canadian stocks.

This seems to be more or less in line with what many Canadian pension funds currently do. They have about half their portfolio in equities, so devoting 30 per cent of that half to domestic stocks works out to holding about 15 per cent of their total portfolio in Canadian equities.

That modest allocation to Canadian stocks is a useful model for Canadian investors of all sizes. And if Ottawa doesn’t like it? Perhaps it could do more to make Canada an attractive investment destination.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending