Connect with us

Economy

Why This Contentious Transition Is So Perilous for the Economy – The New York Times

Published

 on


The worst economic crises of the last century both played out during “transition” — the period between the presidential election and the inauguration. That’s not a coincidence.

The most important transitions — ones that involve major changes of direction for the government — leave months of uncertainty over policy in the interim. Things that were already going wrong often spiral. Chaos loves a vacuum.

Unfortunately, the Covid crisis and the transition of 2020 have the clear potential to spin out of control in the same way.

The country’s major transition crises had certain elements in common: a pre-existing problem, an incumbent administration that had been criticized for its policy in dealing with it, and a presidential election ushering in a challenger calling for a sharp break from the predecessor’s approach.

The transition then left the public (and businesses and investors, too) trying to grapple with a paralyzing dilemma: “What happens while we wait for something completely different?” The answer was that the problem metastasized.

It happened in 1932. The Great Depression had worsened, and the economy and the financial system teetered on the edge of ruin. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election promised a strong break from the policies of Herbert C. Hoover. Yet for months, while the country waited for the inauguration, Hoover remained in charge.

Hoover maintained that the Depression had only gotten worse because of people’s fear of what the incoming President was proposing to do. He attempted to convince Roosevelt to commit to continuing policies like fiscal austerity and the gold standard. But Roosevelt wanted nothing to do with him. During the standoff, the economy cratered and the financial system fell apart.

Another major crisis occurred in 2008, when President Obama won the election promising a starkly different approach from the Bush administration’s. I was part of that transition, and in December our economic team briefed Mr. Obama about the quickly fading economy. He said, jokingly: “Is it too late to ask for a recount?”

Unlike in 1932, 2008 was an amicable and cooperative transition. Officials in the outgoing Bush administration did not undermine the incoming administration. To the contrary, they took the transfer of power seriously and did what they could to help.

Even in that circumstance, though, there were still significant disagreements in how to respond to the crisis: how the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) rescue money should be spent, what conditions should be put on banks that received the money, how auto companies should be treated, and much more. People knew a change was coming but not what would happen in the interim, and they worried that no one was really in charge. The crisis escalated.

I’ve focused on economic crises, but the issue is even bigger than that. Some of the biggest political crises in the country also happened in transition. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the election, promising a sharp break from Democrats and the incumbent, President James Buchanan. Lincoln’s election brought tensions to a boil. States talked openly of seceding.

President Buchanan, a lame duck, announced that he did not believe the federal government had the authority to stop states from leaving. Within weeks, South Carolina voted to secede, followed by six other states, all before the inauguration. Soon after Lincoln took office, the Civil War began.

Which brings us to 2020. Even before the election, the coronavirus had surged and was raging through much of the country. The United States has had more than 140,000 cases in a day, rising numbers of hospitalizations and has even witnessed multiple super-spreader events in the White House that infected the president, his chief of staff, cabinet members and senior advisers.

Economists have emphasized from the beginning that controlling the spread of the virus is crucial to fixing the economy. The CARES Act, the rescue package passed in March, provided temporary relief in the hope that the virus would rapidly diminish. But as that money has run out, a wide gulf has opened between the approach of the outgoing Trump administration (which has variously argued for doing less and minimized the seriousness of the problem) and the incoming Biden administration, whose first action after the election was to appoint a board of medical advisers and push an aggressive agenda to get the coronavirus under control.

And so the nation is, once more, counting down the months before a new administration changes the country’s direction, wondering what policy the federal government will pursue in the interim, and watching a pre-existing problem that may easily spiral out of control while we wait.

The good news is that there is a strong possibility that we could have an effective vaccine widely available sometime next year.

The bad news is that the outgoing administration has actively fought against the changeover — withholding transition funds, forbidding the sharing of information with the Biden folks and contesting the election results. As the weeks pass, tens of thousands of people may lose their lives and millions of businesses may disappear unnecessarily.

Certainly we will hope for the best — that this third wave of infections in the United States subsides quickly, that the economy continues to recover, people temporarily laid off can come back to their jobs, and a massive number of small businesses do not go broke.

But history teaches that problems brewing during major transitions of power can explode. So, as if enough hadn’t happened already in 2020, the Biden administration and the broader American public, had best prepare for the worst, just in case.

Austan Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, has advised President Barack Obama and President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. Follow him on Twitter: @austan_goolsbee

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

German economy grew by 8.5% in third quarter – TheChronicleHerald.ca

Published

 on


BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany’s gross domestic product grew by a record 8.5% in the third quarter as Europe’s largest economy partly recovered from an unprecedented plunge caused by the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring, the statistics office said on Tuesday.

The stronger-than expected rebound was mainly driven by higher household spending and soaring exports, the office said.

“This enabled the German economy to make up for a large part of the massive decline in gross domestic product caused by the coronavirus pandemic in the second quarter of 2020,” it added.

The reading marked an upward revision to an earlier flash estimate of 8.2% growth, and followed a 9.8% plunge in the second quarter.

The outlook is clouded by a second wave of coronavirus infections and a partial lockdown to slow the spread of the disease. Restaurants, bars, hotels and entertainment venues have been closed since Nov. 2, but shops and schools remain open.

Chancellor Angela Merkel and regional state premiers are planning to extend the “lockdown-light” on Wednesday until Dec. 20, according to a draft prepared for their meeting.

A contraction in the service sector is expected to weigh heavily on gross domestic product in the fourth quarter, while lockdown measures in other countries are likely to hit export-oriented manufacturers as well.

DIW economist Claus Michelsen said a decline in economic output was therefore on the cards, with initial estimates indicating a GDP drop of around 1% in the final quarter.

“Germany and many important trading partners are likely to slide back into recession,” Michelsen said.

(Reporting by Michael Nienaber and Rene Wagner; Editing by Riham Alkousaa and EKevin Liffey)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

ROGER TAYLOR: Box maker, Maritime Paper, bets on post-pandemic economy – The Journal Pioneer

Published

 on


Roger Taylor
All Dailies
[email protected]
@thisrogertaylor

Packaging company, Maritime Paper Products Limited Partnership in Dartmouth has purchased some new technology, which will “reduce its manual operations with increased automation.”Despite that, Sheldon Gouthro president and CEO of Maritime Paper, says it will not reduce the size of the workforce at the company.
Currently there about 150 people at the company’s operation in Dartmouth and when combined with operations in St. John’s, N.L. and in Moncton, N.B., he says, the company’s total compliment of employees is about 250 people.
The equipment purchased from Fremont, Calif.-based Electronics For Imaging (EFI) Inc. is expected to improve productivity, cut waste and reduce Maritime Paper’s carbon footprint.
Gouthro wouldn’t say how much the new equipment cost, except to say it is a significant investment. The plan is for the equipment to be installed at the main plant in Burnside Industrial Park by the end of the first quarter next year.
He admitted concern about the break down of the Atlantic Bubble, which may make it difficult to bring in technicians to complete the installation of the new equipment on time.
“Our number-one goal is to reduce waste, not just in paper but in overall operational efficiency,” Gouthro stated in the EFI news release. “We estimate our waste reduction with Escada (control systems technology) will be more than 10 per cent.
“With better process control we can increase speed and push up time on our corrugator and run a more sustainable operation with benefits that trickle down to every area of the company,” he said. “It’s like having cruise control on your car. I doesn’t mean there isn’t someone there still driving the machine.”
Maritime Paper produces more than 150 cardboard packaging combinations, says Gouthro.
“Each one has a unique recipe requiring specific run speeds, so this technology will give us the best efficiency and quality of our combined board while making rapid, automatic adjustments without comprising the quality of our board,” he said.
Maritime Paper, has been an independent corrugated manufacturer and printer for more than 90 years. It is one of six operating companies controlled by Scotia Investments Ltd. based in Bedford. Scotia Investments was incorporated in 1927, as part of the ongoing legacy of the late Nova Scotia industrialist Roy Jodrey.
The company started planning to purchase the EFI Escada Corrugator Control system during the last part of 2019, before anyone heard of COVID-19 and what it would mean, says Gouthro.
The new Escada system being installed in Dartmouth gives Maritime Paper a competitive advantage with the ability to produce higher-quality graphics on superior combined board manufactured.
While there was concern about what would happen at the beginning of the pandemic, Gouthro says there was a small downturn in the beginning but business picked up as it became apparent that there was increased need for packaging due growth in e-commerce.
“We were fortunate enough to be designated an essential service, because of the increased need for packaging during,” he says.
While there were plenty of concern about making this type of investment during a medical and economic crisis, Maritime Paper’s decision to proceed with its plan, means the company is focused greater efficiency which should serve the company well once the pandemic comes to an end.
The Escada system purchased from EFI is designed to produce the highest-quality boards at optimum speeds and with repetitive consistency. The other EFI product purchased is the Escada Syncro 7, which is designed to manage the corrugator control functions automatically, thus achieving maximum output.
Although the new system is being installed in Dartmouth, it is expected to also create greater efficiencies at the company’s plants in St. John’s and Moncton.
With the growth in demand for packaging, driven by increased home deliveries across all sectors of the economy, Gouthro says, achieving high-quality graphics is a competitive advantage when dealing with clients, particularly in the food and beverage industries.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

The downfall of adtech means the trust economy is here – TechCrunch

Published

 on


2020 has brought about much-needed social movements. In June, activists launched the Stop Hate for Profit campaign, a call to hold social media companies like Facebook accountable for the hate happening on their platforms.

The idea was to pull advertising spending to wake these social platforms up. More than 1,200 businesses and nonprofits joined the movement, including brands such as The North Face, Patagonia and Verizon. I led my company, Cheetah Digital, to join alongside some of our clients like Starbucks and VF Corp.

Stop Hate for Profit highlighted social media hitting its tipping point. Twitter and Snapchat chose to stand up against hate speech, banning political ads and taking action to flag misinformation. Facebook, unfortunately, has not yet been as proactive, or at best it’s been sporadic in its response.

While many thought the movement would come and go, the reality is it has only just begun. With America conducting arguably its most divisive election in history, these problems won’t just go away. For marketers, Stop Hate for Profit is more than a social movement — it is pointing to an issue with ad tech as a whole.

I believe we are seeing the downfall of ad tech as we know it with social media boycotts and data privacy leading the charge.

The social media quagmire

In May, Forrester released a report titled “It’s OK to Break Up with Social Media” that contained statistics indicating that consumers are fed up with social media: 70% of respondents said they don’t trust social media platforms with their data. Only 14% of consumers believe the information they read on social media is trustworthy. 37% of online adults in the U.S. believe social media does more harm than good.

Here is the reality we need to get back to: Social media isn’t built for marketers to reach consumers. In the beginning of the social media craze, brands rushed to get on board and join the conversations. What many brands discovered is these channels became a platform for customer complaints not for building positive brand perception. Furthermore, the social platforms marketers flocked to as an avenue to reach customers began charging marketers just to get to the customers.

The algorithms that define what content you see unfortunately make it harder for people to see opposing views, and this more than anything else polarizes society further. If you start looking at QAnon content, very soon that’s all the algorithms feed you. You might spend more time on social platforms fueling their ad dollars, but you have also lost a grip on reality. Marketers must admit things have gone too far on social media and it is okay to move on.

Privacy matters

Imagine you are in need of a minor surgery. Perhaps you take an Uber ride to the specialist for a consultation. Next, you go get the surgery and it is successful. Soon you find yourself at home recovering and all is well. That is, until you start scrolling Facebook. Suddenly advertisements pop up for medical malpractice lawyers, but you haven’t told anyone about the surgery and you certainly didn’t post about it on social media.

Here you are, just wanting to rest and recover at home, but instead you are being bombarded by advertisements. So how did those ads get there? You left a digital footprint, your data was sold and now you’re being hit with intrusive ads. To me, this story crystallizes the abuse ad tech has been fostering in the world around us. There’s an utter invasion of privacy and consumers aren’t blind to it.

Data privacy has been a focus of conversation for marketers for several years now. Just this year, America saw the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) go into effect and become enforceable. This legislation gives back control of data to the consumer. In June, Apple announced updates to make it harder for apps and publishers to track location data and use it for ad targeting. At the beginning of August, Meredith and Kroger announced a partnership to provide first-party sales data for advertising efforts in an attempt to move off of cookies. It is clear data privacy is not a fad going away anytime soon.

Where do marketers go from here?

I believe the future of marketing is the trust economy. The Stop Hate for Profit campaign, the invasion of privacy and shifting attitudes and behaviors of consumers point to the end of an era where marketers relied upon third-party data. Trust is now the most impactful economic power, not data. We conducted research earlier this year with eConsultancy, and our findings revealed that 39% of U.S. consumers don’t like personal ads driven from cookie data. People don’t want to be tracked and targeted as they click around the web. Ad tech’s roof is caving in and marketers must adjust.

The old methods of marketing won’t carry you through into the era of the trust economy. It is time to look to new channels and revisit old channels. We have to shift back to the channels where we own what is being said. Advertising on social platforms should be focused on driving consumers to owned channels where you can capture their permissions and data to connect with them directly. Consider email as a channel to focus on.

Don’t worry — it works. That same eConsultancy report found nearly three out of four consumers made a purchase in the last 12 months from an email sent by a brand or retailer and massively outperformed social ads when it came to driving sales. Similarly nine times as many U.S. consumers want to increase their participation in loyalty programs in 2020 than those that want to reduce their involvement. You have to ensure you are owning your data and loyalty programs are a treasure trove of consumer data you own. Emily Collins from Forrester does a good job of explaining why you can achieve this with a true loyalty strategy, not just a rewards program.

Your goal should be to build direct connections to consumers. Building trust means offering a value exchange for data and engagement, not going and buying it from a third-party. Fatemah Khatibloo, a principal analyst for Forrester wrote, “Zero-party data is that which a customer intentionally and proactively shares with a brand. It can include purchase intentions, personal context, and how the individual wants the brand to recognize her.” This zero-party data is foundational for the trust economy and you should check out her advice on how it helps you navigate privacy and personalization.

Take responsibility

The trust economy is really about asking yourself, as a marketer, what you stand for. How do you view your relationship with consumers? Do you care? What kind of relationship do you want? Privacy has to be part of this. Accountability is crucial. We must be accountable to where we are putting our money. It’s time to stop supporting hate, propping up the worst of society and fueling division. Start taking responsibility, caring about social issues and building meaningful relationships with consumers built on trust.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending