Evelyn Reynolds

Analysts predicted a contraction of around 10%.
Israel’s high-tech economy is particularly affected by the fact that it has mobilized 300,000 of its men and women as military reservists to deploy in both Gaza and on its northern border with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

An Israeli national flag above produce for sale at Carmel Market in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Nov. 7, 2023.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Israel’s gross domestic product shrank nearly 20% in the fourth quarter of 2023, according to official figures.
The contraction was significantly larger than expected, as analysts predicted a contraction of around 10%. It reflects the toll of the country’s war against Hamas in Gaza, now entering its fifth month.

The economic data out Monday “pointed primarily to a contraction in private sector consumption and a deep contraction in investment, especially in real estate,” analysts at Goldman Sachs wrote in a research note.
“The deep GDP contraction occurred despite a strong surge in public sector consumption as well as a positive net trade contribution, with the decline in imports outpacing the decline in exports.”
Official figures showed a 26.9% quarter-on-quarter annualized drop in private consumption, and fixed investment plummeting nearly 68% as residential construction ground to a halt amid a shortage of both Israel workers due to military mobilization and Palestinian workers as the latter group has been mostly barred from entering Israel since Oct. 7.
Before then, more than 150,000 Palestinian workers from the occupied West Bank entered Israel daily for work in a range of sectors, predominantly in construction and agriculture.

Israel’s GDP contraction “was much worse than had been expected and highlights the extent of the hit from the Hamas attacks and the war in Gaza,” Liam Peach, senior emerging markets economist at London-based Capital Economics, said in an analysis note.

“While a recovery looks set to take hold in Q1, GDP growth over 2024 as a whole now looks likely to post one of its weakest rates on record.”
Israel’s high-tech economy is particularly affected by the fact that it has mobilized 300,000 of its men and women as military reservists to deploy in both Gaza and on its northern border with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The mobilization was triggered by the terror attack of Oct. 7 led by Palestinian militant group Hamas that killed about 1,200 people in Israel. Israel’s subsequent offensive against the Gaza strip and relentless bombing campaign has killed more than 28,000 people in the blockaded territory, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry. More

Last fall, Tiffanie Simmons, a second-generation autoworker, endured a six-week strike at the Ford Motor factory just west of Detroit where she builds Bronco S.U.V.s. That yielded a pay raise of 25 percent over the next four years, easing the pain of reductions that she and other union workers swallowed more than a decade ago.But as Ms. Simmons, 38, contemplates prospects for the American auto industry in the state that invented it, she worries about a new force: the shift toward electric vehicles. She is dismayed that the transition has been championed by President Biden, whose pro-labor credentials are at the heart of his bid for re-election, and who recently gained the endorsement of her union, the United Automobile Workers.The Biden administration has embraced electric vehicles as a means of generating high-paying jobs while cutting emissions. It has dispensed tax credits to encourage consumers to buy electric cars, while limiting the benefits to models that use American-made parts.But autoworkers fixate on the assumption that electric cars — simpler machines than their gas-powered forebears — will require fewer hands to build. They accuse Mr. Biden of jeopardizing their livelihoods.“I was disappointed,” Ms. Simmons said of the president. “We trust you to make sure that Americans are employed.”Tiffanie Simmons works in Wayne, Mich., at a Ford Motor factory that builds Broncos.Nick Hagen for The New York TimesMs. Simmons’s union has endorsed President Biden, but “I was disappointed” in him, she said.Nick Hagen 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

The grant will go toward chips for the auto and defense industries, and is the largest award to date from $39 billion in government funding.The Biden administration on Monday announced a $1.5 billion award to the New York-based chipmaker GlobalFoundries, one of the first sizable grants from a government program aimed at revitalizing semiconductor manufacturing in the United States.As part of the plan to bolster GlobalFoundries, the administration will also make available another $1.6 billion in federal loans. The grants are expected to triple the company’s production capacity in the state of New York over ten years.The funding represents an effort by the Biden administration and lawmakers of both parties to try to revitalize American semiconductor manufacturing. Currently, just 12 percent of chips are made in the United States, with the bulk manufactured in Asia. America’s reliance on foreign sources of chips became an issue in the early part of the pandemic, when automakers and other manufacturers had to delay or shutter production amid a dearth of critical chips.The award to GlobalFoundries will help the firm expand its existing facility in Malta, N.Y., enabling it to fulfill a contract with General Motors to ensure dedicated chip production for its cars.It will also help GlobalFoundries build a new facility to manufacture critical chips that are not currently being made in the United States. That includes a new class of semiconductors suited for use in satellites because they can survive high doses of radiation.The money will also be used to upgrade the company’s operations in Vermont, creating the first U.S. facility capable of producing a kind of chip used in electric vehicles, the power grid, and 5G and 6G smartphones. If not for the investment, administration officials said the facility in Vermont would have faced closure.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

“Natural asset companies” would put a market price on improving ecosystems, rather than on destroying them.Picture this: You own a few hundred acres near a growing town that your family has been farming for generations. Turning a profit has gotten harder, and none of your children want to take it over. You don’t want to sell the land; you love the open space, the flora and fauna it hosts. But offers from developers who would turn it into subdivisions or strip malls seem increasingly tempting.One day, a land broker mentions an idea. How about granting a long-term lease to a company that values your property for the same reasons you do: long walks through tall grass, the calls of migrating birds, the way it keeps the air and water clean.It sounds like a scam. Or charity. In fact, it’s an approach backed by hardheaded investors who think nature has an intrinsic value that can provide them with a return down the road — and in the meantime, they would be happy to hold shares of the new company on their balance sheets.Such a company doesn’t yet exist. But the idea has gained traction among environmentalists, money managers and philanthropists who believe that nature won’t be adequately protected unless it is assigned a value in the market — whether or not that asset generates dividends through a monetizable use.The concept almost hit the big time when the Securities and Exchange Commission was considering a proposal from the New York Stock Exchange to list these “natural asset companies” for public trading. But after a wave of fierce opposition from right-wing groups and Republican politicians, and even conservationists wary of Wall Street, in mid-January the exchange pulled the plug.That doesn’t mean natural asset companies are going away; their proponents are working on prototypes in the private markets to build out the model. And even if this concept doesn’t take off, it’s part of a larger movement motivated by the belief that if natural riches are to be preserved, they must have a price.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

Robert Lanter lives in a 600-square-foot house that can be traversed in five seconds and vacuumed from a single outlet. He doesn’t have a coffee table in the living room because it would obstruct the front door. When relatives come to visit, Mr. Lanter says jokingly, but only partly, they have to tour one at time.Each of these details amounts to something bigger, for Mr. Lanter’s life and the U.S. housing market: a house under $300,000, something increasingly hard to find. That price allowed Mr. Lanter, a 63-year-old retired nurse, to buy a new single-family home in a subdivision in Redmond, Ore., about 30 minutes outside Bend, where he is from and which is, along with its surrounding area, one of Oregon’s most expensive housing markets.Mr. Lanter’s house could easily fit on a flatbed truck, and is dwarfed by the two-story suburban homes that prevail on the blocks around him. But, in fact, there are even smaller homes in his subdivision, Cinder Butte, which was developed by a local builder called Hayden Homes. Some of his neighbors live in houses that total just 400 square feet — a 20-by-20-foot house attached to a 20-by-20-foot garage.This is not a colony of “tiny houses,” popular among minimalists and aesthetes looking to simplify their lives. For Mr. Lanter and his neighbors, it’s a chance to hold on to ownership.Mr. Lanter, who is recently divorced, came back to central Oregon from a condominium in Portland only to discover that home prices had surged beyond his reach. He has owned several larger homes over the years and said he began his recent search looking for a three-bedroom house.Robert Lanter outside his 600-square-foot home in Redmond, Ore.Ivan McClellan 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

Wholesale prices rose more than expected in January, according to a Labor Department report Friday.
The report comes just days after the consumer price index showed inflation holding stubbornly higher despite Federal Reserve expectations for moderation through the year.

Wholesale prices rose more than expected in January, further complicating the inflation picture, according to a U.S. Department of Labor report Friday.
The producer price index, a measure of prices received by producers of domestic goods and services, rose 0.3% for the month, the biggest move since August. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for an increase of just 0.1%. PPI fell 0.2% in December.

Excluding food and energy, core PPI increased 0.5%, also against expectations for a 0.1% gain. PPI excluding food, energy and trade services jumped 0.6%, its biggest one-month advance since January 2023.
The report comes just days after the consumer price index showed inflation holding stubbornly higher despite Federal Reserve expectations for moderation through the year. The CPI was up 3.1% from a year ago, down from its December level but still well ahead of the Fed’s goal for 2% inflation.
On a core basis, which the Fed focuses on more as a longer-term gauge of inflation, the CPI was up 3.9%. CPI differs from PPI in that it measures the prices consumers actually pay in the marketplace.
Markets fell sharply after Tuesday’s CPI reading, and there were fears that a hot PPI number also could cause another jolt. Expectations have been rising high that the Fed would use the easing inflation numbers as incentive to cut interest rates aggressively this year, but traders have had to pare back those expectations in recent days as inflation has shown unexpected persistence.
Stock market futures moved lower after the PPI report and Treasury yields surged.

Just a few weeks ago, markets had been pricing in the first Fed rate cut in March. That since has been pared back to June as policymakers have expressed caution about giving up the inflation fight too quickly while noting that an otherwise stable economy buys them time before having to move.
A 0.6% increase in final demand service helped propel the wholesale index higher, which in itself was boosted by a 2.2% rise in hospital outpatient care. Goods prices actually decreased 0.2% on the back of a 1.7% decline in final demand energy as gasoline slid 3.6%.
On a 12-month basis, headline PPI increased just 0.9%, slightly lower than the 1% level in December. However, excluding food, energy and trade services, the index rose 2.6%.
Along with the troublesome inflation readings, the Commerce Department reported this week that retail sales in January slid by 0.8%, far more than anticipated.Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

U.K. retail sales rebounded by 3.4% after a grim December, according to the Office for National Statistics, the strongest monthly gain since April 2021.
The “strong pick up in sales suggests the worst is now behind the retail sector and falling inflation and rising wages in 2024 will provide a strong platform for recovery,” Joe Maher, assistant economist at Capital Economics, said in a note.

A general view of a kiosk near Charing Cross station in London, England, on January 20, 2024. (Photo by Alberto Pezzali/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

LONDON — Stronger-than-expected January retail sales provided a glimmer of light for the struggling British economy on Friday — and suggest that the country’s recession will be short-lived, according to some economists.
Sales rebounded by 3.4% from December, according to the Office for National Statistics, the strongest monthly gain since April 2021. Economists polled by Reuters had expected a more modest growth of 1.5%.

Sales volumes increased in all areas except closing, as food shops saw the biggest boost. Consumers “spent more for less in January,” the ONS said, with the total they paid rising by 3.9%.
The latest figures follow the news of Thursday that the British economy entered a technical recession in the final quarter of 2023. Gross domestic product declined by 0.3%, following a 0.1% contraction in the third quarter.
Sales over the key holiday trading period were far weaker than expected, with December seeing the biggest monthly fal since January 2021.
British retail sales meanwhile remain 1.3% below their pre-pandemic level from February 2020, according to the ONS.
The “strong pick up in sales suggests the worst is now behind the retail sector and falling inflation and rising wages in 2024 will provide a strong platform for recovery,” Joe Maher, assistant economist at Capital Economics, said in a note.

The hike also points to a fading drag on consumer spending from higher interest rates, as well as the economy exiting recession territory, Maher said —but there is “still a long way back for retailers” to their pre-pandemic highs.
Kris Hamer, director of insight at the British Retail Consortium, said two months of higher sales volumes over the last three months were “promising” after 19 months of decline.
“Nonetheless, shoppers remained cautious as they entered the third year of the high cost of living,” Hamer said, adding that a rise in business rates and new border control costs would weigh on the retail sector.
Despite the poor growth figures, the retail report — along with steady inflation figures and a healthy December jobs report — ended the week on a “half positive note,” said Kallum Pickering, senior economist at Berenberg.
Anecdotal evidence from retailers suggests consumers held back in December, but came out in force to benefit from January sales, he said.
“However, we need to be cautious. Monthly data are volatile. The January jump merely offsets the big 3.3% [month-on-month drop in December – and hence returns real sales to the November level,” Pickering said in a note.
The fresh figures are consistent with “haphazard stagnation” in the retail sector and with broader economic activity in the last 18 months, though Berenberg economists expect retail momentum to pick up over the coming months due to higher real wages and consumer confidence, he added. More

The company made the novel claim, echoing arguments by SpaceX and Trader Joe’s, in a legal filing while fighting a case.In the latest sign of a growing backlash within corporate America to the 88-year-old federal agency that enforces labor rights, Amazon argued in a legal filing on Thursday that the National Labor Relations Board was unconstitutional.The move followed a similar argument by SpaceX, the rocket company founded and run by Elon Musk, in a legal complaint in January, and by Trader Joe’s during a labor board hearing a few weeks later.The labor board consists of a prosecutorial arm, which issues complaints against employers or unions deemed to have violated federally protected labor rights; administrative judges, who hear complaints; and a five-member board in Washington, to which decisions can be appealed.Amazon’s filing was part of a case before an administrative judge in which labor board prosecutors have accused Amazon of illegally retaliating against workers at a Staten Island warehouse known as JFK8, which unionized two years ago.The company’s lawyers repeatedly denied in their filing that Amazon had broken the law. Then, under a section titled “Other Defenses,” they argued that “the structure of the N.L.R.B. violates the separation of powers” by “impeding the executive power provided for in Article II of the United States Constitution.”The company also argued that the board or its actions or proceedings violated Articles I and III of the Constitution, as well as the Fifth and Seventh Amendments — in the last case because, the filing said, board hearings can seek legal remedies beyond what’s allowed without a trial by jury.Amazon declined to comment.The claims it made in the filing echo arguments that lawyers for SpaceX made in a federal lawsuit last month, after the labor board issued a complaint accusing the company of illegally firing eight employees for criticizing Mr. Musk. SpaceX sued in Texas, but a federal judge there on Thursday granted the board’s motion to transfer the case to California, where the company’s headquarters are located.In a statement, the board’s general counsel, Jennifer A. Abruzzo, said, “I am pleased that SpaceX’s blatant forum-shopping efforts in Texas attempting to enjoin the agency’s litigation against it have failed.”Wilma Liebman, a chairwoman of the labor board under President Barack Obama, called the arguments by Amazon and SpaceX “radical,” adding that “the constitutionality of the N.L.R.B. was settled nearly 90 years ago by the Supreme Court.”The arguments appear to align with a broader conservative effort to question the constitutionality of a variety of regulatory actions, some of which have resulted in cases before the Supreme Court.In January, the Supreme Court also agreed to hear a case brought by Starbucks, which is challenging a federal judge’s order reinstating employees who were fired during a union campaign. The outcome of the case could rein in the labor board’s longstanding practice of seeking reinstatement for workers while their cases are litigated, a process that can take years. More