Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Minutes Show Officials Expecting to Raise Rates Three Times to Address Inflation

    Federal Reserve officials agreed at their last meeting that the central bank needed to move “expeditiously” to bring down the most rapid pace of inflation in 40 years, with most participants expecting as many as three half-a-percentage-point interest rate increases in the months ahead, minutes of the Fed’s May meeting showed.They also discussed the prospect of raising interest rates beyond the so-called neutral rate, at which they are neither supporting nor dampening the economy, to further slow economic growth as policymakers try to combat inflation.The officials noted that inflationary pressures were evident in a broad array of goods and services, causing hardship for Americans by eroding their incomes and making it hard for businesses to plan for the future. They said further supply chain disruptions from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and pandemic lockdowns in China were also threatening to push inflation higher.Their discussion highlighted the urgency of the task ahead, with some officials emphasizing “that persistently high inflation heightened the risk that longer-term inflation expectations could become unanchored,” making it more difficult for the central bank to return inflation to the 2 percent annual average that the Fed aims for.Officials also debated whether price pressures might be beginning to abate. Several observed that recent economic data suggested inflation might no longer be worsening, though they said it was too soon to say whether it had peaked. While they said the job market and consumer and business spending remained strong, they also expressed concern about “downside” risks to the economy “and the likelihood of a prolonged rise in energy and commodity prices.”Understand Inflation and How It Impacts YouInflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Inflation Calculator: How you experience inflation can vary greatly depending on your spending habits. Answer these seven questions to estimate your personal inflation rate.Interest Rates: As it seeks to curb inflation, the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates for the first time since 2018. Here is what that means for inflation.State Intervention: As inflation stays high, lawmakers across the country are turning to tax cuts to ease the pain, but the measures could make things worse. How Americans Feel: We asked 2,200 people where they’ve noticed inflation. Many mentioned basic necessities, like food and gas.The Fed raised rates half a percentage point in May, its biggest rate increase since 2000. Officials also detailed a plan to shrink the central bank’s $9 trillion in bond holdings and signaled that it would continue making money more expensive to borrow and spend until it got inflation under control. In the May meeting, officials reiterated plans to begin winding down on June 1 a stimulus program that has been in place since early in the pandemic.The Fed’s policy rate is now set in a range of 0.75 to 1 percent.Its decision to raise rates by half a percentage point in May initially buoyed Wall Street, which had been worried about a larger increase of 0.75, as some officials had been suggesting. The Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, speaking at a news conference after the May meeting, appeared to rule out such a large move, saying it was “not something the committee is actively considering.” Investors took notice of that comment, and stocks rallied.But in the weeks since, Mr. Powell has made clear that economic conditions remain incredibly uncertain and that the Fed may need to go bigger — or smaller — depending on how things evolve.“If things come in better than we expect, then we’re prepared to do less,” Mr. Powell said during an interview with “Marketplace,” a radio program distributed by American Public Media. “If they come in worse than when we expect, then we’re prepared to do more.”Still, as of the May meeting, “most participants judged that 50-basis-point increases in the target range would likely be appropriate at the next couple of meetings,” according to the minutes, which were released on Wednesday.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Will Start Blocking Russia’s Bond Payments to American Investors

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration will start blocking Russia from paying American bondholders, increasing the likelihood of the first default of Russia’s foreign debt in more than a century.An exemption to the sweeping sanctions that the United States imposed on Russia as punishment for its invasion of Ukraine has allowed Moscow to keep paying its debts since February. But that carve-out will expire on Wednesday, and the United States will not extend it, according to a notice published by the Treasury Department on Tuesday. As a result, Russia will be unable to make billions of dollars of debt and interest payments on bonds held by foreign investors.The move represents an escalation of U.S. sanctions at a moment when the war in Ukraine continues to drag on, with Russia showing few signs of relenting. Biden administration officials had debated whether to extend what’s known as a general license, which has allowed Russia to pay interest on the debt it sold. By extending the waiver, Russia would have continued to deplete its U.S. dollar reserves and American investors would have continued to receive their guaranteed payments. But officials, who have been trying to intensify pressure on Russia’s economy, ultimately determined that a Russian default would not have a significant impact on the global economy.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen signaled how the Biden administration was leaning at a news conference in Europe last week, when she said that the exemption was created to allow for an “orderly transition” so that investors could sell securities. It was always intended to be for a limited time, she said. And she noted that Russia’s ability to borrow money from foreign investors has already essentially been cut off through other sanctions imposed by the United States.“If Russia is unable to find a legal way to make these payments, and they technically default on their debt, I don’t think that really represents a significant change in Russia’s situation,” Ms. Yellen said. “They’re already cut off from global capital markets, and that would continue.”Although the economic impact of a Russian default might be minimal, it was an outcome that Russia had been trying to avoid and the Biden administration’s move represents an escalation of U.S. sanctions. Russia has already unsuccessfully tried to make bond payments in rubles and has threatened to take legal action, arguing that it should not be deemed in default on its debt if it is not allowed to make payments.“We can only speculate what worries the Kremlin most about defaulting: the stain on Putin’s record of economic stewardship, reputational damage, the financial and legal dominoes a default sets in motion and so on,” said Tim Samples, a legal studies professor at the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business and an expert on sovereign debt. “But one thing is rather clear: Russia was keen to avoid this scenario, willing even to make payments with precious non-sanctioned foreign currency to avoid a major default.”Sanctions experts have estimated that Russia has about $20 billion worth of outstanding debt that is not held in rubles. It is not clear if the European Union and Britain will follow the lead of the United States, which would exert even more pressure on Russia and leave a broader swath of investors unpaid, but most of the recent sanctions actions have been tightly coordinated.The prospect of a Russian default has already saddled some big U.S. investors with losses. Pimco, the investment management firm, has seen the value of its Russian bond holdings decline by more than $1 billion this year and pension funds and mutual funds with exposure to emerging market debt have also experienced declines.In the near term, Russia has two foreign-currency bond payments due on Friday, both of which have clauses in their contracts that allow for repayment in other currencies if “for reasons beyond its control” Russia is unable to make payments in the originally agreed currency.Russia owes about $71 million in interest payments for a dollar-denominated bond that will mature in 2026. The contract has a provision to be paid in euros, British pounds and Swiss francs. Russia also owes 26.5 million euros ($28 million) in interest payments for a euro-denominated bond that will mature in 2036, which can be paid back in alternative currencies including the ruble. Both contracts have a 30-day grace period for payments to reach creditors.The Russian finance ministry said on Friday that it had sent the funds to its payment agent, the National Settlement Depository, a Moscow-based institution, a week before the payment was due.The finance ministry said it had fulfilled these debt obligations. But more transactions are required with international financial institutions before the payments can reach bondholders.Adam M. Smith, who served as a senior sanctions official in the Obama administration’s Treasury Department, said he expected that Russia would most likely default sometime in July and that a wave of lawsuits from Russia and its investors were likely to ensue.Although a default will inflict some psychological damage on Russia, he said, it will also raise borrowing costs for ordinary Russians and harm foreign investors who were not involved in Russia’s invasion Ukraine.“The interesting question to me is, What is the policy goal here?” Mr. Smith said. “That’s what’s not entirely clear to me.”Alan Rappeport reported from Washington, and Eshe Nelson from London. More

  • 113 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Debate Over Tariffs Reveals Biden’s Difficulties on China Trade

    Sixteen months into the Biden presidency, U.S. officials are still divided over what to do about a trade legacy left by President Donald J. Trump.WASHINGTON — President Biden’s decision on Monday to try to align with Asian partners to form an economic bloc against China comes at a moment of frustration over his administration’s economic approach to Beijing, with some White House advisers pushing the president to move away from the Trump-era policies he criticized and others arguing that Mr. Biden risks being seen as weak on China if he relents.Some officials have grown frustrated that U.S. trade relations with China are still defined by policies set by President Donald J. Trump, including tariffs imposed on more than $360 billion of products and trade commitments made during a deal the United States and China signed in early 2020.Concerns about the United States’ economic approach to China have taken on new urgency amid rapid inflation. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen and other officials have argued that the full suite of tariffs served little strategic purpose and could be at least partly lifted to ease the financial burden on companies and consumers.But those ideas have met pushback from other senior administration officials, such as some top White House aides, the U.S. trade representative and labor groups. They argue that removing the tariffs — which were put in place to punish China over its economic practices — would constitute unilateral disarmament given that Beijing has yet to address many of the policies that prompted the measures. With the midterm elections looming, some administration officials are worried that removing tariffs would make Democrats vulnerable to political attacks, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials.The business community is also losing patience with the absence of a clear trade strategy nearly a year and a half into Mr. Biden’s presidency. Executives have complained about a lack of clarity, which they say has made it difficult to determine whether to continue investing in China, a critical market.The challenges in figuring out how to confront Chinese trade practices have become harder amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The United States was originally moving toward making changes to its trade relationship with China in early 2022, a senior administration official said, but with Beijing aligning with Moscow, Mr. Biden felt it was prudent to see how events unfolded in Ukraine with respect to the global economy and U.S. allies.Biden administration officials are conflicted over whether to remove tariffs on Chinese goods.Doug Mills/The New York TimesSome elements of the administration’s trade strategy are becoming clearer this week. Mr. Biden announced in Japan on Monday that the United States would begin talks with 12 countries to develop a new economic framework for the Indo-Pacific region. The countries would aim to form a bloc that would provide an early warning system for supply chain issues, encourage industries to decarbonize and offer U.S. businesses reliable Asian partners outside China.The framework would not contain the binding commitments for market access that are typical of most trade deals, which have proved to be a hard sell for many Democrats after the United States withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, President Barack Obama’s signature trade agreement.U.S. officials say their goals for the framework will be ambitious and include raising labor and environmental standards and creating new guidelines for how data flows between countries. But some analysts have questioned whether the framework can encourage those changes without offering Asian countries the U.S. market access that is typically the incentive in trade pacts. And U.S. labor groups are already wary that some commitments could lead to further outsourcing for American industries.The framework also does not try to directly shape trade with China. Many Biden administration officials have concluded that talks with China have proved largely fruitless, as have negotiations at the World Trade Organization. Instead, they have said they would try to confront China by changing the environment around it by rebuilding alliances and investing more in the United States, including through a $1 trillion infrastructure spending bill.Senior U.S. officials hold a similar view as their counterparts in the Trump administration that the world’s dependence on the Chinese economy has given Beijing enormous strategic leverage. A classified China strategy that was largely finished last fall argues that it is important for U.S. security to delink some industries and diversify supply chains, people familiar with the strategy say.The administration was supposed to offer a glimpse of the classified strategy in a major speech laying out economic and security goals for China, which Washington officials and China experts expected to occur last fall. The White House first considered having Mr. Biden deliver the speech but settled on Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.Yet the speech — which revolves around the slogan “Invest, Align and Compete,” according to those familiar with it — has been delayed for several reasons, including the war in Ukraine and Mr. Blinken’s contracting Covid-19 this month. Some China experts in Washington have interpreted the delays as another sign of uncertainty on China policy, but U.S. officials insist that is not true.Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, and other officials have argued against dropping the tariffs.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesMr. Blinken is expected to give the China speech shortly after he and Mr. Biden return from Japan, people familiar with the planning said.The speech avoids explicitly addressing how the administration will deal with Mr. Trump’s tariffs, they say. Businesses have long complained that they hurt U.S. companies and their consumers rather than China. That concern has been heightened by the fact that prices are rising at their fastest rate in 40 years, creating a political problem for the White House, which has struggled to explain how it can alleviate soaring costs other than relying on the Federal Reserve.But Republicans and Democrats who want more aggressive policies toward China — and toward some American companies that do business there — would try to draw blood if Mr. Biden eased the tariffs.“We need to rebuild American industry, not reward companies that keep their supply chains in China,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said this month after voting against a legislative amendment allowing carve-outs to the tariffs.At a news conference in Japan on Monday, Mr. Biden said he would meet with Ms. Yellen when he returned from his trip to discuss her call to remove some of the China tariffs.“I am considering it,” the president said. “We did not impose any of those tariffs; they were imposed by the previous administration, and they are under consideration.”Public rifts among Biden officials have been rare, but when it comes to tariffs, the debate has spilled into the open.“There are definitely different views in the administration, and they’re surfacing,” said Wendy Cutler, the vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. “There are those who think that the tariffs didn’t work and are contributing to inflation. Then you have the trade negotiator side that says: ‘Why would we give them up now? They’re good leverage.’”The discussion over how and when to adjust these tariffs mirrors a bigger debate over whether globalized trade has done more to help or harm Americans, and how the Democratic Party should approach trade.Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative; Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary; Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser; and others have argued against dropping the tariffs. Ms. Yellen, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and other officials have pointed out the benefits to companies and consumers from adjusting them, people familiar with the discussions said.Ms. Yellen has long been a voice of skepticism regarding the tariffs and has grown more frustrated with the pace of progress on trade developments, people familiar with her thinking said. She made the case last week for removing some of the tariffs as a way to offset rising prices.“Some relief could come from cutting some of them,” Ms. Yellen said, explaining that the tariffs were harming consumers and businesses. “There are a variety of opinions, and we really haven’t sorted out yet or come to agreement on where to be on tariffs.”Daleep Singh, a deputy national security adviser, was more blunt in an April 21 webinar. “We inherited these tariffs,” he said, “and while they may have created negotiating leverage, they serve no strategic purpose.”For products that do not strengthen critical supply chains or support national security, “there’s not much of a case for those tariffs being in place,” Mr. Singh said. “Why do we have tariffs on bicycles or apparel or underwear?”Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has grown more frustrated with the pace of progress on trade developments, according to people familiar with her thinking.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesBut labor leaders, progressive Democrats and some industry representatives have made various arguments for maintaining tough tariffs, with several pointing to data showing that imports from China are not the main drivers of inflation.“For a Democratic president to get rid of tariffs imposed by a Republican and basically give a free handout to the Chinese Communist Party is not something that’s really politically wise in any form,” said Scott N. Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which represents steel companies and workers.Economists also believe the impact from removing the tariffs would be modest. Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard University and a former chairman of Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that removing all the China tariffs would shave half a percentage point off the Consumer Price Index, which grew 8.3 percent in April from a year earlier.Still, Mr. Furman said, when it comes to lowering inflation “tariff reduction is the single biggest tool the administration has.”Progressive Democrats like Representative Tim Ryan, Democrat of Ohio, have argued for maintaining tough tariffs on China.Dustin Franz for The New York TimesThe Office of the United States Trade Representative started a statutory review of the tariffs this month and says its approach to analyzing them is on track. “We need to make sure that whatever we do right now, first of all, is effective and, second of all, doesn’t undermine the medium-term design and strategy that we know we need to pursue,” Ms. Tai said in an interview on May 2.Some Biden administration officials appear to favor an outcome that would lift certain tariffs while increasing other trade penalties on China, a process that would take at least several months. That could happen through a separate investigation under the so-called Section 301 process into China’s use of industrial subsidies. More

  • 163 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Americans were worried about the economy even before inflation exploded, Fed survey shows

    A Federal Reserve survey released Monday showed Americans already growing nervous about the economy in the latter part of 2021.
    Just 24% thought conditions were good or excellent, down from 50% in 2019.
    Expectations also declined for government aid programs as well as for the prospects of a higher federal minimum wage.

    A man shops for meat at a Safeway grocery store in Annapolis, Maryland, on May 16, 2022, as Americans brace for summer sticker shock as inflation continues to grow.
    Jim Watson | AFP | Getty Images

    Americans already were getting nervous about the state of the national economy late last year, before the spate of surging prices and fears of a looming recession that have arisen in 2022, according to a Federal Reserve survey released Monday.
    The Fed’s annual Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking for 2021 showed that just 24% thought national economic conditions were good or excellent. That was down from 26% in the pandemic-scarred 2020 and a tumble all the way from 50% in 2019.

    Similarly, those rating their local economies favorably totaled 48% last year, actually an improvement from the 43% in 2020 but a sharp decline from 2019’s 63%.
    The survey was conducted in October and November and came from interviews of more than 11,000 respondents.
    By then, inflation had just started heating up, with the consumer price index rising 6.8% in November from the same time in 2020, on the way to an 8.5% peak in March 2022. Also, first-quarter growth as measured by gross domestic product declined 1.4%, the first negative reading since the pandemic outbreak in the first quarter of 2020.
    Despite their concerns about a slowing economy, households reported fairly strong financial circumstances. Some 78% said they were doing either OK or living comfortably, the highest reading yet for a survey that goes back to 2013. Low-income families saw particular growth in that category, jumping 13 percentage points from 2020 to 53%.
    Similarly, 68% said they could cover a $400 expense either with cash or a credit card, also a new high. The share of those saying they were worse off financially than a year ago fell four percentage points to 20%, but was still notably higher than 2019’s 14%.

    The survey came well ahead of the Fed’s moves to start slowing the economy with interest rate hikes as inflation raged in late 2021 and so far this year. In addition, the central bank halted its monthly bond purchases and in June will start reducing its $9 trillion in holdings.
    A separate survey released Monday from the New York Fed showed decreasing expectations for government help through social programs.
    Since the start of the pandemic, Congress approved more than $5 trillion in various aid forms. Expectations for rising welfare and unemployment benefits tumbled from respective highs of 49% and 45% in April 2021 to 35% and 26% a year later.
    Respondents to that survey also indicated decreasing expectations for housing assistance and student loan programs. The likelihood of an increase in the federal minimum wage also declined from 50% in April 2021 to 39% this year.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 88 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    G7 Nations Pledge $20 Billion to Ukraine

    KÖNIGSWINTER, Germany — The Group of 7 economic powers agreed on Friday to provide nearly $20 billion to support Ukraine’s economy over the coming months to help keep the country’s government running while it fights to repel a Russian invasion.In a joint statement after two days of meetings, finance ministers from the Group of 7 affirmed their commitment to help Ukraine with a mix of grants and loans. Ukraine needs approximately $5 billion per month to maintain basic government services, according to the International Monetary Fund.The $19.8 billion of financing was agreed on after the United States, which is contributing more than $9 billion in short-term financing, pressed its allies to do more to help secure Ukraine’s future. The statement did not break down how much the other Group of 7 nations will contribute.The European Commission, however, previously agreed to provide up to 9 billion euros of financial assistance. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation plan to provide an additional $3.4 billion to Ukrainian state-owned enterprises and the private sector.“We will continue to stand by Ukraine throughout this war and beyond and are prepared to do more as needed,” the statement said.The economic policymakers also acknowledged that more fallout from the war lies ahead, and they pledged on Friday to keep markets open as they combat rising food and energy prices around the world. They also said that their central banks would be closely monitoring inflation measures and the impact that rising prices are having on their economies.“We are very concerned about crises and macroeconomic developments,” Christian Lindner, Germany’s finance minister, said during a closing news conference on Friday, according to an English translation.The two-day summit on the outskirts of Bonn came at a pivotal time for the world economy, with concern mounting that a combination of war, supply chain problems and the lingering effects of the pandemic could lead to a contraction in global output. Finance ministers discussed ways to keep pressure on Russia while minimizing the damage to their economies as they debated the merits of a European embargo on Russian oil and whether seized Russian assets could be used to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction.“The values of the international community have been totally discarded by Russia,” Mr. Lindner said.Officials from the world’s leading advanced economies discussed other areas for possible collaboration, such as combating climate change and making progress on a global tax agreement that was reached last year but faces implementation problems.But the complicated mix of foreign policy challenges and economic headwinds dominated the meetings.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned this week that Europe could be vulnerable to a recession because of its exposure to Russian energy. She does not expect a recession in the United States but said on Thursday that a “soft landing” was not guaranteed as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to tame inflation.“I think it’s conceivable there could be a soft landing, that requires both skill and luck,” Ms. Yellen told reporters on the sidelines of the Group of 7 summit. “It’s a very difficult economic situation.” More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Baby Formula Shortage Has an Aggravating Factor: Few Producers

    With just a handful of companies making U.S. infant formula, a shutdown of Abbott’s plant had outsized impact on the supply.In the early 1990s, the nation’s biggest makers of baby formula were under fire.The three largest manufacturers, which controlled 90 percent of the U.S. market at the time, were hit with waves of state, federal and corporate lawsuits, accusing them of attempting to limit competition and using their control of the industry to fix prices. Most of the lawsuits were settled or, in some cases, won by the companies.Three decades later, the $2.1 billion industry is still controlled by a small number of manufacturers, who are again in the cross hairs over their outsized market share.The infant formula market was plunged into disarray when Abbott Laboratories voluntarily recalled some of its most popular powdered formulas in February and shut down its plant in Sturgis, Mich., after four babies who had consumed some of Abbott’s products became sick with bacterial infections.Abbott, which controls 48 percent of the market, has said there was no evidence its formula caused any known infant illnesses and that none of the tests performed by regulators have directly linked the cans of formula the babies consumed to the strains of bacteria, Cronobacter sakazakii, found at the plant.But the ripple effects from that single plant closing have been widespread, highlighting the market power of a single manufacturer and the lack of meaningful competition in an industry governed by rules and regulations designed to protect the incumbents.Stores are limiting purchases of baby formula, with shelves in many markets completely bare. Panicked parents of newborns are calling on friends and family to help locate food for their babies, with some resorting to making their own formula at home. And while the Abbott plant was given the green light this week to start manufacturing again — a move that will still take weeks to rebuild inventory on store shelves — there are growing calls from lawmakers for major changes to how the industry operates.“When something goes wrong, like it has here, you then have a major, serious crisis,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who released a scathing 34-page whistleblower report from a former Abbott employee detailing safety and cleanliness issues at the Sturgis plant. She argued that the industry should be broken up and efforts should be made to promote competition to avoid future shortages.Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, urged the Federal Trade Commission last week to conduct a broad study of the infant formula industry and whether market consolidation has led to the dire shortages. Top Biden administration officials have also lamented the power of a few players. On Sunday, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the Biden administration should do more to address the industry’s “enormous market concentration.”“We’ve got four companies making about 90 percent of the formula in this country, which we should probably take a look at,” Mr. Buttigieg said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”Read More on the Baby Formula Shortage A Desperate Search: As the United States faces a baby formula shortage, some parents are rationing supplies, or driving for hours in search of them. A Misleading Narrative: Amid the crisis, Republicans have suggested that the Biden administration is sending baby formula to immigrants at the expense of American families. An Emotional Toll: The shortage is forcing many new mothers to push themselves harder to breastfeed and look for ways to start again after having stopped. What Not to Do: As they struggle to cope, some parents have resorted to strategies like watering down their formula. But there are risks.Today, Abbott is the biggest player. Mead Johnson, which is owned by the conglomerate Reckitt Benckiser, and Perrigo, which makes generic formula for retailers, control another 31 percent. Nestlé controls less than 8 percent.In part, the lack of competition stems from simple math: Few companies or investors are eager to jump into the infant formula industry because its growth is tied to the nation’s birth rate, which held steady for decades until it began dropping in 2007.But the factors that long ago led to the creation of an industry controlled by a handful of manufacturers are primarily rooted in a tangled web of trade rules and regulations that have protected the biggest producers and made it challenging for others to enter the market.The United States, which produces 98 percent of formula consumed in the country, has strict regulations and tariffs as high as 17.5 percent on foreign formula. The Food and Drug Administration maintains a “red list” of international formulas, including several European brands that, if imported, are detained because they do not meet U.S. requirements. Those shortcomings could include labels that are not written in English or do not have all of the required nutrients listed. This week, the F.D.A. said it would relax some regulations to allow for more imports into the United States.Trade rules contained in the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement, also significantly discourage Canadian companies from exporting infant formula to the United States. The pact established low quotas that trigger export charges if exceeded. American dairy lobbying groups had urged officials to swiftly pass the agreement and supported the quotas at the time.But perhaps the biggest barrier to new entrants is the structure of a program that aims to help low-income families obtain formula. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, better known as WIC, is a federally funded program that provides grants to states to ensure that low-income pregnant or postpartum women and their children have access to food.The program, which is administered by state agencies, purchases more than half of all infant formula supply in the United States, with about 1.2 million infants receiving formula through WIC.State WIC agencies cannot just buy formula from any manufacturer. They are required by law to competitively bid for contracts and select one company, which becomes the exclusive provider of formula for all WIC recipients in the state. In exchange for those exclusive rights, manufacturers must provide states significant discounts for the formula they purchase.David E. Davis, an economics professor at South Dakota State University, said that exclusive system could make it more difficult for smaller companies to break through. Although manufacturers may sell products to states below cost, Dr. Davis’s research found that brands that secure WIC contracts gain greater prominence on store shelves, creating a spillover effect and resulting in larger sales among families that are not WIC recipients. Doctors may also preferentially recommend those brands to mothers, his research found.The formula shortage is causing retailers to limit purchases, with shelves in many markets completely bare.Kaylee Greenlee Beal for The New York Times“If you don’t have the WIC contract, you’re pretty much a small player,” Dr. Davis said. “Because that locks you out of the WIC market and it pretty much locks you out of the non-WIC market. So firms bid very aggressively to get the WIC contract.”Only three companies have contracts to supply formula through the program: Abbott makes up the largest share, providing formula to about 47 percent of infants that receive WIC benefits, while Mead Johnson provides 40 percent and Gerber, which is manufactured by Nestlé, provides 12 percent, according to the National WIC Association.Navigating the Baby Formula Shortage in the U.S.Card 1 of 6A growing problem. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    In South Korea, Joe Biden Seeks to Rebuild Economic Ties Across Asia

    The president plans to unveil a new regional economic framework, but some in the region wonder whether it will be an empty exercise.PYEONGTAEK, South Korea — When President Biden arrived on his inaugural mission to Asia on Friday, the first place he headed from the airplane was not a government hall or embassy or even a military base, but a sprawling superconductor factory that represented the real battleground of a 21st-century struggle for influence in the region.The choice of destination to begin a five-day trip to South Korea and Japan underscored the challenges of Mr. Biden’s effort to rebuild American ties to a region where longtime allies have grown uncertain about Washington’s commitments amid anti-trade sentiment at home, while China has expanded its dominance in the economic arena.The president hopes to lure countries back into the American orbit despite his predecessor Donald J. Trump’s decision five years ago to abandon a far-reaching trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership — but not by rejoining the economic bloc, even though it was negotiated by the Obama administration that he served as vice president. Instead, under pressure from his liberal base at home, Mr. Biden plans to offer a far less sweeping multinational economic structure that has some in the region skeptical about what it will add up to.Mr. Biden will formally unveil the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework on Monday in Tokyo, bringing together many of the same countries from the trade partnership to coordinate policies on energy, supply chains and other issues, but without the market access or tariff reductions that powered the original partnership. Eager for American leadership to counter China, a number of countries in the region plan to sign up and hail the new alignment but privately have expressed concern that it may be an empty exercise.The framework is essentially “a new packaging of existing Biden administration priorities in this economic policy area,” said Scott A. Snyder, the director of U.S.-Korea policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And whether or not it really takes off depends on whether partners believe that there’s enough there there to justify being engaged.”Mr. Snyder added that he thought South Korea, for one, was taking seriously the Biden administration’s commitment to invest in the region. “I think they’re believing,” he said. “And we’ll see whether they’re whistling past the graveyard.”But even Mr. Biden’s own ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, acknowledged the uncertainty in the region over the new economic framework. Countries want to know, “what is it we are signing up for?” he told reporters in Tokyo on Thursday. Is this an alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? “Yes and no,” he said.Understand the Supply Chain CrisisThe Origins of the Crisis: The pandemic created worldwide economic turmoil. We broke down how it happened.Explaining the Shortages: Why is this happening? When will it end? Here are some answers to your questions.A New Normal?: The chaos at ports, warehouses and retailers will probably persist through 2022, and perhaps even longer.A Key Factor in Inflation: In the U.S., inflation is hitting its highest level in decades. Supply chain issues play a big role.The framework is not a traditional free trade agreement but instead an architecture for negotiation to address four major areas: supply chains, the digital economy, clean energy transformation and investments in infrastructure. Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, said it would be “a big deal” and a “significant milestone” for relations with the region.“When you hear some of the, ‘Well, we don’t quite know. We’re not sure because it doesn’t look like things have looked before,’ I say, ‘Just you wait,’” he told reporters on Air Force One as it made its way across the Pacific. “Because I think this is going to be the new model of economic arrangement that will set the terms and rules of the road for trade and technology and supply chains for the 21st century.”Mr. Sullivan said there will be “a significant roster of countries” joining the framework when Mr. Biden kicks it off on Monday, but administration officials have not identified which countries. Japan, which has signaled that it would rather the United States rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will nonetheless embrace the new framework as the best it can get at the moment, as will South Korea. Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines have indicated interest in joining, while India and Indonesia have expressed some reservations.Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh of Vietnam said this month that it was still not clear what the new framework would mean in concrete terms. “We are ready to work alongside the U.S. to discuss, to further clarify what these pillars entail,” he said at a forum held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.The Financial Times reported that the administration had diluted the language of the organizing statement to entice more countries to join. Some countries are concerned that the United States will force labor and environmental standards on them without the trade-offs of better trading terms, which are off the table because of liberal opposition within Mr. Biden’s party.“There’s a reason that the original T.P.P. was derailed,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said at a hearing last month. “It would have off-shored more jobs to countries that use child labor and prison labor and pay workers almost nothing. Let me be clear: The I.P.E.F. cannot be T.P.P. 2.0.”Mr. Emanuel said the administration would describe the new framework process as a “consultation to negotiation,” as he put it. “We have to have an approach that respects countries where they are,” he said. “Meaning where Japan is or where Australia is, is not necessarily where Vietnam or Thailand or the Philippines are.”Moreover, he said, the administration wanted a framework that could survive beyond Mr. Biden’s presidency, unlike the Trans-Pacific Partnership. “We have an interest in saying we are still a player in the Pacific, and China has an interest in saying the U.S. is on its way out,” Mr. Emanuel said.Mr. Biden’s visit to the Samsung semiconductor facility immediately after disembarking from Air Force One served as a reminder of how critical the region is to his immediate priority of unsnarling the supply chain problems that have hurt American consumers back home.Shortly after landing at Osan Air Base, Mr. Biden joined President Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea at the plant, praising it as a model for the type of manufacturing that the United States desperately needs to head off soaring inflation and to compete with China’s growing economic dominance.“This is an auspicious start to my visit, because it’s emblematic of the future cooperation and innovation that our nations can and must build together,” Mr. Biden said, noting that Samsung will invest $17 billion to build a similar plant in Taylor, Texas.“Our two nations work together to make the best, most advanced technology in the world,” Mr. Biden added, surrounded by monitors showing Samsung employees listening to his remarks. “And this factory is proof of that, and that gives both the Republic of Korea and the United States a competitive edge in the global economy if we can keep our supply chains resilient, reliable and secure.”Employees at the Samsung plant. Mr. Biden’s commerce secretary warned this year that the United States was facing an “alarming” shortage of semiconductors.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWhile demand for products containing semiconductors increased by 17 percent from 2019 to 2021, there has not been a comparable increase in supply, partly because of pandemic-related disruptions. As a result, automobile prices have skyrocketed and the need for more chips is likely to increase as 5G technology and electric vehicles become more widespread.The United States already faces an “alarming” shortage of the semiconductors, Gina Raimondo, Mr. Biden’s commerce secretary, warned this year, adding that the crisis had contributed to the highest level of inflation in roughly 40 years.How the Supply Chain Crisis UnfoldedCard 1 of 9The pandemic sparked the problem. More

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Big Tech Is Getting Clobbered on Wall Street. It’s a Good Time for Them.

    Flush with cash, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google are positioned to emerge from a downturn stronger and more powerful. As usual.SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and the parent companies of Facebook and Google have lost $2.7 trillion in value so far this year, about the annual gross domestic product of Britain.So what have the companies done about this thrashing on Wall Street? Microsoft has doubled its employees’ bonus pool, Google has committed to hiring more engineers, and Apple has showered its top hardware talent with $200,000 bonuses.The dissonance between the stock market’s relative panic and the business-as-usual calm among tech giants foreshadows a period when analysts, investors and economists predict that the world’s largest companies will widen their lead in their respective markets.The bullishness about their prospects reflects an understanding that the companies have tight control of some of the world’s most lucrative businesses: social media, premium smartphones, e-commerce, cloud computing and search. Their dominance in those arenas and toeholds in other businesses should blunt the pains of inflation, even as those challenges hammer big companies such as Walmart and Target and the stock market nears bear market territory.The S&P 500 spent much of Friday below the threshold for what is considered a bear market — commonly defined as 20 percent below its last peak — before rallying late in the afternoon. The index ended the week with a loss of 3 percent, its seventh straight weekly decline. That’s its longest stretch of losses since 2001.In the months ahead, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon are expected to boost hiring, buy more businesses and emerge on the other side of a bearish economy stronger and more powerful — even if they shed some of their total valuation and their relentless growth of the last few years.“Big tech can say, ‘Forget the economy,’” said Richard Kramer, founder of the London-based advisory firm Arete Research. Flush with cash, he said, “they can invest through the cycle.”Read More About Apple‘After Steve’: Jony Ive, who helped define Apple’s iconic look, left as the Tim Cook era took hold. A new book details how they and the company changed following Steve Jobs’s death.A $3 Trillion Company: Four decades after going public, Apple reached a $1 trillion market value in 2018. Now, the company is worth triple that.Trademarks: The tech behemoth has opposed singer-songwriters, school districts and food blogs for trying to trademark names or logos featuring an apple — and even other fruits.AirTags: Privacy groups said that Apple’s new coin-size devices could be used to track people. Those warnings appear to have been prescient.The large companies’ plans contrast sharply with a wave of spending cuts crashing through the rest of the tech sector. Steep declines in share prices at unprofitable companies such as Uber, down 45 percent, and Peloton, down 58 percent, have led their chief executives to cut jobs or consider layoffs. Start-ups are pruning their workforces as venture capital funding slows.Those companies’ plummeting values will create buying opportunities, said Toni Sacconaghi, a tech analyst at Bernstein, a research firm. Large deals may be difficult because the Federal Trade Commission is scrutinizing takeover moves by Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google, he said, but smaller deals for emerging technology or engineers could be rampant.As people return to work and travel, they are making fewer Amazon purchases, leaving the company with more space and staff than it needs.Roger Kisby for The New York TimesDuring the Great Recession, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft acquired more than 100 companies from 2008 to 2010, according to Refinitiv, a financial data company. Some of those deals have become fundamental to their businesses today, including Apple’s acquisition of the chip company P.A. Semi, which contributed to the company’s development of its new laptop processors, and Google’s acquisition of AdMob, which helped create a mobile advertising business.“The big will get bigger and the poor will get poorer,” said Michael Cusumano, deputy dean of the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s the way network effects work.”There are caveats to this sense of invulnerability. The big companies’ plans could always change if the economy continues to deteriorate and consumers pull back even further on their spending. And some of the big companies are more vulnerable than others.Meta Platforms, Facebook’s parent company, has fared worse than its peers because its business is facing long-term challenges. It has posted falling profits as its user growth slows amid rising competition from TikTok, and changes in Apple’s privacy policy stymie its ability to personalize ads.Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, has responded by instituting a temporary hiring freeze for some roles. During a recent all-hands meeting with staff, employees asked if layoffs would follow. Mr. Zuckerberg said that job cuts weren’t in the company’s current plans and were unlikely in the future, according to a spokesman. Instead, he said the company was focused on slowing spending and limiting its growth.Amazon sent a similar signal to its employees last month after it posted disappointing results. In a call with analysts, Brian Olsavsky, the company’s finance chief, said Amazon would look to corral costs after it doubled spending on warehouses and staff to keep pace with pandemic orders. As people return to work and travel, they are making fewer Amazon purchases, leaving the company with more space and staff than it needs.But Amazon’s lucrative cloud business, Amazon Web Services, or A.W.S. for short, continues to gush profits. The company plans to lean into its success in the months ahead by increasing its spending on data centers. It also has committed to raising the cap on base compensation of its corporate staff to $350,000, from $160,000. And it is investing in a plan to build a network of satellites to deliver high-speed internet by launching 38 rockets into space.Between them, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon had nearly $300 billion in cash, excluding debt, at the end of March, according to Loup Ventures, an investment firm specializing in tech research.The cash reserves could fund accelerated stock buybacks as share prices fall, analysts say. Doing so would increase the companies’ earnings per share, deliver more value to investors and signal to the market that their firms are more valuable than Wall Street is willing to acknowledge.The companies roared ahead during the pandemic as people sequestered at home immersed themselves in a digital world. Customer orders soared on Amazon, for everything from hand sanitizer to Instant Pots. Shuttered stores shifted sales online and ramped up Google and Facebook advertising. Remote students and employees splurged on new iPhones, iPads and Macs.The last tech giant to cull its ranks during a major downturn, Microsoft, is doing the opposite during this turbulent period. Emboldened by a business that has proved more durable than its peers, Microsoft is sweetening salaries, boosting its investments in cloud computing and standing by a $70 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard that it expects to unlock more sales for its gaming empire.A Call of Duty event in Minneapolis in 2020. Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard is expected to unlock more sales for its gaming empire.Bruce Kluckhohn/USA Today Sports, via ReutersSimilar resilience has been on display at Google and Apple. Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, recently overhauled its performance review process and told staff that they would likely get pay increases, according to CNBC. It also plans to increase its spending on data centers to support its growing cloud business.Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, has a longstanding philosophy that Apple should continue to invest for the future amid a downturn. It more than doubled its staff during the Great Recession and nearly tripled its sales. Lately, it has increased bonuses to some hardware engineers by as much as $200,000, according to Bloomberg.John Chambers, who steered Cisco Systems through multiple downturns as its former chief executive, said the companies’ strong businesses and deep pockets could afford them the chance to take risks that would be impractical for smaller competitors. During the 2008 downturn, he said Cisco allowed distressed automakers to pay for technology services with credit at a time when competitors demanded cash. The company risked having to write down $1 billion in inventory, but emerged from the recession as the dominant provider to a healthy auto industry, he said.“Companies break away during downturns,” Mr. Chambers said.Excelling will require disregarding the broader market’s gloom, said David Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School. He said previous downturns had shown that even the strongest businesses were susceptible to profit pressures and prone to pulling back. “Firms get pessimistic like everyone else,” he said.The first test for the biggest companies in tech will be contagion from their peers. Amazon’s shares in the electric vehicle maker Rivian Automotive have plunged more than 65 percent, a $7.6 billion paper loss. Apple’s services sales are likely to be crimped by a slowdown in advertising by app developers, which rely on venture-capital funding to finance their marketing, analysts say. And start-ups are scrutinizing their spending on cloud services, which will likely slow growth for Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud, analysts and cloud executives said.“People are trying to figure out how to spend smartly,” said Sam Ramji, the chief strategy officer at DataStax, a data management company.Regulatory challenges on the horizon could darken the big tech companies’ prospects, as well. Europe’s Digital Markets Act, which is expected to become law soon, is designed to increase the openness of tech platforms. Among other things, it could scuttle the estimated $19 billion that Apple collects from Alphabet to make Google the default search engine on iPhones, a change that Bernstein estimates could erase as much as 3 percent of Apple’s pretax profit.But the companies are expected to challenge the law in court, potentially tying up the legislation for years. The probability it gets bogged down leaves analysts sticking to their consensus: “Big Tech is going to be more powerful. And what’s being done about it? Nothing,” Mr. Kramer of Arete Research said.Jason Karaian contributed reporting. More