Economy

The fund, which will be used to compensate states for losses in revenue in the tax reform, had a value set at 40 billion reais in the bill approved by the lower house. Haddad told reporters that the government will propose increasing it “by a little” without giving a figure. The reform is set to restructure the country’s complex consumption taxes and boost the potential growth of the economy. Earlier on Monday, Senator Eduardo Braga, who is in charge of the bill, said that the amount was still being negotiated, as state governors had their own counter-proposal.”If there is no agreement by tomorrow night, we will present the text with the proposal that has already been agreed with the government,” he said. “It will go up, it will, that’s one of the important changes,” he added. More

This data points towards a declining affordability and a shift in real estate market sentiment, particularly among first-time homebuyers, of whom 86.3% expressed concern. These findings come ahead of an expected rate decision from the Bank of Canada.The central bank’s economists anticipate that the policy rate will remain at five per cent, unchanged since the previous decision and a significant increase from 0.25% since March 2022. The survey respondents showed mixed reactions to the bank’s previous rate pause: 23.3% felt it positively impacted the real estate market, while 16.1% disagreed strongly and 38.8% remained neutral.Moreover, the survey also revealed strong disagreement with the Canadian government’s housing policy among 38.9% of respondents. This sentiment is particularly prevalent due to anticipated inventory challenges arising from the government’s plan to welcome approximately half a million newcomers annually in 2024 and 2025.This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C. More

The firm had previously anticipated potential rate hikes towards the end of 2021 or at the beginning of 2022. These predictions were in line with market expectations of an 18 basis point increase by March 2022.In other developments, Goldman Sachs recently opted to exit its short position on EUR/CAD due to the Canadian dollar’s risk sensitivity and ongoing global geopolitical concerns.Despite these moves, Goldman Sachs maintains a positive outlook on the future strength of the Canadian dollar. This optimism is bolstered by rising oil prices and steady economic performance from the United States, factors which they believe will contribute to the Canadian currency gaining strength against other currencies in the future.This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C. More

The topsy-turvy economic environment of the coronavirus pandemic sidelined those differences, turning U.S. Federal Reserve officials at first universally dovish as they sought to provide massive accommodation to a cratering economy, and then, when inflation surged, into hawks who uniformly backed aggressive rate hikes. Now, as Fed policymakers note improvement on inflation and some cooling in the labor market but also stronger-than-expected economic growth, divisions are more evident, with more varied choices: to raise rates again, skip for now but stay poised for more later, or take an extended pause. All 12 regional Fed presidents discuss and debate monetary policy at Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings, held eight times a year, but only five cast votes at any given meeting, including the New York Fed president and four others who vote for one year at a time on a rotating schedule. The following chart offers a stab at how officials currently stack up on their outlook for Fed policy and how to balance their goals of stable prices and full employment. The designations are based on comments and published remarks; for more on the thinking that shaped these hawk-dove designations, click on the photos in the graphic. Dove Dovish Centrist Hawkish Hawk Lisa Cook, John Michelle Governor, Williams, Jerome Bowman, permanent New York Powell, Fed Governor, voter: “If Fed Chair, permanent confirmed, I President, permanent voter: “The will stay permanent voter: policy rate focused on voter: Additional may need to inflation “Right now evidence of rise further until our job we need to persistently and stay is done.” June keep this above-trend restrictive 21, 2023 restrictiv growth, or for some time e stance that to return of policy tightness in inflation to in place the labor the FOMC’s for some market is no goal.” Oct. time.” longer 11, 2023 Oct. 18, easing, could 2023 put further progress on inflation at risk and could warrant further tightening of monetary policy.” Oct. 19, 2023 Philip Patrick Jefferson, Christopher Loretta Harker, Vice Waller, Mester, Philadelphia Chair: “We Governor, Cleveland Fed Fed President, are in a permanent President, 2023 voter: “I sensitive voter: “We 2024 voter: think this is period of can wait, “We are likely a time where risk watch and see near or at a we just sit management how the holding point for a little , where we economy on the funds bit. It may be have to evolves rate.” Oct. for an balance before making 20, 2023 extended the risk definitive period; it may of not moves on the not. But let’s having path of the see how things tightened policy rate.” evolve over enough, Oct. 18, 2023 the next few against months.” Oct. the risk 18, 2023 of policy being too restrictiv e.” Oct. 9, 2023 Michael Neel Raphael Barr, Vice Kashkari, Bostic, Chair of Minneapolis Atlanta Fed Supervisio Fed President, n, President, 2024 voter: “I permanent 2023 voter: would say late voter: “In “Today I put 2024” is on my view, a 40% the table for the most probability” an important on the interest-rate question scenario that cut. Oct. 20, at this “we would 2023 point is have to push not the federal whether an funds rate additional higher, rate potentially increase meaningfully is needed higher.” this year Sept. 26, or not, 2023 but rather how long we will need to hold rates at a sufficient ly restrictiv e level to achieve our goals.” Oct. 2, 2023 Austan Goolsbee, Lorie Logan, Chicago Dallas Fed Fed President, President, 2023 voter: 2023 “My focus is voter: on price “It’s stability and undeniable what further this (fall tightening in U.S. may be needed inflation) to achieve is a our mandate.” trend. It Oct. 19, 2023 wasn’t a one-month blip… we have to hope and keep an eye out to make sure that continues. ” Oct. 16, 2023 Mary Daly, San Thomas Francisco Barkin, Fed Richmond Fed President, President, 2024 2024 voter: voter: “I “I am still would say looking to be now the convinced, risks of both that how we demand is balance settling and those that any things are weakness is roughly feeding balanced through to — inflation.” over-tight Oct. 17, 2023 ening versus under-tigh tening — but we still have high inflation and the labor market’s still strong.” Oct. 10, 2023 Susan Collins, Boston Fed President, 2025 voter: “The resilience we’re seeing in the economy is part of the reason why, from my view, the rates likely need to stay high for longer.” Oct. 12, 2023 Note: Fed policymakers began raising interest rates in March 2022 to bring down high inflation. Their most recent policy rate hike, to a range of 5.25%-5.5%, was in July. Most policymakers as of September expected one more rate hike by year’s end. Neither Jeff Schmid, Kansas City Fed’s president since August and a voter in 2025, nor Adriana Kugler, a permanent voter who was confirmed to the Fed Board in September, have yet made any substantive policy remarks. The St. Louis Fed has begun a search to succeed its president, James Bullard, who took a job in academia; the new chief will be a 2025 voter. More

The United Automobile Workers union called on 6,800 workers to walk off the job at a large factory that makes one of Stellantis’s most profitable vehicles.In a major escalation of its six-week strike at the three large U.S. automakers, the United Automobile Workers union on Monday told 6,800 workers at a large Ram pickup truck plant in Michigan to walk off the job.Union workers at the Sterling Heights plant, which is owned by Stellantis, the parent of Ram, Chrysler and Jeep, joined the strike on Monday morning. Shutting down production at the plant, the largest Stellantis factory in the United States, suggests there are still big gaps in contract negotiations between the automakers and the U.A.W., which is seeking raises of 40 percent over four years, better retirement benefits and other changes.The union’s strategy in this strike is a departure from its past practice of striking all locations of one automaker before beginning negotiations with the next automaker. This time, the union started with a strike at one plant at each of the three carmakers — Ford Motor, General Motors and Stellantis — and has expanded them to other factories and warehouses to increase the pressure on companies that it said were not doing enough to improve their offers.The new approach has kept the automakers off balance because they don’t know when or where the union will walk out next. It is also a way for the union to play the companies off one another. The union’s president, Shawn Fain, has offered side-by-side comparisons of the three companies’ offers on wages, retirement benefits and other negotiating terms in online videos.On Friday, General Motors put forward a more lucrative contract proposal. By calling for the strike at the Sterling Heights plant, the U.A.W. is trying to pressure Stellantis into at least matching the terms that G.M. offered.“Stellantis has the worst proposal on the table regarding wage progression, temporary worker pay and conversion to full-time, cost-of-living adjustments, and more,” the U.A.W. said in a statement on Monday.In its offer, G.M. proposed raising workers’ wages by 23 percent over four years. That would lift the wage for all full-time workers from $32 an hour to more than $40, giving them a base pay of about $84,000 a year, not including overtime or profit-sharing bonuses.The walkout at the Ram plant is the first escalation in the strike since the U.A.W. called 8,700 workers to leave their jobs at Ford’s largest plant, in Louisville, Ky., on Oct. 11. That plant produces the Super Duty version of the popular F-series pickup trucks and the Ford Expedition, a full-size sport utility vehicle.In a statement, Stellantis said the company was “outraged” by the expansion of the strike, noting that it made a comprehensive new proposal to the union on Thursday morning and was waiting for a counterproposal from the U.A.W.“Our very strong offer would address member demands and provide immediate financial gains for our employees,” the company said. “Instead, the U.A.W. has decided to cause further harm to the entire automotive industry as well as our local, state and national economies.”U.A.W. members were already on strike at one other Stellantis plant, a factory in Toledo, Ohio, that makes the Jeep Wrangler and the Jeep Gladiator. The union has also struck 20 Stellantis spare-parts distribution warehouses around the country.Where Autoworkers Are Walking Out More

Stay informed with free updatesSimply sign up to the More

Stay informed with free updatesSimply sign up to the More

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.The writer was governor of the Reserve Bank of India and is now a senior fellow at the Yale Jackson School of Global AffairsIndia’s G20 summit last month turned out to be a celebration of the country’s growing heft in the global arena. But now that the euphoria has ebbed, it’s time to ask some hard questions.Do we need the G20? Yes, certainly. In a world with a shared ecosystem and a shared economy, we face problems that don’t respect political boundaries — climate and virus infections, for example. These cannot be solved without global co-operation. We desperately need a forum to foster such co-operation.However, the way the G20 has evolved — into an overload of meetings, conferences, events, exhibitions and exchanges — is less helpful. Some argue that the group should remain focused on its core competence of global economy and finance. It’s worth noting that the alliance originated in the aftermath of the 1999 Asian financial crisis, with the aim of bringing together developed and developing countries to monitor global economic and financial stability. That annual meeting of finance officials was upgraded when then US president George W Bush called a meeting of the G20 heads of government in November 2008 to craft a collective solution to the global financial crisis. Without this rescue effort, the global financial system would probably have gone into free fall.More recently, however, the G20 has not been able to repeat these early successes. There has been no shortage of pressing problems — climate, global health and debt restructuring, for example. But the G20 has turned out to be more of a talking shop than a problem solver. The broad refrain is that the group is effective only if there is a raging fire: when faced with slow-burning problems, narrow national interests trump globally optimal solutions. And all that follows is anodyne communiqués.The world cannot afford such cynicism. While nothing concentrates the mind like a crisis, emerging problems can gather momentum if they are not addressed. For the sake of our collective future, the G20 must repurpose itself. I want to suggest three ideas for a way forward.The first priority is for the G20 to return to being lean and mean by shunning all the baggage it has acquired over the years. The group has always taken pride in the fact that unlike other international bodies such as the UN, the World Bank, IMF and the WTO, it is not burdened by a charter, rules of procedure or formalised bureaucracies. These are strengths of course, but they should not be allowed to turn into liabilities with every country refashioning the G20 each year according to its whims. The group should pursue a core agenda of three or four global issues each year. It is unrealistic to expect dramatic results, but if the needle moves even a little each year, we will make more progress than we would while pursuing an amorphous agenda from summit to summit.The second step is to abandon the practice of issuing a communiqué. This has turned out to be a needlessly contentious and unproductive exercise. The agenda of the New Delhi summit was almost entirely overshadowed by finding appropriate wording to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In the event, the compromise wording in the final joint declaration that touched on the war without specifically mentioning Russia pleased no one and made little difference to the real world. Even in the absence of divisive issues such as Ukraine, G20 communiqués have often read like manifestos for global governance, full of pious declarations and self-righteous intentions. With no concrete plan of action and measurable goals, no one is held accountable for results. And with a rotating presidency, the drama moves from one country to anotherThe lesson is clear. Replace the communiqué with minutes of the meeting that will faithfully record differences of opinion and indicate the plan of action until the next summit.The third imperative on my list is to keep politics out of the G20. Of course it’s difficult to separate politics from economics when geopolitical tensions are running high. But we saw the cost of politics creeping into the forum when both Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping stayed away from the New Delhi summit. The group will be more effective if all the leaders attend and express their differences than if some opt out because of political disagreements. After all, there is the UN for politics. What value can the G20 add on this front?In a world divided by nation states, the G20 has to be the voice of consensus on the economy and related global problems. We cannot afford for it to fail. More