Biden, Joseph R Jr

More stories

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Sarah Bloom Raskin Faces a Contentious Senate Hearing

    by

    Sarah Bloom Raskin is a longtime Washington policy player with progressive credentials and a track record of speaking out against the fossil fuel industry, qualities that helped her to win the White House’s nomination to be America’s top bank cop.But those same views could leave her with a narrow path to confirmation as the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision — especially if Senator Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico Democrat who is recovering from a stroke, is not present for her vote before the full Senate. (A senior aide to Mr. Luján said he was expected to make a full recovery, and would return in four to six weeks, barring complications.)And Ms. Raskin’s views are almost certain to ignite sparks at her hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday.Ms. Raskin has been nominated alongside Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson, both economists up for seats on the Fed’s Board of Governors. Ms. Raskin, Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson will field questions from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs at 8:45 a.m. on Thursday.Ms. Raskin, a former Fed governor and high-ranking Treasury official who was most recently a professor at Duke Law School, is seen as a known entity by the banking industry that she would oversee. But business groups have been critical of her attention to climate issues — including an opinion piece she wrote in 2020 criticizing the Fed’s decision to design one of its emergency loan programs in a way that allowed fossil fuel companies to access emergency loans.“I’m deeply concerned that Sarah Bloom Raskin has — let’s be honest, she has explicitly, publicly advocated that the Fed use its powers to allocate capital,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said in an interview on Tuesday. “I think that’s disqualifying, and I think that is going to be a topic of discussion.”Such full-throated opposition from Republicans may mean more than just a heated hearing — Ms. Raskin may need to maintain the support of every Democrat in the Senate to stay on the narrow path to confirmation. If Democrats were to lose their fragile grasp on the Senate majority because Mr. Luján has not returned yet, it is not clear that she would garner the votes she would need to pass.Fed nominees need a simple majority to clear the Senate Banking Committee and then to win confirmation from the Senate as a whole, meaning that it is possible that Ms. Raskin could skate through if all 50 senators who caucus with Democrats vote in her favor, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie.Vice chair for supervision is arguably the most important job in American financial regulation, and given those high stakes, Ms. Raskin’s chances are being closely watched.“I’m not expecting her to get many, if any, Republican votes,” said Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners, explaining that he thinks she will ultimately secure enough Democratic support to pass, assuming all the Senators, including Mr. Luján, vote. “You hear different things from the industry: You hear some concerns that she is too progressive, but you also hear that she’s well within the mainstream.”Oil and gas businesses are mounting a campaign against more decisive climate monitoring by the Fed, worried that the central bank will subject banks to stringent oversight that dissuades them from lending money to the industry. This could bring skeptical questioning for all three nominees.“I am concerned about all of the Fed nominees and their apparent willingness, despite what some of them said, to include bank and financial regulations designed to prohibit legal industries from operating in the United States borrowing money,” Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, a Republican who sits on the committee, said on Wednesday.Mr. Toomey said during an interview on Wednesday that he also had some reservations about Dr. Cook.Lisa D. Cook, a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics, will also face questions from the committee on Thursday.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesMuch of the opposition coming from Republicans and lobbyists alike is aimed at Ms. Raskin, though. She argued in a Project Syndicate column recently that “all U.S. regulators can — and should — be looking at their existing powers and considering how they might be brought to bear on efforts to mitigate climate risk.”But Ms. Raskin struck a gentler tone in her prepared testimony for the hearing, released Wednesday night, noting that the role does not involve excluding certain sectors and asserting that bank supervisors must ensure that “the safety of banks and the resilience of our financial system are never compromised in favor of short-term political agendas or special interest groups.”It is unclear at this point whether those assurances will be enough for her critics.The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to the Senate committee last week, urged lawmakers to ask Ms. Raskin about her position on whether the Fed’s regulatory approach should try to curb credit access for oil and gas companies. The business group asked whether Ms. Raskin would be independent of politics. After Democratic members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation board clashed with and ultimately precipitated the resignation of the Trump appointee Jelena McWilliams, who was the regulator’s chairwoman, some Republicans have raised concerns that something similar could happen at the Fed. In December, partisan politics helped to scupper the nomination of Saule Omarova, who withdrew herself from consideration to be comptroller of the currency after attacks from Republicans and banking lobbyists, and as she struggled to draw wide enough support from Democrats.By contrast, the banking industry has taken a more benign view of Ms. Raskin. The Financial Services Forum, which represents the chief executive officers of the largest banks, congratulated Ms. Raskin and the other White House Fed picks in a statement after their nominations were announced, as did the American Bankers Association.Ms. Raskin is seen as a qualified candidate who understands the roles various regulators play in overseeing banks, according to one banking industry executive who asked not to be identified discussing regulatory matters. Even though bankers expect Ms. Raskin to be confirmed, they are awaiting more clarity around her stance on climate finance and disclosures, the executive said.As she is received as a mainstream pick, centrist Democrats have sounded content with Ms. Raskin.“I’ve been very impressed with her,” Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, said on Tuesday, adding that he had not met her yet but that he was “favorably inclined” and noting that banks have expressed comfort with her.Senator Joe Manchin III from West Virginia, a key centrist Democrat, said on Wednesday that he hadn’t yet studied the nominees, adding that he’s “going to get into that” because he’s “very concerned” about issues including inflation.A Harvard-trained lawyer, Ms. Raskin is a former deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, where she focused on financial system cybersecurity, among other issues. She also spent several years as Maryland’s commissioner of financial regulation. Ms. Raskin is married to Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat.If confirmed, she would be only the second person formally appointed as the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, succeeding Randal K. Quarles, a Trump administration pick who typically favored lighter and more precise regulation. Ms. Raskin, by contrast, has a track record of calling for stricter regulation. Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson might both might be quizzed about their views on policy and professional backgrounds. The Fed has seven governors — including its chair, vice chair and vice chair for supervision — who vote on monetary policy alongside five of its 12 regional bank presidents. Governors hold a constant vote on regulation.Philip N. Jefferson, an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed, is also a nominee for the Fed’s board.John Crawford/Davidson CollegeDr. Cook, who would be the first Black woman ever to sit on the Fed’s board, is a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics. She earned a doctorate in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and was an economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.“High inflation is a grave threat to a long, sustained expansion, which we know raises the standard of living for all Americans and leads to broad-based, shared prosperity,” Dr. Cook said, after emphasizing her decades of experience, calling tackling America’s current burst in prices the Fed’s “most important task.”Dr. Jefferson, who is also Black, is an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed. He has written about the economics of poverty, and his research has delved into whether monetary policy that stokes investment with low interest rates helps or hurts less-educated workers.He seconded that the Fed must “ensure that inflation declines to levels consistent with its goals,” speaking in his prepared testimony.Dr. Cook, Dr. Jefferson, and Ms. Raskin are up for confirmation alongside Jerome H. Powell — who had previously been renominated as Fed chair — and Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who is the Biden administration’s pick for vice chair. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the committee chairman, said all five candidates will face a key committee vote on Feb. 15, and that Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, “knows to move quickly” for a full floor vote.If all pass, the Fed’s leadership will be the most diverse in both race and gender that it has ever been — fulfilling a pledge of Mr. Biden’s to make the long heavily male and white central bank more representative of the public that it is intended to serve. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Why Are Oil Prices So High and Will They Stay That Way?

    by

    HOUSTON — Oil prices are increasing, again, casting a shadow over the economy, driving up inflation and eroding consumer confidence.Crude prices rose more than 15 percent in January alone, with the global benchmark price crossing $90 a barrel for the first time in more than seven years, as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine grew.Though the summer driving season is still months away, the average price for regular gasoline is fast approaching $3.40 a gallon, roughly a dollar higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The Biden administration said in November that it would release 50 million barrels of oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to relieve the pressure on consumers, but the move hasn’t made much of a difference.Many energy analysts predict that oil could soon touch $100 a barrel, even as electric cars become more popular and the coronavirus pandemic persists. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies that only a year ago were considered endangered dinosaurs by some Wall Street analysts are thriving, raking in their biggest profits in years.Why are oil prices suddenly so high?The pandemic depressed energy prices in 2020, even sending the U.S. benchmark oil price below zero for the first time ever. But prices have snapped back faster and more than many analysts had expected in large part because supply has not kept up with demand.Oil prices are at their highest point since 2014.Price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. standard

    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWestern oil companies, partly under pressure from investors and environmental activists, are drilling fewer wells than they did before the pandemic to restrain the increase in supply. Industry executives say they are trying not to make the same mistake they made in the past when they pumped too much oil when prices were high, leading to a collapse in prices.Elsewhere, in countries like Ecuador, Kazakhstan and Libya, natural disasters and political turbulence have curbed output in recent months.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.“Unplanned outages have flipped what was thought to be a pivot towards surplus into a deep production gap,” said Louise Dickson, an oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm.On the demand side, much of the world is learning to cope with the pandemic and people are eager to shop and make other trips. Wary of coming in contact with an infectious virus, many are choosing to drive rather than taking public transportation.But the most immediate and critical factor is geopolitical.A potential Russian invasion of Ukraine has “the oil market on edge,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “In a tight market, any significant disruptions could send prices well above $100 per barrel,” Mr. Cahill wrote in a report this week.Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, or roughly one of every 10 barrels used around the world on any given day. Americans would not be directly hurt in a significant way if Russian exports stopped, because the country sends only about 700,000 barrels a day to the United States. That relatively modest amount could easily be replaced with oil from Canada and other countries.A Russian invasion of Ukraine could interrupt oil and gas shipments, which would increase prices further.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesBut any interruption of Russian shipments that transit through Ukraine, or the sabotage of other pipelines in northern Europe, would cripple much of the continent and distort the global energy supply chain. That’s because, traders say, the rest of the world does not have the spare capacity to replace Russian oil.Even if Russian oil shipments are not interrupted, the United States and its allies could impose sanctions or export controls on Russian companies, limiting their access to equipment, which could gradually reduce production in that country.In addition, interruptions of Russian natural gas exports to Europe could force some utilities to produce more electricity by burning oil rather than gas. That would raise demand and prices worldwide.What can the United States and its allies do if Russian production is disrupted?The United States, Japan, European countries and even China could release more crude from their strategic reserves. Such moves could help, especially if a crisis is short-lived. But the reserves would not be nearly enough if Russian oil supplies were interrupted for months or years.Western oil companies that have pledged not to produce too much oil would most likely change their approach if Russia was unable or unwilling to supply as much oil as it did. They would have big financial incentives — from a surging oil price — to drill more wells. That said, it would take those businesses months to ramp up production.What is OPEC doing?President Biden has been urging the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to pump more oil, but several members have been falling short of their monthly production quotas, and some may not have the capacity to quickly increase output. OPEC members and their allies, Russia among them, are meeting on Wednesday, and will probably agree to continue gradually increasing production.In addition, if Russian supplies are suddenly reduced, Washington will most likely put pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise production independently of the cartel. Analysts think that the kingdom has several million barrels of spare capacity that it could tap in a crisis.What impact would higher oil prices have on the U.S. economy?A big jump in oil prices would push gasoline prices even higher, and that would hurt consumers. Working-class and rural Americans would be hurt the most because they tend to drive more. They also drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. And energy costs tend to represent a larger percentage of their incomes, so price increases hit them harder than more affluent people or city dwellers who have access to trains and buses.Rising oil and gas prices would pinch consumers, especially the less affluent and rural residents.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockBut the direct economic impact on the nation would be more modest than in previous decades because the United States produces more and imports less oil since drilling in shale fields exploded around 2010 because of hydraulic fracturing. The United States is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and the economies of several states, particularly Texas and Louisiana, could benefit from higher prices.What would it take for oil prices to fall?Oil prices go up and down in cycles, and there are several reasons prices could fall in the next few months. The pandemic is far from over, and China has shut down several cities to stop the spread of the virus, slowing its economy and demand for energy. Russia and the West could reach an agreement — formal or tacit — that forestalls a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.And the United States and its allies could restore a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran that former President Donald J. Trump abandoned. Such a deal would allow Iran to sell oil much more easily than now. Analysts think the country could export a million or more barrels daily if the nuclear deal is revived.Ultimately, high prices could depress demand for oil enough that prices begin to come down. One of the main financial incentives for buying electric cars, for example, is that electricity tends to be cheaper per mile than gasoline. Sales of electric cars are growing fast in Europe and China and increasingly also in the United States. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. National Debt Tops $30 Trillion as Borrowing Surged

    by

    The record red ink, fueled by spending to combat the coronavirus, comes as interest rates are expected to rise, which could add to America’s costs.WASHINGTON — America’s gross national debt topped $30 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, an ominous fiscal milestone that underscores the fragile nature of the country’s long-term economic health as it grapples with soaring prices and the prospect of higher interest rates.The breach of that threshold, which was revealed in new Treasury Department figures, arrived years earlier than previously projected as a result of trillions in federal spending that the United States has deployed to combat the pandemic. That $5 trillion, which funded expanded jobless benefits, financial support for small businesses and stimulus payments, was financed with borrowed money.The borrowing binge, which many economists viewed as necessary to help the United States recover from the pandemic, has left the nation with a debt burden so large that the government would need to spend an amount larger than America’s entire annual economy in order to pay it off.Some economists contend that the nation’s large debt load is not unhealthy given that the economy is growing, interest rates are low and investors are still willing to buy U.S. Treasury securities, which gives them safe assets to help manage their financial risk. Those securities allow the government to borrow money relatively cheaply and use it to invest in the economy.For years, presidents have promised to limit federal borrowing and bring down the nation’s budget deficit, which is the gap between what the nation spends and what it takes in. Under President Bill Clinton, the United States actually ran a budget surplus between 1998 and 2001.But taming deficits had fallen out of fashion in recent years, including during the Trump administration, when lawmakers blew through budget caps and borrowed money to fund tax cuts and other federal spending.Now, deficit concerns have resurfaced, helping to stall negotiations over President Biden’s $2 trillion safety net and climate spending proposal. Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a Democrat whose vote is key to passing Mr. Biden’s package, cited “staggering debt” as a reason he could not support the legislation.Senator Joe Manchin on Capitol Hill last month.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesThe lingering pandemic has slowed the momentum of the economic recovery, fueling inflation rates unseen since the early 1980s and raising the prospect of higher interest rates, which could add to America’s fiscal burden.“Hitting the $30 trillion mark is clearly an important milestone in our dangerous fiscal trajectory,” said Michael A. Peterson, the chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes deficit reduction. “For many years before Covid, America had an unsustainable structural fiscal path because the programs we’ve designed are not sufficiently funded by the revenue we take in.”Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.The gross national debt represents debt held by the public, such as individuals, businesses and pension funds, as well as liabilities that one part of the federal government owes to another part.Renewed concerns about debt and deficits in Washington follow years of disregard for the consequences of big spending. During the Trump administration, most Republicans ceased to be fiscal hawks and voted along party lines in 2017 to pass a $1.5 trillion tax cut along with increased federal spending.While Republican lawmakers helped run up the nation’s debt load, they have since blamed Mr. Biden for putting the nation on a rocky fiscal path by funding his agenda. After a protracted standoff in which Republicans refused to raise America’s borrowing cap, threatening a first-ever federal default, Congress finally agreed in December to raise the nation’s debt limit to about $31.4 trillion.In January 2020, before the pandemic spread across the United States, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the gross national debt would reach $30 trillion by around the end of 2025. The total debt held by the public outpaced the size of the American economy last year, a decade faster than forecasters projected.The nonpartisan office warned last year that rising interest costs and growing health spending as the population ages would increase the risk of a “fiscal crisis” and higher inflation, a situation that could undermine confidence in the U.S. dollar.The Biden administration has said the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package the Democrats passed last year was a necessary measure to protect the economy from further damage. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has argued that such large federal investments are affordable because interest costs as a share of gross domestic product are at historically low levels thanks to persistently low interest rates.But that backdrop could start to change as the Federal Reserve prepares to raise interest rates, which have been set near-zero since the start of the pandemic, to curb inflation.The Fed indicated last week that it was on track to begin increasing rates at its next meeting in March. Investors are predicting the central bank could usher in five rate increases this year, bringing rates to a range of 1 to 1.25 percent.Trillions in federal spending has left the United States approaching levels of red ink not seen since World War II.Sarah Silbiger/ReutersThe Fed has also been keeping long-term interest rates low by buying government-backed debt and holding those securities on its balance sheet. Those purchases are set to wrap up next month, and last week, the Fed signaled it planned to “significantly” shrink its bond holdings.Esther L. George, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, suggested during a speech this week that the Fed’s big bond holdings might be lowering longer-term interest rates by as much as 1.5 percentage points — nearly cutting the interest rate on 10-year government debt in half. While shrinking the balance sheet risks roiling markets, she warned that if the Fed remained a big presence in the Treasury market, it could distort financial conditions and imperil the central bank’s prized independence from elected government.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Could Take a Wide Toll

    by

    The boldest measures that President Biden is threatening to deter an invasion of Ukraine could roil the entire Russian economy — but also those of other nations.WASHINGTON — The most punishing sanctions that U.S. officials have threatened to impose on Russia could cause severe inflation, a stock market crash and other forms of financial panic that would inflict pain on its people — from billionaires to government officials to middle-class families.U.S. officials vow to unleash searing economic measures if Russia invades Ukraine, including sanctions on its largest banks and financial institutions, in ways that would inevitably affect daily life in Russia.But the strategy comes with political and economic risks. No nation has ever tried to enact broad sanctions against such large financial institutions and on an economy the size of Russia’s. And the “swift and severe” response that U.S. officials have promised could roil major economies, particularly those in Europe, and even threaten the stability of the global financial system, analysts say.Some analysts also warn of a potential escalatory spiral. Russia might retaliate against an economic gut punch by cutting off natural gas shipments to Europe or by mounting cyberattacks against American and European infrastructure.The pain caused by the sanctions could foment popular anger against Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin. But history shows that the country does not capitulate easily, and resilience is an important part of its national identity. U.S. officials are also sensitive to the notion that they could be viewed as punishing the Russian people — a perception that might fuel anti-Americanism and Mr. Putin’s narrative that his country is being persecuted by the West.From Cuba to North Korea to Iran, U.S. sanctions have a mixed record at best of forcing a change in behavior. And while the Biden administration and its European allies are trying to deter Mr. Putin with tough talk, some experts question whether they would follow through on the most drastic economic measures if Russian troops breached the border and moved toward Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.President Biden has said he will not send American troops to defend Ukraine. Instead, U.S. officials are trying to devise a sanctions response that would land a damaging blow against Russia while limiting the economic shock waves around the world — including in the United States. Officials say that for now, the Biden administration does not plan to target Russia’s enormous oil and gas export industry; doing so could drive up gasoline prices for Americans already grappling with inflation and create a schism with European allies.But many experts on sanctions believe that the boldest sanctions against Russia’s financial industry, if enacted, could take a meaningful toll.“If the Biden administration follows through on its threat to sanction major Russian banks, that will reverberate across the entire Russian economy,” said Edward Fishman, who served as the top official for Russia and Europe in the State Department’s Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation during the Obama administration. “It will definitely affect everyday Russians.”Mr. Fishman added: “How are you going to change Putin’s calculus? By creating domestic disturbances. People will be unhappy: ‘Look what you did — all of a sudden my bank account is a fraction of what it was? Thanks, Putin.’”Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.Sanctions imposed after Mr. Putin annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and gave military support to an insurgency in the country’s east created a modest drag on Russia’s economy. Those penalties and later ones took a surgical approach, heavily targeting Mr. Putin’s circle of elites as well as officials and institutions involved in aggression against Ukraine, in part to avoid making ordinary Russians suffer.U.S. officials say the impact of sanctions now would be categorically different.Washington is looking to take a sledgehammer to pillars of Russia’s financial system. The new sanctions that American officials are preparing would cut off foreign lending, sales of sovereign bonds, technologies for critical industries and the assets of elite citizens close to Mr. Putin.Previous sanctions heavily targeted Mr. Putin’s circle of elites as well as officials and institutions involved in aggression against Ukraine, in part to avoid making ordinary Russians suffer.Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated PressBut the real damage to Russia’s $1.5 trillion economy would come from hitting the biggest state banks as well as the government’s Russian Direct Investment Fund, which has prominent Western executives on its advisory board. The Treasury Department would draw from its experience targeting Iranian banks under President Donald J. Trump, though Iran’s banks are much smaller and less integrated into the global economy than Russian banks.Once the department puts the Russian banks on what officials call its “game over” sanctions list, known as the S.D.N. list, foreign entities around the world would stop doing business with the banks, which would have a big effect on Russian companies.The United States would also enact sanctions to cut lending to Russia by foreign creditors by potentially $100 billion or more, according to Anders Aslund, an economist and an author of an Atlantic Council report on U.S. sanctions on Russia. Though Russia has taken steps since 2014 to rely less on foreign debt for expenses, such a loss could still devalue the ruble, shake the stock market and freeze bond trading, Mr. Aslund added.His report estimated that the 2014 sanctions reduced Russia’s annual economic growth by up to 3 percent, and new sanctions could bite much harder.For an average Russian, the harshest U.S. measures could mean higher prices for food and clothing, or, more dramatically, they could cause pensions and savings accounts to be severely devalued by a crash in the ruble or Russian markets.“It would be a disaster, a nightmare for the domestic financial market,” said Sergey Aleksashenko, a former first deputy chairman of the Central Bank of Russia and former chairman of Merrill Lynch Russia. He noted that the ruble had already fallen more than 10 percent from its October value against the dollar, amid increasing talk of Western sanctions.In a sign of the growing seriousness, officials from the National Security Council have been talking with executives from some of Wall Street’s largest banks, including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, about the stability of the global financial system in the wake of potential sanctions.The European Central Bank has also warned bank lenders to Russia about risks if the United States imposes sanctions and has asked about the sizes of their loans.For now, though, American officials are not considering any immediate sanctions on the foundation of Russia’s economy: its oil and gas exports.​​European nations rely on natural gas from Russia, and several U.S. allies, notably Germany, prefer that Washington refrain from disrupting the Russian energy industry. Analysts say sanctions that limit Russia’s ability to export oil and gas would be by far the most powerful weapon against the Russian economy, and perhaps the most effective economic deterrent against an invasion of Ukraine, but they would also cause pain in Europe and the United States.“At some point, the West will have to sacrifice a little bit of its well-being if the goal is to deter Putin,” said Maria Snegovaya, a visiting scholar at George Washington University and an author of the Atlantic Council report.“U.S. inflation further constrains the administration’s actions,” she added. “Inflation is already unprecedented for the last 30 years. Any action against Russia that is dramatic will lead to changes in oil and gas prices.”Understand the Escalating Tensions Over UkraineCard 1 of 5A brewing conflict. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden's Economy Is Surging but Voters Still See Gloom

    by

    President Biden is suffering in the polls as high inflation saps confidence in the economy, even as growth comes in strong.President Biden is contending with an uncomfortable disconnect: The economy grew at the fastest pace since 1984 last year, but voters are downright pessimistic about economic conditions and their own financial prospects.The divide traces back to the lingering pandemic and high prices, economists said. Inflation is running at its fastest pace since 1982, eroding gains and eating away at paychecks as even robust wage increases struggle to keep pace. And despite vaccines, life has yet to return to normal in the way many people once expected.The disparity poses a significant challenge for Mr. Biden and his party ahead of the November midterm elections. Faltering consumer confidence in the economy — and in Mr. Biden’s handling of it — could be a liability as Democrats battle to keep control of both the House and Senate.Mr. Biden and his top advisers are trying to turn attention toward the positives: emphasizing how rapidly the economy has recovered and that wages are rising, and hailing efforts to fix snarled supply chains and rebuild domestic manufacturing.“We are finally building an American economy for the 21st century, with the fastest economic growth in nearly four decades, along with the greatest year of job growth in American history,” Mr. Biden said in a statement after the release of gross domestic product data on Thursday.But inflation has complicated that narrative.The new G.D.P. figures show that the economy has more than fully recovered from its pandemic hit, but a big chunk of that progress evaporates when you factor in recent price gains. In fact, growth is still falling short of its prepandemic trend after it’s adjusted for inflation. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Democrats Renew Push for Industrial Policy Bill Aimed at China

    by

    A major competitiveness bill passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support, only to stall. Democrats hope to revive it in the House, but first they will have to bridge big differences.WASHINGTON — Biden administration officials and Democrats in Congress are pushing to revive stalled legislation that would pour billions of dollars into scientific research and development and shore up domestic manufacturing, amid deep differences on Capitol Hill about the best way to counter China and confront persistent supply chain woes.House Democrats unveiled a 2,900-page bill on Tuesday evening that would authorize $45 billion in grants and loans to support supply chain resilience and American manufacturing, along with providing billions of dollars in new funding for scientific research. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that she hoped lawmakers would quickly begin negotiations with the Senate, which passed its own version of the bill last June, to settle on compromise legislation that could be sent to President Biden for his signature.But the effort faces obstacles in Congress, where attempts to sink significant federal resources into scientific research and development to bolster competitiveness with China and combat a shortage of semiconductors have faltered. The Senate-passed measure fizzled last year amid ideological disputes with the House and a focus on efforts to pass Mr. Biden’s infrastructure and social policy bills. For months, the competitiveness measure was rarely even mentioned, except perhaps by Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, who has personally championed it.But facing a disruptive semiconductor shortage that has broken down supply chains and helped fuel inflation, Democrats are now vigorously pressing ahead on the bill. With Mr. Biden’s domestic agenda sputtering, the party is eager for a legislative victory, and top administration officials and lawmakers have said they hope to send a compromise bill to the president’s desk in a matter of months.“We have no time to waste in improving American competitiveness, strengthening our lead in global innovation and addressing supply chain challenges, including in the semiconductor industry,” Mr. Schumer said.Both the House bill and the one that passed the Senate last year would send a lifeline to the semiconductor industry during a global chip shortage that has shut auto plants and rippled through the economy. The bills would offer chip companies $52 billion in grants and subsidies with few restrictions.The measures would also pour billions more into scientific research and development pipelines in the United States, create grants and foster agreements between companies and research universities to encourage breakthroughs in new technologies, and establish new manufacturing jobs and apprenticeships.“The proposals laid out by the House and Senate represent the sort of transformational investments in our industrial base and research and development that helped power the United States to lead the global economy in the 20th century,” Mr. Biden said in a statement. “They’ll help bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, and they’re squarely focused on easing the sort of supply chain bottlenecks like semiconductors that have led to higher prices for the middle class.”The semiconductor shortage has disrupted the economy, broken down supply chains and helped fuel inflation.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesLawmakers will still need to overcome differing views in the House and Senate over how best to take on China and, perhaps more crucially, how to fund the nation’s scientific research.“There are disagreements, legitimate disagreements,” Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said in an interview. “How do we do this? How do we get it right? There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement over the core $52 billion appropriation for chips. There is disagreement around how we make investments in research and development in basic science.”One major difference is that while the Senate bill invests heavily in specific fields of cutting-edge technology, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, the House bill places few stipulations on the new round of funding, other than to say that it should go toward fundamental research.In a memo on the legislation, House aides wrote that their measure was “focusing on solutions first, not tech buzzwords.”Some experts argue that approach lacks urgency. Stephen Ezell, the vice president for global innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a policy group that receives funding from telecommunications and tech companies, called the House bill “not sufficient to enable the United States to win the advanced technology competition with China.” He argued that the focus on advanced technology in the Senate-passed bill would do more to increase American competitiveness.How the Supply Chain Crisis UnfoldedCard 1 of 9The pandemic sparked the problem. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Signals Rate Increase in March, Citing Inflation and Strong Job Market

    by

    Federal Reserve officials signaled on Wednesday that they were on track to raise interest rates in March, given that inflation has been running far above policymakers’ target and that labor market data suggests employees are in short supply.Central bankers left rates unchanged at near-zero — where they have been set since March 2020 — but the statement after their two-day policy meeting laid the groundwork for higher borrowing costs “soon.” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said officials no longer thought America’s rapidly healing economy needed so much support, and he confirmed that a rate increase was likely at the central bank’s next meeting.“I would say that the committee is of a mind to raise the federal funds rate at the March meeting, assuming that the conditions are appropriate for doing so,” Mr. Powell said.While he declined to say how many rate increases officials expected to make this year, he noted that this economic expansion was very different from past ones, with “higher inflation, higher growth, a much stronger economy — and I think those differences are likely to be reflected in the policy that we implement.”The Fed was already slowing a bond-buying program it had been using to bolster the economy, and that program remains on track to end in March. The Fed’s post-meeting statements and Mr. Powell’s remarks signaled that central bankers could begin to shrink their balance sheet holdings of government-backed debt soon after they begin to raise interest rates, a move that would further remove support from markets and the economy.Investors have been nervously eyeing the Fed’s next steps, worried that its policy changes will hurt stock and other asset prices and rapidly slow down the economy. Stocks on Wall Street gave up their gains and yields on government bonds rose as Mr. Powell spoke. The S&P 500 ended with a loss of 0.2 percent after earlier rising as much as 2.2 percent. The yield on 10-year Treasury notes, a proxy for investor expectations for interest rates, jumped as high as 1.87 percent.The Fed has pivoted sharply from boosting growth to preparing to cool it down as businesses report widespread labor shortages and as prices across the economy — for rent, cars and couches — soar. Consumer prices are rising at the fastest pace since 1982, eating away at paychecks and creating a political liability for President Biden and Democrats. It is the Fed’s job to keep inflation under control and to set the stage for a strong job market.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.“The Fed has completed its pivot from being patient to panicked on inflation,” Diane Swonk, the chief economist at Grant Thornton, wrote in a research note to clients after the meeting. “Its next move will be to raise rates.”The Fed’s withdrawal of policy support could temper consumer and corporate demand as borrowing money to buy a car, a boat, a house or a business becomes more expensive. Slower demand could give supply chains, which have fallen behind during the pandemic, room to catch up. By slowing down hiring, the Fed’s moves could also limit wage growth, which might otherwise feed into inflation if employers raised prices to cover higher labor costs.Investors nudged up their expectations for rate increases following the meeting and now project the Fed to raise rates five times this year, based on market pricing, and for the Fed’s policy rate to end the year between 1.25 and 1.5 percent. And economists increasingly warn that it is possible central bankers could move quickly — perhaps lifting borrowing costs at each consecutive meeting instead of leaving gaps, or in half-percentage point increases instead of the quarter-point moves that are more typical.But Mr. Powell demurred when asked about the pace of rate increases, saying that it was important to be “humble and nimble” and that “we’re going to be led by the incoming data and the evolving outlook.”“He went out of his way not to commit to a preset course,” said Subadra Rajappa, the head of U.S. rates strategy at Société Générale. The lack of clarity over what happens next “is a setup for a volatile market.”While interest rates are expected to rise over the coming years, most economists and investors do not expect them to return to anything like the double-digit levels that prevailed in the early 1980s. The Fed anticipates that its longer-run interest rate might hover around 2.5 percent.Investors also have been eagerly watching to see how quickly the Fed will shrink its balance sheet of asset holdings. The Fed’s policy committee released a statement of principles for that process on Wednesday, setting out plans to “significantly” reduce its holdings “in a predictable manner” and “primarily” by adjusting how much it reinvests as assets expire.“They are trying, I think, to reduce market uncertainty around the balance sheet — but they’re telling us it’s happening,” said Priya Misra, the global head of rates strategy at TD Securities, adding that the release suggested that the process would begin within a few months.Mr. Powell noted during his news conference that both of the areas the Fed is responsible for — fostering price stability and maximum employment — had prodded the central bank to “move steadily away” from helping the economy so much.“There are many millions more job openings than there are unemployed people,” Mr. Powell said. “I think there’s quite a bit of room to raise interest rates without threatening the labor market.”The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.9 percent, down from its peak of 14.7 percent at the worst economic point in the pandemic and near its February 2020 level of 3.5 percent. Wages are growing at the fastest pace in decades.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Rapid Inflation Fuels Debate Over What’s to Blame: Pandemic or Policy

    by

    The White House is emphasizing that inflation is worldwide. Economists say that’s true — but stimulus-spurred consumer buying is also to blame.The price increases bedeviling consumers, businesses and policymakers worldwide have prompted a heated debate in Washington about how much of today’s rapid inflation is a result of policy choices in the United States and how much stems from global factors tied to the pandemic, like snarled supply chains.At a moment when stubbornly rapid price gains are weighing on consumer confidence and creating a political liability for President Biden, White House officials have repeatedly blamed international forces for high inflation, including factory shutdowns in Asia and overtaxed shipping routes that are causing shortages and pushing up prices everywhere. The officials increasingly cite high inflation in places including the euro area, where prices are climbing at the fastest pace on record, as a sign that the world is experiencing a shared moment of price pain, deflecting the blame away from U.S. policy.But a chorus of economists point to government policies as a big part of the reason U.S. inflation is at a 40-year high. While they agree that prices are rising as a result of shutdowns and supply chain woes, they say that America’s decision to flood the economy with stimulus money helped to send consumer spending into overdrive, exacerbating those global trends.The world’s trade machine is producing, shipping and delivering more goods to American consumers than it ever has, as people flush with cash buy couches, cars and home office equipment, but supply chains just haven’t been able to keep up with that supercharged demand.Kristin J. Forbes, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, said that “more than half of the increase, at least, is due to global factors.” But “there is also a domestic demand component that is important,” she said.The White House has tried to address inflation by boosting supply — announcing measures to unclog ports and trying to ramp up domestic manufacturing, all of which take time. But rising inflation has already imperiled Mr. Biden’s ability to pass a sprawling social policy and climate bill over fears that more spending could add to inflation. Senator Joe Manchin III, the West Virginia Democrat whose vote is critical to getting the legislation passed, has cited rising prices as one reason he won’t support the bill.The demand side of today’s price increases may prove easier for policymakers to address. The Federal Reserve is preparing to raise interest rates to make borrowing more expensive, slowing spending down, in a recipe that could help to tame inflation. Fading government help for households may also naturally bring down demand and soften price pressures.Inflation has accelerated sharply in the United States, with the Consumer Price Index climbing by 7 percent in the year through December, its fastest pace since 1982. But in recent months, it has also moved up sharply across many countries, a fact administration officials have emphasized.“The inflation has everything to do with the supply chain,” President Biden said during a news conference on Wednesday. “While there are differences country by country, this is a global phenomenon and driven by these global issues,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said after the latest inflation data were released.It is the case that supply disruptions are leading to higher inflation in many places, including in large developing economies like India and Brazil and in developed ones like the euro area. Data released in the United Kingdom and in Canada on Wednesday showed prices accelerating at their fastest rate in 30 years in both countries. Inflation in the eurozone, which is measured differently from how the U.S. calculates it, climbed to an annual rate of 5 percent in December, according to an initial estimate by the European Union statistics office.“The U.S. is hardly an island amidst this storm of supply disruptions and rising demand, especially for goods and commodities,” said Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.But some economists point out that even as inflation proves pervasive around the globe, it has been more pronounced in America than elsewhere.“The United States has had much more inflation than almost any other advanced economy in the world,” said Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard University and former Obama administration economic adviser, who used comparable methodologies to look across areas and concluded that U.S. price increases have been consistently faster.The difference, he said, comes because “the United States’ stimulus is in a category of its own.”White House officials have argued that differences in “core” inflation — which excludes food and fuel — have been small between the United States and other major economies over the past six months. And the gaps all but disappear if you strip out car prices, which are up sharply and have a bigger impact in the United States, where consumers buy more automobiles. (Mr. Furman argued that people who didn’t buy cars would have spent their money on something else and that simply eliminating them from the U.S. consumption basket is not fair.)Administration officials have also noted that the United States has seen a robust rebound in economic growth. The International Monetary Fund said in October that it expected U.S. output to climb by 6 percent in 2021 and 5.2 percent in 2022, compared with 5 percent growth last year in the euro area and 4.3 percent growth projected for this year.“To the extent that we got more heat, we got a lot more growth for it,” said Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.While many nations spent heavily to protect their economies from coronavirus fallout — in some places enough to push up demand, and potentially inflation — the United States approved about $5 trillion in spending in 2020 and 2021. That outstripped the response in other major economies as a share of the nation’s output, according to data compiled by the International Monetary Fund.Many economists supported protecting workers and businesses early in the pandemic, but some took issue with the size of the $1.9 trillion package last March under the Biden administration. They argued that sending households another round of stimulus, including $1,400 checks, further fueled demand when the economy was already healing.Consumer spending seemed to react: Retail sales, for instance, jumped after the checks went out.Americans found themselves with a lot of money in the bank, and as they spent that money on goods, demand collided with a global supply chain that was too fragile to catch up.Jutharat Pinyodoonyachet for The New York TimesAdam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the U.S. government spent too much in too short a time in the first half of 2021.“If there had not been the bottlenecks and labor market shortages, it might not have mattered as much. But it did,” he said.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More