International Monetary Fund

More stories

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Global Fallout From Rate Moves Won’t Stop the Fed

    by

    The Federal Reserve, like many central banks, sets policy with an eye on the domestic economy. Its battle to control prices is causing pain abroad.The Federal Reserve has embarked on an aggressive campaign to raise interest rates as it tries to tame the most rapid inflation in decades, an effort the central bank sees as necessary to restore price stability in the United States.But what the Fed does at home reverberates across the globe, and its actions are raising the risks of a global recession while causing economic and financial pain in many developing countries.Other central banks in advanced economies, from Australia to the eurozone, are also lifting rates rapidly to fight their inflation. And as the Fed’s higher interest rates attract money to the United States — pumping up the value of the dollar — emerging-market economies are being forced to raise their own borrowing costs to try to stabilize their currencies to the extent possible.Altogether, it is a worldwide push toward more expensive money unlike anything seen before in the 21st century, one that is likely to have serious ramifications.Higher rates slow inflation by cooling consumer demand and allowing supply to catch up, paving the way for more moderate price increases. But in the process, they slow down hiring, weaken wage growth, prompt job losses and ripple through financial markets in sometimes disruptive ways.How much pain today’s moves will ultimately cause remains unclear: So many countries are raising rates so quickly — and so in sync — that it is difficult to determine how intense any slowdown will be once it takes full effect. Monetary policy takes months or years to kick in completely.But many economists and several international bodies have warned that there’s a pronounced danger or overdoing it, including a United Nations agency that warned the damage could be particularly acute in poorer nations. Developing economies had already been dealing with a cost-of-living crisis because of soaring food and fuel prices, and now their American imports are growing steadily more expensive as the dollar marches higher.The Fed’s moves have spurred market volatility and worries about financial stability, as higher rates elevate the value of the U.S. dollar, making it harder for emerging-market borrowers to pay back their dollar-denominated debt.It is a recipe for globe-spanning turmoil and even recession. Despite that, the Fed is poised to continue raising interest rates. That’s because the Fed, like central banks around the world, is in charge of domestic economy goals: It’s supposed to keep inflation slow and steady while fostering maximum employment. While occasionally called “central banker to the world” because of the dollar’s foremost position, the Fed goes about its day-to-day business with its eye squarely on America.“Of course, as a human, you care about the pain other countries are experiencing — but as a policymaker, I have a single tool,” Mary C. Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said in an interview on Tuesday. “It’s a blunt tool, even for the U.S. goals of full employment and price stability.”Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Britain’s Gamble on Tax Cuts has Economists Warning of Past Mistakes

    by

    The International Monetary Fund is just one of the many voices that have criticized a plan to cut rates for high earners.WASHINGTON — A stunning rebuke from the International Monetary Fund this week underscored one of the biggest risks of the new British government’s plan to slash taxes on high earners: It could exacerbate rapid inflation and destabilize markets at a precarious economic moment.The alarm from economists, central bankers, investors and top U.S. officials centered on the likelihood that the tax cuts could stoke consumer demand by giving people more money to spend, pushing crushingly high prices even higher. That would put the British government in direct conflict with aggressive efforts of the central banks around the globe — and in the United Kingdom — that are raising interest rates in a bid to bring inflation under control.Many economists say British officials are also ignoring the lessons of the most recent bout of tax cuts — those engineered in the United States by former President Donald J. Trump. Empirical research on the early results of those cuts suggests that they mostly helped the economy by temporarily increasing consumer demand, an outcome that could prove particularly damaging in the high-inflation environment that Britain and much of the world are experiencing.Liz Truss, Britain’s new prime minister, has staked her fledgling government on a oversize, once-in-a-generation package of tax cuts and deregulation meant to energize the economy. It includes a cut in rates for the country’s lowest income tax bracket — and, in what was a surprise move, a five-percentage-point cut in the country’s top income tax rate, which applies to those earning more than 150,000 pounds, or about $164,000, a year.The International Monetary Fund responded to those proposals with the sort of pointed criticism it typically reserves for an emerging-market economy, not for the economy of one of the wealthiest nations in the world.“Given elevated inflation pressures in many countries, including the U.K., we do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture, as it is important that fiscal policy does not work at cross purposes to monetary policy,” the I.M.F. said in a news release on Tuesday.The statement noted that the tax cuts would most likely increase economic inequality, and it urged the British government to “provide support that is more targeted and re-evaluate the tax measures, especially those that benefit high income earners.”More on Politics in BritainPrime Minister Liz Truss was chosen by a divided British Conservative Party to lead a country facing the gravest economic crisis in a generation.A Domestic Push: After a period of mourning for the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the new government led by Ms. Truss began to work in earnest, announcing several initiatives to address Britain’s economic and social problems.A Turn Toward Thatcherism: Ms. Truss bet on a heavy dose of tax cuts, deregulation and free-market economics to reignite growth. The negative reaction from financial markets underscored the extent of the gamble.Seizing the Moment: Accusing Ms. Truss of losing control of Britain’s economy, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Keir Starmer, staked his claim as the guardian of sound fiscal policy.Energy Policies: The British government said it would freeze electric and gas bills for households and cut energy costs for companies in an effort to mitigate the effects of Russia’s restriction of gas supplies to Europe.Investors have also recoiled from the plan, sending British bond yields soaring — forcing the Bank of England to intervene to stabilize them — and causing the value of the pound to plummet.Ms. Truss is not the first conservative politician in recent years to come into office promising to slash taxes. Mr. Trump also campaigned on — and ultimately delivered — “massive tax cuts” in 2017, a package that only Republican lawmakers backed. Decades ago, President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain both pursued tax-cutting agendas that cemented their legacies in office.Ms. Truss has been cheered on by conservative champions of supply-side economics in the United States, including many of the chief backers of Mr. Trump’s tax cuts. Stephen Moore, who served as an outside economic adviser to the former president, praised Ms. Truss for her willingness “to challenge the reigning orthodoxy by sharply cutting taxes to boost growth,” calling the package “a gutsy and sound policy decision.”“By far the most important change is the reduction in the top income tax rate from 45 percent to 40 percent,” Mr. Moore wrote. “This will bring jobs, capital and businesses back to the U.K.”A host of critics, though, have lined up to denounce the tax package, warning it will provoke economic war with the Bank of England and risk a damaging combination of economic contraction and soaring prices, which could in turn hurt the global recovery.The impact of previous tax cuts, including those signed into law by Mr. Trump in 2017, provides fodder for those critiques.Much as Ms. Truss has proposed to do, Mr. Trump reduced tax rates for income earners across the spectrum, including those in the highest bracket. He also cut a variety of business tax rates — a contrast with the British plan, which cancels a planned increase in corporate taxes. Mr. Trump said his full package of cuts would jump-start economic activity by encouraging businesses to invest, hire and raise wages.Yet initial evidence, which includes studies from I.M.F. economists, suggests Mr. Trump’s cuts did not deliver the steep gains in investment and productivity that conservatives had promised. If such gains came to pass in Britain, they could help counter inflation there.Instead, the cuts increased consumer spending, an outcome that helped temporarily expand growth in the United States, the I.M.F. found, but which could be dangerous in a high-inflation environment.“The record through 2019 from the Trump tax cuts is not encouraging for the U.K.,” said William G. Gale, a co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.Last year, Mr. Gale and a colleague, Claire Haldeman, published a study on the effects of Mr. Trump’s tax cuts up until the start of the pandemic recession. They looked for supply-side effects — whether the cuts increased investment incentives and other means of stimulating sustained economic growth — and found little evidence of such results.Instead, they found that the cuts did little to promote job growth or investment outside the oil and gas sector, which is highly correlated with the global price of fossil fuels. And they found that the cuts significantly reduced federal tax revenues, contrary to Republicans’ promises that the cuts would pay for themselves by inciting additional economic growth.Broader research suggests that Ms. Truss’s cuts for top earners are unlikely to drive significant gains in economic growth. In a recent study of decades of tax changes, Owen Zidar, an economist at Princeton, found that cuts for the top 10 percent of earners did little to prompt job gains.The hope that cuts in Britain’s top rate will supercharge the economy, Mr. Zidar said in an interview, “is completely at odds with the empirical record of the United States since 1950.”Mr. Gale, Mr. Zidar and other economists joined the I.M.F. in noting a particular challenge for the British tax cuts: the likelihood that they will be offset by interest rate increases from the Bank of England, as it seeks to bring down price growth.Other rounds of tax cuts, like those under Mr. Reagan, helped to increase growth by working in tandem with interest rate cuts taken by the Federal Reserve, according to economists who specialize in tax policy. In Britain’s case, the opposite appears to be true: The Bank of England has already been raising rates, and it appears ready to push them even higher to offset the effects of Ms. Truss’s policies. Those rate increases would negate a major goal of the tax cuts — to make it cheaper for companies to invest — by raising the costs of borrowing across the economy.Economists say faster rate increases also heighten the risk of recession in Britain.Supporters of the British tax cuts are already accusing the central bank of crippling them — much as Mr. Trump accused the Fed of undermining his tax cuts when it raised interest rates repeatedly after they were enacted.“It hasn’t helped that the Bank of England has launched a public campaign to sabotage the Truss agenda,” Mr. Moore wrote this week, echoing comments he made about the Fed in 2019.The actions of the British government could reverberate far beyond that country’s borders given the flows of international trade and the potential for a far-flung financial crisis. In recent days, President Biden has grown more concerned with the situation in Britain. On Wednesday, he met with members of his economic team to discuss developments in global financial markets, instructing them to brief him regularly on the situation.“We’re watching this very closely,” Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, said on Wednesday at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “The president’s being kept up on all the developments.”When asked about the cuts this week, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said the administration would leave British policy to Ms. Truss’s government. But other administration officials have criticized the plan.Speaking at an event at the Brookings Institution on Wednesday, Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said Britain’s combination of cutting taxes and increasing spending would neither help the country fight inflation in the short term nor send it in the direction of long-term growth.“Investors, businesspeople want to see world leaders taking inflation very seriously, and it’s hard to see that out of this new government,” she said, adding, “We’re pursuing a different strategy.”Ana Swanson More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Why the British Pound Continues to Sink

    by

    Britain’s pound coin — rimmed in nickel and brass with an embossed image of Queen Elizabeth II at the center — could always be counted on to be significantly more valuable than the dollar.Such boasting rights effectively came to an end this week when the value of the pound sank to its lowest recorded level: £1 = $1.03 after falling more than 20 percent this year.The nearly one-to-one parity between the currencies sounded the close of a chapter in Britain’s history nearly as much as the metronomic footfalls of the procession that carried the queen’s funeral bier up the pavement to Windsor Castle.“The queen’s death for many people brought to an end a long era of which the soft power in the United Kingdom” was paramount, said Ian Goldin, professor of globalization and development at the University of Oxford. “The pound’s demise to its lowest level is sort of indicative of this broader decline in multiple dimensions.”The immediate cause of the pound’s alarming fall on Monday was the announcement of a spending and tax plan by Britain’s new Conservative government, which promised steep tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthiest individuals along with expensive measures to help blunt the painful rise in energy prices on consumers and businesses.The sense of crisis ramped up Wednesday when the Bank of England intervened, in a rare move, and warned of “material risk to U.K. financial stability” from the government’s plan. The central bank said it would start buying British government bonds “on whatever scale is necessary” to stem a sell-off in British debt.The Bank of England’s emergency action seemed at odds with its efforts that began months ago to try to slow the nearly 10 percent annual inflation rate, which has lifted the price of essentials like petrol and food to painful levels.Rising Inflation in BritainInflation Slows Slightly: Consumer prices are still rising at about the fastest pace in 40 years, despite a small drop to 9.9 percent in August.Interest Rates: On Sept. 22, the Bank of England raised its key rate by another half a percentage point, to 2.25 percent, as it tries to keep high inflation from becoming embedded in the nation’s economy.Energy Bills to Soar: Gas and electric charges for most British households are set to rise 80 percent this fall, further squeezing consumers and stoking inflation.Investor Worries: The financial markets have been grumbling with unease about Britain’s economic outlook. The government plan to freeze energy bills and cut taxes is not easing concerns.The swooning pound this week has carried an unmistakable political message, amounting to a no-confidence vote by the world’s financial community in the economic strategy proposed by Prime Minister Liz Truss and her chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng.To Mr. Goldin, the pound’s journey indicates a decline in economic and political influence that accelerated when Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016. In many respects, Britain already has the worst performing economy, aside from Russia, of the 38-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.“It’s just a question of time before it falls out of the top 10 economies in the world,” Mr. Goldin said. Britain ranks sixth, having been surpassed by India.Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University, said this latest plunge had delivered a bracing blow to Britain’s standing. A series of “self-inflicted wounds,” including Brexit and the government’s latest spending plan, have accelerated the pound’s slide and further endangered London’s status as a global financial center.Dozens of currencies, including the euro, the Japanese yen and the Chinese renminbi, have slumped in recent weeks. Rising interest rates and a relatively bright economic outlook in the United States combined with turmoil in the global economy have made investments in dollars particularly appealing.But the revival by the Truss government of an extreme version of Thatcher and Reagan-era “trickle-down” economic policies elicited a brutal response.“The problem isn’t that the U.K. budget was inflationary,” wrote Dario Perkins, a managing director at TS Lombard, a research firm, on Twitter. “It’s that it was moronic.”To some, the pound’s journey indicates a decline in Britain’s economic and political influence.Suzie Howell for The New York TimesDuring the more than 1,000 years in which the pound sterling has reigned as Britain’s national currency, it has suffered its share of ups and downs. Its value in the modern era could never match the value of an actual pound of silver, which in the 10th century could buy 15 cows.Over the centuries, British leaders have often gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the pound’s value, viewing its strength as a sign of the country’s economic power and influence. King Henry I issued a decree in 1125 ordering that those who produced substandard currency “lose their right hand and be castrated.”In the 1960s, the Labour government under Harold Wilson so resisted devaluing the pound — then set at a fixed rate of $2.80, high enough to be holding back the British economy — that he ordered cabinet papers discussing the idea to be burned. In 1967, the government finally cut its value by 14 percent to $2.40.Other economic crises thrashed the pound. In the 1970s, when oil prices skyrocketed and Britain’s inflation rate topped 25 percent, the government was compelled to ask the International Monetary Fund for a $3.9 billion loan. In the mid-1980s, when high U.S. interest rates and a Reagan administration spending spree jacked up the dollar’s value, the pound fell to a then record low.The pound’s dominance has been waning since the end of World War II. Today, the global economy is experiencing a particularly tumultuous time as it recovers from the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, supply chain breakdowns, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an energy shortage and soaring inflation.As Richard Portes, an economics professor at London Business School, said, currency exchanges have enormous swings over time. The euro was worth 82 cents in its early days, he recalled, and people referred to it as a “toilet paper” currency. But by 2008, its value had doubled to $1.60.What might cause the pound to revive is not clear.The Truss government’s economic program has forcefully accelerated the pound’s slide — the latest in a series of what many economists consider egregious economic missteps that peaked with Brexit.Much depends on the Truss government.“The plunge in the pound is the result of policy choices, not some historical inevitability” said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “Whether this is a new, grim era or just an unfortunate interlude depends on whether they reverse course or are kicked out at the next election.”As it happens, the Bank of England is preparing to issue new pound bank notes and coins featuring King Charles III, at the very moment that the pound has dropped to record lows.“The death of the queen and the fall of the pound do seem jointly to signify decisively the end of an era,” Mr. Prasad of Cornell said. “These two events could be considered markers in a long historical procession in the British economy and the pound sterling becoming far less important than they once were.” More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Pakistan Raises Fuel Prices in Effort to Stabilize Economy

    by

    The interim government’s move was seen as a bid to revive a $6 billion bailout from the International Monetary Fund.ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s government on Friday sharply increased fuel prices for consumers, paving the way to revive a $6 billion bailout package from the International Monetary Fund and stabilize the country’s cratering economy amid deepening political turmoil.The move raising gasoline and diesel prices by about 20 percent — or about 15 cents — a liter staved off concerns that Pakistan, which already faces double-digit inflation, would join a wave of global defaults as the financial shocks from the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and rising interest rates batter many poorer nations.But the decision may cost the new coalition government popular support, analysts say, adding to the political uncertainty that has embroiled the country since Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted in a no-confidence vote in Parliament early last month.“The price hike signals that the government has decided to bite the bullet and make choices that are necessary, even if they cost near-term political capital,” said Uzair Younus, the director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council. “The hike will ease markets and reduce uncertainty. It will be critical for the government to maintain momentum and continue making decisions that get Pakistan out of the current crisis.”Since his ouster, Mr. Khan has held a series of political rallies, drawing huge crowds and heavily criticizing the current coalition government and the military, blaming them for his removal from office. Some officials now fear that the government’s move to appease the I.M.F. could hand Mr. Khan a wave of public outrage that he could manipulate on the streets.Former Prime Minister Imran Khan, at top center in dark vest, leading an antigovernment rally in Islamabad on Thursday.Aamir Qureshi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesDiscussions between the I.M.F. and the new interim government, led by Shehbaz Sharif, had been deadlocked for weeks over the terms of reviving the bailout, which was announced in 2019 and later suspended after Pakistan’s previous government failed to meet some loan conditions, like cutting energy subsidies.Pakistan has hoped for a release of a roughly $900 million seventh tranche of the $6 billion I.M.F. bailout package. Earlier this week, a fresh round of talks between the I.M.F. and the new Pakistani government in Doha, Qatar, appeared to fail after fund officials declined to accept the Pakistani request to delay the ending of government subsidies.Mr. Sharif had been reluctant to end government energy subsidies and roll back unfunded subsidies to oil and power sectors — a key I.M.F. demand — fearing public backlash that could diminish his party’s chance of success in the next general elections.Those elections are scheduled to be held next year, but the new government has come under mounting public pressure from Mr. Khan’s supporters to hold them earlier.On Thursday, Mr. Khan warned the government to announce the next elections and dissolve Parliament within six days. The warning came just after he led thousands of supporters to the capital Wednesday evening. Angry supporters clashed with the police in the capital and several other Pakistani cities. At least 1,700 protesters were arrested by the police in Punjab, the country’s most populous province.That political pressure has added to the new government’s reluctance to embark on meaningful economic reforms that, while important to stabilize the economy in the years to come, would cause immediate pain to Pakistanis’ wallets, analysts say.The interim government, led by Shehbaz Sharif, center, has been deadlocked in talks with the International Monetary Fund.Saiyna Bashir for The New York TimesLate Thursday night, drivers desperate to fill their tanks before the price increase went into effect after midnight flocked to gas stations across major cities. Many drivers’ incomes have already been squeezed by soaring inflation in recent years that has pushed up the price of basic goods.“There is no rise in our income proportional to the rise in the price of fuel and other essential items,” said Saleem Khan, 44, as he waited to fill his motorcycle’s tank at a gas station in the port city of Karachi.Mr. Khan makes around 18,000 rupees, or about $90, a month working in a restaurant in the city. In previous months, he could send nearly 10,000 rupees every month to his relatives in Bajaur, a tribal district bordering Afghanistan.“This month, it seems I’ll be able to send barely 7,000 rupees to my family,” he said.Nearby, Rasheed Ahmed, a garment factory worker, sat on his motorcycle, worrying how he would pay for basics like food and rent with the fuel price increase.“We thought the ousting of Imran Khan will help the country in decreasing the fuel prices, but the current rulers are crueler than the previous government,” Mr. Ahmed, 34, said.The new coalition government has struggled to find its bearings since coming to power in early April and is in a particularly precarious position. It has no electoral mandate, but was chosen by Parliament to take over after Mr. Khan’s ouster. And it is a tenuous coalition of political parties that previously clashed frequently and only came together around the singular aim of removing Mr. Khan from office. Mr. Sharif’s party also faces internal divisions over policy decisions.A market in Islamabad last month. Many Pakistanis are worried about their ability to afford basic necessities as inflation rises.Saiyna Bashir for The New York TimesMr. Khan’s government, before its removal from office, was also facing increasing public discontent over rising inflation. Mr. Khan claims that the economy was improving under his government, but in order to soothe the public’s flaring tempers, he announced he was cutting petroleum and energy prices — a move that eased public discontent but added to the country’s fiscal deficit.Understand the Political and Economic Turmoil in PakistanCard 1 of 5A chaotic time. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    World Economic Outlook Dims as War and Pandemic Cast a Pall

    by

    The International Monetary Fund’s new World Economic Outlook expects growth to slow to 3.6 percent this year. The group is one of many to slash their forecasts recently.WASHINGTON — The world economy has entered a period of intense uncertainty as a capricious pandemic and the fallout from Russia’s war in Ukraine combine to fuel rapid inflation and weigh on an already fragile global recovery.These colliding challenges are confronting policymakers and central bankers in the United States and Europe as they seek to bring down inflation without slowing growth so much that their economies tip into recession.In the last week, international organizations and think tanks have begun slashing their forecasts for growth and trade as they assess the war’s disruptions to global energy, food and commodity supplies, as well as China’s sweeping lockdowns to contain a renewed coronavirus outbreak.The pall over the world economy was underscored on Tuesday by the International Monetary Fund, which said in its World Economic Outlook that global output was expected to slow this year to 3.6 percent, from 6.1 percent in 2021. That is a downgrade from a January forecast of 4.4 percent growth this year.“Global economic prospects have been severely set back, largely because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the I.M.F.’s chief economist, said at a news briefing on Tuesday. “This crisis unfolds as the global economy has not yet fully recovered from the pandemic.”The impact of Russia’s war on the global economy will be a central topic for policymakers convening in Washington this week for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.As the meetings got underway, policymakers grappled with how to maintain pressure on Russia while keeping the economic recovery on track and protecting the world’s poor from rising prices. While some countries that export commodities will benefit from a period of higher fuel and food prices, for most economies the disruptions weigh heavily.“The war has made an already dire situation worse,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in a speech about rising food insecurity on Tuesday. “Price and supply shocks are already materializing, adding to global inflationary pressures, creating risks to external balances, and undermining the recovery from the pandemic.”On Wednesday, Ms. Yellen plans to attend an opening session that will include Ukraine’s finance minister as the United States looks to stand with allies in opposition to Russia’s invasion, a Treasury official said. However, Ms. Yellen will not attend some Group of 20 sessions, such as those on international financial architecture and sustainable finance, if Russians are participating.Against that backdrop, the I.M.F.’s new data revealed a daunting set of economic headwinds. Mr. Gourinchas said the war was slowing growth and spurring inflation, which he described as a “clear and present danger” for many countries. He added that disruptions to Russian supplies of oil, gas and metals, along with Ukrainian exports of wheat and corn, will ripple through commodities markets and across the global economy “like seismic waves.”He acknowledged that the trajectory of the global economy would depend on how the war proceeded and the ultimate breadth of the sanctions that the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia imposed on Russia.“Uncertainty around these projections is considerable, well beyond the usual range,” Mr. Gourinchas said. “Growth could slow down further while inflation could exceed our projections if, for instance, sanctions extend to Russian energy exports.”Ukraine and Russia are facing the most dire economic consequences from the war. The I.M.F. expects the Ukrainian economy to contract by 35 percent this year, while Russia’s economy is projected to shrink 8.5 percent. Mr. Gourinchas noted that the Russian authorities had so far managed to prevent a collapse of their financial system and avoided bank failures but said further sanctions targeting Russia’s energy industry could have a significant impact on its economy.The sweeping sanctions that America and its allies have already imposed on Russia are the main factor contributing to the downward revision of the I.M.F.’s global growth outlook, Mr. Gourinchas said. He added that a tightening of restrictions on Russian energy exports would be an “adverse scenario” that would further slow output around the world.Rising prices around the world show no signs of abating, the I.M.F. said, even if supply chain problems ease. It expects inflation to remain elevated throughout the year, projecting it at 5.7 percent in advanced economies and 8.7 percent in emerging markets. Inflation hit 8.5 percent in the United States last month, the fastest 12-month pace since 1981.An empty street in Shanghai this week. The World Bank warned that the lingering pandemic and Covid-19 lockdowns in China could amplify income inequality and poverty rates.Aly Song/ReutersOther international organizations and research groups have also pared back their global growth forecasts. Economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank, expect global growth to decline from a rapid 5.8 percent in 2021 to 3.3 percent annually in 2022 and 2023.The World Bank also expressed alarm this week about the state of the global economy, warning that the lingering pandemic, Covid-19 lockdowns in China and higher inflation could amplify income inequality and poverty rates. It lowered its 2022 growth forecast to 3.2 percent from 4.1 percent.“I’m deeply concerned about developing countries,” David Malpass, the World Bank president, said on Monday. “They’re facing sudden price increases for energy, fertilizer and food, and the likelihood of interest rate increases. Each one hits them hard.”According to the Bank of International Settlements, more than half of emerging economies have inflation rates above 7 percent. And 60 percent of “advanced economies,” including the United States and the euro area, have inflation over 5 percent, the largest share since the 1980s, the bank said.In Britain, inflation climbed to 7 percent in March, the highest level in 30 years.An April 12 survey of global investors by BofA Securities found that more than two-thirds were pessimistic about global growth prospects in the months ahead.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen Says Aim Is ‘Maximum Pain’ for Russia Without Hurting U.S.

    by

    WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Wednesday that the United States would continue taking steps to cut Russia off from the global financial system in response to its invasion of Ukraine and argued that the sanctions already imposed had taken a severe toll on the Russian economy.She addressed the House Financial Services Committee as the United States rolled out a new array of sanctions on Russian banks and state-owned enterprises and on the adult children of President Vladimir V. Putin. The White House also announced a ban on Americans making new investments in Russia no matter where those investors are based.“Our goal from the outset has been to impose maximum pain on Russia, while to the best of our ability shielding the United States and our partners from undue economic harm,” Ms. Yellen told lawmakers.The measures introduced on Wednesday included “full blocking” sanctions against Sberbank, the largest financial institution in Russia, and Alfa Bank, one of the country’s largest privately owned banks.Sberbank is the main artery in the Russian financial system and holds over a third of the country’s financial assets. In February, the Treasury announced limited sanctions against Sberbank, but Wednesday’s sanctions, a senior Biden administration official said, will effectively freeze relations between the bank and the U.S. financial system.The administration also announced sanctions against two adult daughters of Mr. Putin: Katerina Tikhonova and Maria Putina, who has been living under an assumed name, Maria Vorontsova. Others connected to Russian officials with close ties to Mr. Putin will also face sanctions, including the wife and daughter of Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and members of Russia’s security council, including former Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev. The official said those people would be effectively cut off from the U.S. banking system and any assets held in the United States.President Biden said on Wednesday that the new sanctions would deal another blow to the Russian economy.“The sense of brutality and inhumanity, left for all the world to see unapologetically,” Mr. Biden said, describing Russia’s actions as war crimes. “Responsible nations have to come together to hold these perpetrators accountable, and together with our allies and our partners we’re going to keep raising the economic costs and ratchet up the pain for Putin and further increase Russia’s economic isolation.”Experts suggested that the latest round of sanctions were unlikely to compel Mr. Putin to change course. Hundreds of American businesses have pulled out of Russia in recent weeks, making new investments unlikely.“The asset freezes on the additional banks aren’t nothing, but this isn’t the most significant tranche we’ve seen to date,” said Daniel Tannebaum, a partner at Oliver Wyman who advises banks on sanctions.Other American agencies are joining the effort to exert pressure on Russia.In a news conference on Wednesday, officials from the Justice Department and the F.B.I. also announced a series of actions and criminal charges against Russians, including the takedown of a Russian marketplace on the dark web and a botnet, or a network of hijacked devices infected with malware, that is controlled by the country’s military intelligence agency.Justice Department officials also celebrated the seizing of the Tango, a superyacht owned by the Russian oligarch Viktor F. Vekselberg, and charged a Russian banker, Konstantin Malofeev, with conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions. Mr. Malofeev is one of Russia’s most influential magnates and among the most prominent conservatives in the country’s Kremlin-allied elite. (The indictment renders his surname as Malofeyev.)At the hearing, Ms. Yellen told lawmakers that she believed Russia should be further isolated from the geopolitical system, including being shut out of international gatherings such as the Group of 20 meetings this year, and should be denounced at this month’s meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. She added that the United States might not participate in some G20 meetings that are being held in Indonesia this year if Russians attended.Ms. Yellen, whose department has been developing many of the punitive economic measures, rebutted criticism that the penalties leveled so far had not been effective, in part because there are some exceptions to allow Russia to sell energy.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Allies Will Strip Russia of Favored Trade Status

    by

    WASHINGTON — President Biden and other Western leaders moved on Friday to further isolate Russia from the global trading system, saying they would strip the country of normal trade relations and take other steps to sever its links to the world economy in response to President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.The measures, which were announced jointly with the European Union and other Group of 7 countries, would allow countries to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods and would prevent Russia from borrowing funds from multilateral institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.Mr. Biden also moved to cut off additional avenues of trade between the United States and Russia, barring lucrative imports like seafood, vodka and certain diamonds, which the White House estimated would cost Russia more than $1 billion in export revenues per year.The United States will also restrict exports to Russia and Belarus of luxury items like high-end watches, vehicles, alcohol, jewelry and apparel. The European Union announced its own set of bans, including barring imports of Russian iron and steel.The restrictions add to a growing list of economic barriers that much of the developed world has put in place on Russia, whose economy is already suffering as a result. The ruble has lost nearly half its value over the past month, food prices are soaring and Russia is in danger of defaulting on its sovereign debt. Its stock market has remained closed since the war began.Mr. Biden said on Friday that the moves “will be another crushing blow to the Russian economy.” He said Russia was “already suffering very badly” from the sanctions, adding that the West’s economic pressure was a reason the Russian stock market had not reopened.“It’ll blow up” once it opens, Mr. Biden predicted.The White House has been under pressure in recent days to respond to Russian attacks in Ukraine, including the shelling of hospitals, other buildings and civilian evacuation routes. The White House has warned that Russia may also use chemical weapons against Ukrainians, but it has repeatedly said that Mr. Biden will not send American troops into the fray.Instead, the administration has focused on ratcheting up economic pressure. Earlier in the week, Mr. Biden banned imports of Russian oil, gas and coal and imposed restrictions on U.S. energy investments in Russia.The move to strip Russia of its preferential trade status would allow some of its biggest trading partners to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods. The Group of 7 countries, which also include Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, purchased about half of Russia’s exports in 2019.Russia’s preferential trade status is conveyed by its membership in the World Trade Organization, whose rules require that all members grant each other “most favored nation” trading status in which goods can flow between countries at lower tariff rates.Taking away that status — which the United States calls “permanent normal trade relations” — would most likely have a much larger impact for the European Union, which is Russia’s largest trading partner and a major importer of Russian fuel, minerals, wood, steel and fertilizer.In the United States, the move would carry heavy symbolism, but it could have a limited economic impact compared with other sanctions that have already been imposed, according to trade experts.Chad P. Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the measure would raise U.S. tariffs on Russian products to an average of about 32 percent from 3 percent.“However, the trade impact on Russia of such a tariff hike would be small, as the United States is not a particularly sizable export destination for Russian products,” he said. Russia was the 20th-largest supplier of goods to the United States in 2019, sending mainly energy products and minerals.And many of those goods would be subject to far lower tariffs — in some cases none at all — as a result of a decades-old trade law that would kick into place if the preferential trade status were revoked.Each country will follow its own domestic process to make this change, the Biden administration said. The European Union has begun to pave the way for higher tariffs on Russian goods, but the bloc’s 27 member countries must agree on how to carry that out. Canada announced last week that it would withdraw most favored nation tariffs for both Russia and Belarus, a close Russian ally.In the United States, the task falls to Congress, which had been pressuring the administration to consider such a move.House Democrats proposed two weeks ago to strip Russia of its trading status and begin a process to expel the country from the World Trade Organization. This week, top Democratic and Republican lawmakers said they would include the measures in a bill to penalize Russia, but at the White House’s request, Democrats ultimately stripped out the provision to remove Russia’s special trading status. The bill passed the House on Wednesday but has yet to pass the Senate.“It was taken out because the president wants to talk to our allies about that action, which I think is appropriate,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, told reporters this week.Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that the House would take up legislation next week to formalize the revocation of Russia’s trading status.“It is our hope that it will receive a strong, bipartisan vote,” she said.If approved, the measure would add to an array of harsh sanctions already announced by the United States and its allies. Western governments have reduced their energy trade with Russia, frozen the assets of Russian officials and oligarchs, and cut off the country from the dollar-denominated global financial system.An icebreaker cut a path for a cargo ship near the Franz Josef Land archipelago in Russia last year. The move to strip Russia of its preferential trade status would allow some of its biggest trading partners to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods. Emile Ducke for The New York TimesGovernments have also banned exports of advanced technology and transactions with Russia’s central bank. On Friday, the Bank for International Settlements, which provides banking services to the world’s central banks, said it was no longer conducting transactions with Russia. And the Treasury Department placed new economic sanctions on three immediate family members of Mr. Putin’s spokesman, along with 12 members of the Russian Duma and the management board of VTB Bank, which has already been sanctioned.The Treasury Department said it was specifically targeting a plane and a yacht of the Russian billionaire Viktor F. Vekselberg, which together are worth an estimated $180 million. Mr. Vekselberg is an ally of Mr. Putin, the department said.The Russian government has fired back by announcing it would place its own restrictions on its exports, including of raw materials.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    IMF Warns Ukraine-Russia War Will Likely Slow Global Growth

    by

    The war in Ukraine and the associated sanctions that countries around the world have imposed on Russia are likely to cause a downgrade of the International Monetary Fund’s global economic growth forecast, Kristalina Georgieva, the I.M.F.’s managing director, said on Thursday.The Ukraine crisis is another shock to a world economy that was just emerging from the coronavirus pandemic, and it has been compounding global supply chain disruptions and inflation headwinds that have been cause for concern. The full impact on the world economy remains uncertain, I.M.F. officials said, and will depend on the outcome of the war and how long sanctions remain.“We just got through a crisis like no other with the pandemic, and we are now in an even more shocking territory,” Ms. Georgieva told reporters. “The unthinkable happened — we have a war in Europe.”In January, the I.M.F. reduced its estimated global growth rate for 2022 to 4.4 percent, from the 4.9 percent it had projected last year, as a result of slowdowns in the United States and China.Ms. Georgieva said the most significant threat to the world economy was greater inflation coming from higher commodity prices as countries shifted consumption away from Russian oil and gas. This, in turn, could eat into consumer spending. Worsening financial conditions and business confidence also have the potential to weigh on growth.“The surging prices for energy and other commodities — corn, metals, inputs for fertilizers, semiconductors — they are coming, in many countries, on top of already high inflation and are causing grave concern in so many places around the world,” Ms. Georgieva said.The I.M.F. is working to develop a plan to provide more assistance for Ukraine’s eventual rebuilding effort, but said it was too soon to know the extent of the country’s needs. This week, the fund’s executive board approved $1.4 billion in emergency financing.Ukraine’s top economic adviser said earlier on Thursday that Russia had already destroyed $100 billion worth of the country’s assets.The fund is also assessing the impact of the sanctions on the economy of Russia. Much of its financial sector and its central bank has been blacklisted.“The Russian economy is contracting, and the recession in Russia is going to be deep,” Ms. Georgieva said. “That is already clear.”She said Russia was unlikely to have access to its emergency currency reserves because of sanctions.The I.M.F. has halted operations and programs in Russia. Ms. Georgieva said there had been no discussions about ending Russia’s membership in the fund. More