International Trade and World Market

More stories

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Red Sea Shipping Halt Is Latest Risk to Global Economy

    by

    Next year could see increasing volatility as persistent military conflicts and economic uncertainty influence voting in national elections across the globe.The attacks on crucial shipping traffic in the Red Sea straits by a determined band of militants in Yemen — a spillover from the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza — is injecting a new dose of instability into a world economy already struggling with mounting geopolitical tensions.The risk of escalating conflict in the Middle East is the latest in a string of unpredictable crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, that have landed like swipes of a bear claw on the global economy, smacking it off course and leaving scars.As if that weren’t enough, more volatility lies ahead in the form of a wave of national elections whose repercussions could be deep and long. More than two billion people in roughly 50 countries, including India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, the United States and the 27 nations of the European Parliament, will head to the polls. Altogether, participants in 2024’s elections olympiad account for 60 percent of the world’s economic output.In robust democracies, elections are taking place as mistrust in government is rising, electorates are bitterly divided and there is a profound and abiding anxiety over economic prospects.A ship crossing the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea. Attacks on the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates.Mohamed Hossam/EPA, via ShutterstockA billboard promoting presidential elections in Russia, which will take place in March.Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated PressEven in countries where elections are neither free nor fair, leaders are sensitive to the economy’s health. President Vladimir V. Putin’s decision this fall to require exporters to convert foreign currency into rubles was probably done with an eye on propping up the ruble and tamping down prices in the run-up to Russia’s presidential elections in March.The winners will determine crucial policy decisions affecting factory subsidies, tax breaks, technology transfers, the development of artificial intelligence, regulatory controls, trade barriers, investments, debt relief and the energy transition.A rash of electoral victories that carry angry populists into power could push governments toward tighter control of trade, foreign investment and immigration. Such policies, said Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, could tip the global economy into “a very different world than the one that we have been used to.”In many places, skepticism about globalization has been fueled by stagnant incomes, declining standards of living and growing inequality. Nonetheless, Ms. Coyle said, “a world of shrinking trade is a world of shrinking income.”And that raises the possibility of a “vicious cycle,” because the election of right-wing nationalists is likely to further weaken global growth and bruise economic fortunes, she warned.A campaign rally for former President Donald J. Trump in New Hampshire in December.Doug Mills/The New York TimesA line of migrants on their way to a Border Patrol processing center at the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration will be a hot topic in upcoming elections.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesMany economists have compared recent economic events to those of the 1970s, but the decade that Ms. Coyle said came to mind was the 1930s, when political upheavals and financial imbalances “played out into populism and declining trade and then extreme politics.”The biggest election next year is in India. Currently the world’s fastest-growing economy, it is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s manufacturing hub. Taiwan’s presidential election in January has the potential to ratchet up tensions between the United States and China. In Mexico, the vote will affect the government’s approach to energy and foreign investment. And a new president in Indonesia could shift policies on critical minerals like nickel.The U.S. presidential election, of course, will be the most significant by far for the world economy. The approaching contest is already affecting decision-making. Last week, Washington and Brussels agreed to suspend tariffs on European steel and aluminum and on American whiskey and motorcycles until after the election.The deal enables President Biden to appear to take a tough stance on trade deals as he battles for votes. Former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, has championed protectionist trade policies and proposed slapping a 10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States — a combative move that would inevitably lead other countries to retaliate.Mr. Trump, who has echoed authoritarian leaders, has also indicated that he would step back from America’s partnership with Europe, withdraw support for Ukraine and pursue a more confrontational stance toward China.Workers on a car assembly line in Hefei, China. Beijing has provided enormous incentives for electric vehicles.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesA shipyard in India, which is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s largest manufacturing hub.Atul Loke for The New York Times“The outcome of the elections could lead to far-reaching shifts in domestic and foreign policy issues, including on climate change, regulations and global alliances,” the consulting firm EY-Parthenon concluded in a recent report.Next year’s global economic outlook so far is mixed. Growth in most corners of the world remains slow, and dozens of developing countries are in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debts. On the positive side of the ledger, the rapid fall in inflation is nudging central bankers to reduce interest rates or at least halt their rise. Reduced borrowing costs are generally a spur to investment and home buying.As the world continues to fracture into uneasy alliances and rival blocs, security concerns are likely to loom even larger in economic decisions than they have so far.China, India and Turkey stepped up to buy Russian oil, gas and coal after Europe sharply reduced its purchases in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, tensions between China and the United States spurred Washington to respond to years of strong-handed industrial support from Beijing by providing enormous incentives for electric vehicles, semiconductors and other items deemed essential for national security.A protest in Yemen on Friday against the operation to safeguard trade and protect ships in the Red Sea.Osamah Yahya/EPA, via ShutterstockThe drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea by Iranian-backed Houthi militia are a further sign of increasing fragmentation.In the last couple of months, there has been a rise in smaller players like Yemen, Hamas, Azerbaijan and Venezuela that are seeking to change the status quo, said Courtney Rickert McCaffrey, a geopolitical analyst at EY-Parthenon and an author of the recent report.“Even if these conflicts are smaller, they can still affect global supply chains in unexpected ways,” she said. “Geopolitical power is becoming more dispersed,” and that increases volatility.The Houthi assaults on vessels from around the world in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait — the aptly named Gate of Grief — on the southern end of the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates and oil prices while diverting marine traffic to a much longer and costlier route around Africa.Last week, the United States said it would expand a military coalition to ensure the safety of ships passing through this commercial pathway, through which 12 percent of global trade passes. It is the biggest rerouting of worldwide trade since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the impact of the attacks had so far been limited. “From an economic perspective, we’re not seeing huge increase in oil and gas prices,” Mr. Vistesen said, although he acknowledged that the Red Sea assaults were the “most obvious near-term flashpoint.”Uncertainty does have a dampening effect on the economy, though. Businesses tend to adopt a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to investment, expansions and hiring.“Continuing volatility in geopolitical and geoeconomic relations between major economies is the biggest concern for chief risk officers in both the public and private sectors,” a midyear survey by the World Economic Forum found.With persistent military conflicts, increasing bouts of extreme weather and a slew of major elections ahead, it’s likely that 2024 will bring more of the same. More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Problem Is Enormous, and the System for Fixing It Is Broken

    by

    Economists offer alternatives to financial safeguards created when the U.S. was the pre-eminent superpower and climate change wasn’t on the agenda.Martin Guzman was a college freshman at La Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, in 2001 when a debt crisis prompted default, riots and a devastating depression. A dazed middle class suffered ruin, as the International Monetary Fund insisted that the government make misery-inducing budget cuts in exchange for a bailout.Watching Argentina unravel inspired Mr. Guzman to switch majors and study economics. Nearly two decades later, when the government was again bankrupt, it was Mr. Guzman as finance minister who negotiated with I.M.F. officials to restructure a $44 billion debt, the result of an earlier ill-conceived bailout.Today he is one of a number of prominent economists and world leaders who argue that the ambitious framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability, with the I.M.F. and World Bank as its pillars, is failing in its mission.Martin Guzman, a former finance minister in Argentina, is among the economists and world leaders who argue that the framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability is not working.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesJavier Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina, at an election event in Salta, Argentina, in October. He has described himself as an “anarcho-capitalist.”Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe current system “contributes to a more inequitable and unstable global economy,” said Mr. Guzman, who resigned last year after a rift within the government.The repayment that Mr. Guzman negotiated was the 22nd arrangement between Argentina and the I.M.F. Even so, the country’s economic tailspin has only increased with an annual inflation rate of more than 140 percent, growing lines at soup kitchens and a new, self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist” president, Javier Milei, who this week devalued the currency by 50 percent.The I.M.F. and World Bank have aroused complaints from the left and right ever since they were created. But the latest critiques pose a more profound question: Does the economic framework devised eight decades ago fit the economy that exists today, when new geopolitical conflicts collide with established economic relationships and climate change poses an imminent threat?Volunteers serving free meals in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is in a tailspin, with growing lines at soup kitchens.Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressProtests in Buenos Aires in 2001. A debt crisis in Argentina led to default, riots and a devastating depression.Fabian Gredillas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThis 21st-century clash of ideas about how to fix a system created for a 20th-century world is one of the most consequential facing the global economy.The I.M.F. was set up in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., to help rescue countries in financial distress, while the World Bank’s focus was reducing poverty and investing in social development. The United States was the pre-eminent economic superpower, and scores of developing nations in Africa and Asia had not yet gained independence. The foundational ideology — later known as the “Washington Consensus” — held that prosperity depended on unhindered trade, deregulation and the primacy of private investment.“Nearly 80 years later, the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional and unjust,” António Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer at a summit in Paris. “Even the most fundamental goals on hunger and poverty have gone into reverse after decades of progress.”The world today is geopolitically fragmented. More than three-quarters of the current I.M.F. and World Bank countries were not at Bretton Woods. China’s economy, in ruins at the end of World War II, is now the world’s second-largest, an engine of global growth and a crucial hub in the world’s industrial machine and supply chain. India, then still a British colony, is one of the top five economies in the world.A session of the United Nations Monetary Conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., on July 4, 1944. Delegates from 44 countries are seated at the long tables.Abe Fox/Associated Press, via Associated PressAntónio Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer that “the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional, and unjust.”Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockThe once vaunted “Washington Consensus” has fallen into disrepute, with a greater recognition of how inequality and bias against women hamper growth, as well as the need for collective action on the climate.The mismatch between institution and mission has sharpened in recent years. Pounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, spiking food and energy prices related to the war in Ukraine, and higher interest rates, low- and middle-income countries are swimming in debt and facing slow growth. The size of the global economy as well as the scope of the problems have grown immensely, but funding of the I.M.F. and World Bank has not kept pace.Resolving debt crises is also vastly more complicated now that China and legions of private creditors are involved, instead of just a handful of Western banks.The World’s Bank’s own analyses outline the extent of the economic problems. “For the poorest countries, debt has become a nearly paralyzing burden,” a report released Wednesday concluded. Countries are forced to spend money on interest payments instead of investing in public health, education and the environment.An assembly line at the electric vehicle manufacturer Nio in Hefei, China. China’s economy was in ruins at the end of World War II but is now the world’s second largest and an engine of global growth.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesGita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said of the current financial system, “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”Jalal Morchidi/EPA, via ShutterstockAnd that debt doesn’t account for the trillions of dollars that developing countries will need to mitigate the ravages of climate change.Then there are the tensions between the United States and China, and Russia and Europe and its allies. It is harder to resolve debt crises or finance major infrastructure without bumping up against security concerns — like when the World Bank awarded the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei a contract that turned out to violate U.S. sanctions policy, or when China has resisted debt restructuring agreements.“The global rules-based system was not built to resolve national security-based trade conflicts,” Gita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said Monday in a speech to the International Economic Association in Colombia. “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”The World Bank and I.M.F. have made changes. The fund has moderated its approach to bailouts, replacing austerity with the idea of sustainable debt. The bank this year significantly increased the share of money going to climate-related projects. But critics maintain that the fixes so far are insufficient.“The way in which they have evolved and adapted is much slower than the way the global economy evolved and adapted,” Mr. Guzman said.Argentina’s new president devalued the currency by 50 percent this week.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesA vegetables shop in Almagro in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is South America’s second largest.Anita Pouchard Serra for The New York Times‘Time to Revisit Bretton Woods’Argentina, South America’s second-largest economy, may be the global economic system’s most notorious repeat failure, but it was Barbados, a tiny island nation in the Caribbean, that can be credited with turbocharging momentum for change.Mia Mottley, the prime minister, spoke out two years ago at the climate change summit in Glasgow and then followed up with the Bridgetown Initiative, a proposal to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.“Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods,” she said in a speech at last year’s climate summit in Egypt. Ms. Mottley argues that there has been a “fundamental breakdown” in a longstanding covenant between poor countries and rich ones, many of which built their wealth by exploiting former colonies. The most advanced industrialized countries also produce most of the emissions that are heating the planet and causing extreme floods, wildfires and droughts in poor countries.Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation, in Ghana, said that even recent agreements to deal with debt like the 2020 Common Framework were created without input from developing nations.“We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” Ms. Owusu-Gyamfi said, from her office in Accra, as she discussed a $3 billion I.M.F. bailout of Ghana.Yet if the fund and bank are focused on economic issues, they are essentially political creations that reflect the power of the countries that established, finance and manage them.And those countries are reluctant to cede that power. The United States, the only member with veto power, has the largest share of votes in part because of the size of its economy and financial contributions. It does not want to see its influence shrink and others’ — particularly China’s — grow.The impasse over reapportioning votes has hampered efforts to increase funding levels, which countries across the board agree need to be increased.A vegetable market in Accra, Ghana. “We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” said Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation in Ghana.Natalija Gormalova for The New York TimesCustomers at lunch in Buenos Aires. Mr. Guzman and others pushing for change argue that indebted countries need more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines.Sarah Pabst for The New York Times‘Big Hole’ in How to Deal With DebtStill, as Mr. Guzman said, “even if there are no changes in governance, there could be changes in policies.”Emerging nations need enormous amounts of money to invest in public health, education, transport and climate resilience. But they are saddled with high borrowing costs because of the market’s often exaggerated perception of the risk they pose as borrowers.And because they are usually compelled to borrow in dollars or euros, their payments soar if the Federal Reserve and other central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation as they did in the 1980s and after the Covid pandemic.The proliferation of private lenders and variety of loan agreements have made debt negotiations impossibly complex, yet no international legal arbiter exists.Zambia defaulted on its external debt three years ago, and there is still no agreement because the I.M.F., China and bondholders are at odds.There’s a “big hole” in international governance when it comes to sovereign debt, said Paola Subacchi, an economist at the Global Policy Institute at Queen Mary University in London, because the rules don’t apply to private loans, whether from a hedge fund or China’s central bank. Often these creditors have an interest in drawing out the process to hold out for a better deal.Mr. Guzman and other economists have called for an international legal arbiter to adjudicate disputes related to sovereign debt.“Every country has adopted a bankruptcy law,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, “but internationally we don’t have one.”The United States, though, has repeatedly opposed the idea, saying it is unnecessary.Rescues, too, have proved to be problematic. Last-resort loans from the I.M.F. can end up adding to a country’s budgetary woes and undermining the economic recovery because interest rates are so high now, and borrowers must also pay hefty fees.Those like Mr. Guzman and Ms. Mottley pushing for change argue that indebted countries need significantly more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines, along with a slate of other reforms.“The challenges are different today,” said Mr. Guzman. “Policies need to be better aligned with the mission.”Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, offered a proposal this year to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesFlash flooding in Bangladesh last year. The global economic framework was devised long before climate change posed an imminent threat to poor nations.Mushfiqul Alam/NurPhoto More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Lawmakers Call for Raising Tariffs and Severing Economic Ties With China

    by

    A bipartisan report recommended stripping China of the low tariffs the United States granted it two decades ago, among other actions.Bipartisan lawmakers on Tuesday called for severing more of America’s economic and financial ties with China, including revoking the low tariff rates that the United States granted Beijing after it joined the World Trade Organization more than two decades ago.The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party released a wide-ranging set of recommendations for resetting America’s economic relationship with China. The report, which was signed by both House Democrats and Republicans, argued that China had carried out a “multidecade campaign of economic aggression” that had undercut American firms, dominated crucial global industries and left the United States highly vulnerable in the event of a broader military conflict.The 53-page report included nearly 150 recommendations that Congress and the administration could take to offset those vulnerabilities. They ranged from imposing new tariffs on older types of Chinese chips to further cutting off the flow of capital and technology between the world’s largest economies.Among the report’s other recommendations were requiring that publicly traded American companies disclose ties to China and investing further in U.S. research and manufacturing capacity to counter China’s dominance of sectors like pharmaceuticals and critical minerals. It also suggested developing plans to coordinate economically with allies if the Chinese government invades Taiwan.Many of the recommendations may never be adopted by a fractious Congress. But the report could provide a path toward some bipartisan legislation on China in the months to come.Representative Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin and the committee’s chairman, said in an interview that he would like to see Congress come together on a major China bill next year ahead of the presidential election. He said that while some American firms opposed restrictions on doing business with China — a large and growing market — legislation clarifying what was allowed would be beneficial for many companies.“If Congress doesn’t step up and do something legislatively,” Mr. Gallagher said, “we’re just going to bounce back and forth between different executive orders that have wildly different rules that create chaos for Wall Street and the market.”The report is a tangible sign of how much the bipartisan consensus toward China has shifted in recent years.The most prevalent argument a decade ago was that economic interdependence between the United States and China would be a force for peace and stability. Some — including Biden administration officials — still say that business ties can help stabilize the relationship and promote peace.But that theory has increasingly given way to fears that ties to China could be weaponized in the event of a conflict. It could be catastrophic for the U.S. economy or the military, for example, if the Chinese government cut off its shipments to the United States of pharmaceuticals, minerals or components for weapons systems.Beijing’s subsidization of Chinese firms and incidents of intellectual property theft have also become an increasing source of friction. In some cases, China has allowed foreign firms to operate in the country only if they form partnerships that transfer valuable technology to local companies.The report said that the United States had never before faced a geopolitical adversary with which it was so economically interconnected, and that the full extent of the risk of relying on a strategic competitor remained unknown. The country lacks a contingency plan in the case of further conflict, it said.“Addressing this novel contest will require a fundamental re-evaluation of U.S. policy towards economic engagement with the P.R.C. as well as new tools to address the P.R.C.’s campaign of economic aggression,” the report said, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China.This year, the committee hosted a tabletop exercise to simulate how the United States would respond if the Chinese government invaded Taiwan. It found that U.S. efforts to deter China through sanctions and financial punishment “could carry tremendous costs to the United States,” the report said.The lawmakers said that they did not advocate a full “decoupling” of the U.S. and Chinese economies, but that the country needed to find a way to reduce Beijing’s leverage and to make the United States more economically independent.The report includes a variety of other recommendations, including increasing the authority of a committee that reviews foreign investments for national security threats and devising new high-standard trade agreements, especially with Taiwan, Japan and Britain.But the report’s first recommendation, and perhaps its most significant, is phasing in a new set of tariffs for China over a short period of time.When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the United States and other members began offering China lower tariffs to encourage trade. In return, China started undertaking a series of reforms to bring its economy in line with the organization’s rules.But the report argued that China had consistently failed to make good on those promised reforms, and that the “permanent normal trade relations” the United States had granted to China after its W.T.O. succession did not lead to the benefits or economic reforms Congress had expected. The report said Congress should now apply a different, higher set of tariffs to China.Such a move has been debated by lawmakers, and has been backed by former President Donald J. Trump and other Republican candidates. Last year, Congress voted to revoke permanent normal trade relations with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.But increasing tariffs on China, one of the United States’ largest trading partners, would provoke more opposition from businesses, since it would raise costs for products imported from China and most likely slow economic growth.The United States already has significant tariffs on many Chinese products, which were imposed during the Trump administration’s trade war and President Biden is still reviewing. The further changes suggested by Congress would increase levies on other items, like toys and smartphones, that have not born additional taxes.A study published by Oxford Economics in November and commissioned by the U.S. China Business Council estimated that such tariffs alone would lead to a $1.6 trillion loss for the U.S. economy over a five-year horizon. It would also be likely to cause further friction at the World Trade Organization, where the group’s most steadfast supporters have already accused the United States of undermining its rules.Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy, said that the U.S.-China economic relationship was “mutually beneficial” and that the proposals would “serve no one’s interests.”The report runs counter to “the principles of market economy and fair competition, and will undermine the international economic and trading order and destabilize global industrial and supply chains,” he said.The Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group that includes Target, Home Depot and Dollar General, said in a statement on Tuesday that it was concerned about the recommendations. Raising tariffs on Chinese products would “only harm U.S. businesses and invite retaliation from China,” it said.The lawmakers’ report acknowledged that such a change would be an economic burden, and suggested that Congress consider additional appropriations for farmers and other support for workers.Mr. Gallagher said that extricating the United States from its “thorough economic entanglement” with China would not be easy, and that Washington should work to develop alternative markets and prepare for potential retaliation from Beijing.Reaching consensus on the report required months of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, which its authors said should send a message to China. Only one member of the 24-person committee voted against the report: Representative Jake Auchincloss, a Massachusetts Democrat who had concerns about protectionism.“One of the theories that the C.C.P. has about the United States is that we are divided, that we are tribal, that we are incapable of coming together to deal with challenges,” said Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, the committee’s top Democrat, referring to the Chinese Communist Party. “On this particular issue of competition between the United States and the C.C.P., we are of one mind.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    E.U. Relaxes Trade Rules on Electric Cars From Britain

    by

    The NewsThe European Union plans to postpone strict local-content rules that would have led to costly tariffs imposed on cars traded between the bloc and Britain beginning Jan. 1.“This removes the threat of tariffs on export of E.U. electric vehicles to the U.K. and vice versa,” Maros Sefcovic, the European Union’s executive vice president, told journalists in Brussels Wednesday.The tariffs would have forced consumers in Britain and the European Union to pay more for many electric vehicles. Andrew Testa for The New York TimesWhy It Matters: Relief for carmakers that were facing tariffs.The proposal provides for a three-year delay in the trade rule, and represents a huge reprieve for many carmakers, especially those with plants in Britain. Eighty percent of cars made in Britain are exported, with 60 percent of them going to the European Union. The delay means that British electric vehicles with batteries made outside Europe will no longer face tariffs of up to 10 percent starting in three weeks.European carmakers would have faced similar hits in their sales of cars to Britain, a major market. The delay will probably be seen as a win for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s British government, which lobbied for the change along with the European car industry.Background: Europe and Britain do not make enough batteries.The rule would have made it virtually impossible for cars made in Britain with batteries from Asia to be imported tariff-free into the European Union. Neither Britain nor the Europe Union is manufacturing enough batteries for the rising number of electric vehicles expected to be produced in coming years. Batteries are the most expensive components of electric vehicles.Local origin rules are designed to discourage automakers from importing expensive parts, and to encourage local production. But this rule would have been counterproductive, the auto industry argued, by forcing consumers to pay more for many electric vehicles. Those higher prices could have opened the door for electric vehicles from outside Europe, especially China, whose makers are churning out low-cost models that have gained traction in Britain.What Happens Next: Time for the battery industry “to catch up.”The proposal still needs the support of European Union governments. Early indications are that it will be welcomed by auto industry. An extension would give “the European battery industry time to catch up,” the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, a British trade group, said Wednesday in a statement.Mr. Sefcovic also said the European Union planned to provide 3 billion euros ($3.25 billion) to encourage local manufacturing of batteries. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Debates How Much to Sever Electric Car Industry’s Ties to China

    by

    Some firms argue that a law aimed at popularizing electric vehicles risks turning the United States into an assembly shop for Chinese-made technology.The Biden administration has been trying to jump-start the domestic supply chain for electric vehicles so cleaner cars can be made in the United States. But the experience of one Texas company, whose plans to help make an all-American electric vehicle were upended by China, highlights the stakes involved as the administration finalizes rules governing the industry.Huntsman Corporation started construction two years ago on a $50 million plant in Texas to make ethylene carbonate, a chemical that is used in electric vehicle batteries. It would have been the only site in North America making the product, with the goal of feeding battery factories that would crop up to serve the electric vehicle market.But as new facilities in China came online and flooded the market, the price of the chemical plummeted to $700 a ton from $4,000. After pumping $30 million into the project, the company halted work on it this year. “If we were to start the project up today, we would be hemorrhaging cash,” said Peter R. Huntsman, the company’s chief executive. “I’d essentially be paying people to take the product.”The Biden administration is now finalizing rules that will help determine whether companies like Huntsman will find it profitable enough to participate in America’s electric vehicle industry. The rules, which are expected to be proposed this week, will dictate the extent to which foreign companies, particularly in China, can supply parts and products for American-made vehicles that are set to receive billions of dollars in subsidies.The administration is offering up to $7,500 in tax credits to Americans who buy electric vehicles, in an effort to supercharge the industry and reduce the country’s carbon emissions. The rules will determine whether electric vehicle makers seeking to benefit from that program will have the flexibility to get cheap components from China, or whether they will be required instead to buy more expensive products from U.S.-based firms like Huntsman.After pumping $30 million into the project, Huntsman halted work on it. “If we were to start the project up today, we would be hemorrhaging cash,” said Peter R. Huntsman, the company’s chief executive.Callaghan O’Hare for The New York TimesCan the World Make an Electric Car Battery Without China?From mines to refineries and factories, China began investing decades ago. Today, most of your electric car batteries are made in China and that’s unlikely to change soon.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s Pacific Trade Pact Suffers Setback After Criticism From Congress

    by

    The administration will no longer try to announce the completion of the trade terms this week, after prominent Democrats objected to some provisions.The Biden administration has pulled back on plans to announce the conclusion of substantial portions of a new Asian-Pacific trade pact at an international meeting in San Francisco this week, after several top Democratic lawmakers threatened to oppose the deal, people familiar with the matter said.The White House had been aiming to announce that the United States and its trading partners had largely settled the terms of its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, an agreement that aims to strengthen alliances and economic ties among the United States and its allies in East and South Asia.But Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, and other prominent lawmakers have criticized the pact, saying it lacks adequate protections for workers in the countries it covers, among other shortcomings.The Biden administration, facing the possibility of additional critical public statements, has decided not to push to conclude the trade portion of the agreement this week, and has been briefing members of Congress and foreign trading partners in recent days on its decision, the people said.The agreement has been a key element of the Biden administration’s strategy to counter China’s growing influence in Asia by strengthening relations with allies. The framework’s partners include Australia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Singapore and together account for 40 percent of the global economy.The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity has four main parts, or “pillars.” The first portion, which the administration completed in May, aims to knit together the countries’ supply chains.The Biden administration still appears likely to announce the substantial conclusion this week of two other big portions of the agreement, one on clean energy and decarbonization and another on taxation and anticorruption. The Commerce Department negotiated those two pillars, as well as the supply chain agreement.But the thorniest part of the framework has been the trade pillar, which is being overseen by Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, and her office. The trade negotiations cover issues such as regulatory practices, procedures for importing and exporting goods, agriculture, and standards for protecting workers and the environment.Congressional Democrats, including Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who leads the Senate Finance Committee, have expressed concern over the labor and environmental standards. Lawmakers of both parties have criticized the administration for not closely consulting Congress during the negotiations, while others have been dismayed by the administration’s recent clash with big tech firms over U.S. negotiating positions on digital trade.Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, second from left, has pledged to include tough labor standards in the agreement.Jason Henry/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn a statement last week, Mr. Brown, who is facing a tough re-election fight next year, called for cutting the entire trade pillar from the agreement, saying it did not contain strong enough protections to ensure workers aren’t exploited.“As the administration works to finalize the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, they should not include the trade pillar,” Mr. Brown said. “Any trade deal that does not include enforceable labor standards is unacceptable.”Members of Congress and their staffs had communicated concerns about a lack of enforceable provisions in meetings for several months, one Senate aide said.In a meeting with White House officials this fall, officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative proposed waiting until next year to announce the completed trade pillar, at which point all of the agreement’s contents, including the labor provisions, would be settled, according to a person familiar with the deliberations, who was not authorized to speak publicly.But White House officials were eager to have developments for President Biden to announce during the meetings in San Francisco. U.S. trade officials pushed their partners in foreign countries in recent weeks to complete a package of agreements that did not include the labor provisions, intending to finish them in 2024.After Mr. Brown’s public objections, the White House and the National Security Council asked to pull back on the announcement, the person who is familiar with the deliberations said.A spokesman for the National Security Council said in a statement that the Biden administration had focused on promoting workers’ rights and raising standards throughout the negotiations, and that the parties were on track to achieve meaningful progress.A spokesperson for Ms. Tai’s office said it had held 70 consultations with Congress while developing and negotiating the Indo-Pacific framework and would continue to work with Congress to negotiate a high-standard agreement.The decision to push back final trade measures until next year at the earliest is a setback for the Biden administration’s strategic plans for Asia. It’s also a demonstration of the tricky politics of trade, particularly for Democrats, who have frequently criticized trade agreements for failing to protect workers and the environment.Ms. Tai worked with Mr. Wyden, Mr. Brown and others during the Trump administration, when she was the chief trade counsel for the House Committee on Ways and Means, to insert tougher protections for workers and the environment into the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement.Ms. Tai has pledged to include tough labor standards in the Indo-Pacific agreement, which covers some countries — such as Malaysia and Vietnam — that labor groups say have low standards for protecting workers and unions. But critics say the power of the United States to demand concessions from other countries is limited because the deal does not involve lowering any tariff rates to give trading partners more access.While doing so would promote trade, the Biden administration and other trade skeptics argue that lower barriers could hurt American workers by encouraging companies to move jobs overseas. A previous Pacific trade pact that proposed cutting tariffs, the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by the Obama administration, fizzled after losing support from both Republicans and Democrats.In a statement, Mr. Wyden said senators had warned Ms. Tai’s office for months “that the United States cannot enter into a trade agreement without leveling the playing field for American workers, tackling pressing environmental challenges and bulldozing trade barriers for small businesses and creators.”“It should not have taken this long for the administration to listen to our warnings,” Mr. Wyden said. “Ambassador Tai must come home and work with Congress to find an agreement that will support American jobs and garner congressional support.” More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Solar Manufacturing Lured to U.S. by Tax Credits in Climate Bill

    by

    A combination of government policies is finally succeeding in reversing a long decline in solar manufacturing in the United States.Six years ago, an executive from Suniva, a bankrupt solar panel manufacturer, warned a packed hearing room in Washington that competition from companies in China and Southeast Asia was causing a “blood bath” in his industry. More than 30 U.S.-based solar companies had been forced to shut down in the previous five years alone, he said, and others would soon follow unless the government supported them.Suniva’s pleas helped spur the Trump administration to impose tariffs in 2018 on foreign-made solar panels, but that did not reverse the flow of jobs in the industry from going overseas. Suniva’s U.S. factories remained shuttered, with dim prospects for reopening.That is, until now. Last month, Suniva announced plans to reopen a Georgia plant, buoyed by tariffs, protective regulations and, crucially, lavish new tax breaks for Made-in-America solar manufacturing that President Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, created.Solar companies have long been the beneficiaries of government subsidies and trade protections, but in the United States, they have never been the object of so many simultaneous efforts to support the industry — and so much money from the government to back them up.The combination of billions of dollars of tax credits for new facilities and tougher restrictions on foreign products appears to be driving a wave of so-called reshoring of solar jobs. Those efforts are succeeding where more modest approaches did not, although critics argue that the gains come at a high cost to taxpayers and may not hold up in the long run.In the year since the climate law was passed, companies have announced nearly $8 billion in new investments in solar factories across the United States, according to data from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Rhodium Group, a nonpartisan research firm. That is more than triple the amount of total investment announced from 2018 through the middle of 2022.Suniva plans to reopen and expand a factory to make solar cells in Norcross, Ga., by spring. REC Silicon will restart this month a polysilicon plant in Moses Lake, Wash., that it shut down in 2019. Maxeon, a Singapore-based producer of solar cells and modules, will start work next year on a $1 billion site in New Mexico.In each of those cases, executives cited the incentives in the climate law as a driving factor in their investment decisions.In recent years, China overtook foreign competitors through huge government investments that allowed it to build factories 10 times as large as American ones.Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times“It was kind of exactly what we had in mind in terms of what would be needed, to pull these kinds of manufacturing initiatives forward,” said Peter Aschenbrenner, Maxeon’s chief strategy officer.China has loomed large over the industry for more than a decade. American demand for solar power has grown sharply since 2010 — by about 24 percent each year in that time, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group. But much of that spending went to cheaper foreign solar panels, often made by Chinese companies or with Chinese parts. That raised concerns of American overreliance on China, which is restricting supplies of other key products and whose solar production has been troubled by human rights concerns.U.S. solar manufacturing employment peaked in 2016, with just over 38,000 workers. By 2020, nearly one-fifth of those jobs were gone.Factory solar jobs have begun to grow again.E2, an environmental nonprofit organization, estimated that new investments announced in the first year of the climate law would create 35,000 temporary construction jobs and 12,000 permanent jobs across the entire solar industry in the years to come. Thousands of those permanent jobs are related to manufacturing, including an expected 2,000 at Maxeon’s planned plant in New Mexico.Economists and executives said that surge was largely due to public subsidies that flipped the economics of the solar industry in favor of domestic production.Mr. Aschenbrenner said Maxeon’s cost of domestic solar manufacturing would fall roughly 10 percent, just through a new manufacturing tax credit in the climate law that targets the production of both solar cells and solar modules. That is enough to offset the higher wage and construction costs of American factories, he said.The law also includes credits for customers, like homeowners and utilities, that install solar panels and begin generating electricity from them. If the customer buys panels that are sourced from the United States, like the ones Maxeon is planning, the value of that credit grows 10 percent.Those incentives could be enough to build an American industry that, within a matter of years, could be large and efficient enough to compete with China even without subsidies, Mr. Aschenbrenner said.Others are more skeptical. Analysts at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy, estimate that nearly half the solar module capacity announced by 2026 will not materialize, given that some manufacturers announce long-term plans to gauge feasibility and interest.The recent embrace of subsidies and tariffs by politicians of both parties also irks some economists, who say that while such programs can save or create jobs, they do so at an extremely high cost.A 2021 study by the Peterson Institute of International Economics of past industrial policy programs found that the Obama administration’s 2009 investment in Solyndra, a solar company that ultimately went bankrupt, cost taxpayers about $216,000 for each job created, more than four times prevailing industry wages. Other programs were even more expensive.REC Silicon, a Norwegian maker of polysilicon, entered into a deal with QCells to supply that company’s planned U.S. plants.Megan Varner/Reuters“With certain kinds of technology, you can subsidize and protect your way to having factories,” said Scott Lincicome, who studies trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “The question is always about at what cost?”In addition to the costs incurred to taxpayers, protections for the U.S. industry are making solar products more expensive in the United States than in other countries, Mr. Lincicome said. That slows the adoption of solar technology, in contrast to climate goals.Trends in the global solar industry have often been closely linked with government action. The industry started booming over a decade ago when Germany and Japan began offering subsidies for solar power.In recent years, China overtook foreign competitors through huge government investments that allowed it to build factories 10 times as large as American ones. Since 2011, China has invested more than $50 billion in the sector, ultimately capturing more than 80 percent of the global share of every stage in the manufacturing process, according to the International Energy Agency.Tariffs also shaped the industry’s evolution. The United States imposed levies on Chinese solar products in 2012. The next year, China retaliated with tariffs of up to 57 percent on U.S. polysilicon, a raw material for solar panels.That proved to be the death knell for the factory that REC Silicon, a Norwegian maker of polysilicon, was operating in Washington State, said Chuck Sutton, the company’s vice president of global sales and marketing. With few companies still standing outside China, REC Silicon “basically didn’t have any customers left,” he said.REC Silicon worked with the Trump administration to get China to commit to buying more American polysilicon as part of a 2019 trade deal. But China never followed through on those purchases.The turnaround for REC Silicon came, Mr. Sutton said, with the new tax credits this year. The manufacturer entered into a deal with QCells to supply its polysilicon to QCells’ planned U.S. plants. The deal allowed REC Silicon to reopen its Washington site, Mr. Sutton said.To compete with China, the industry needed “a whole-of-government approach,” Mr. Card of Suniva said, that included both tariffs and tax credits for domestic manufacturing.“They are not opposing forces,” he said. “They work together and make each other stronger.” More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Risk of a Wider Middle East War Threatens a ‘Fragile’ World Economy

    by

    After shocks from the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there’s little cushion if the fighting between Hamas and Israel becomes a regional conflict.Fears that Israel’s expanding military operations in Gaza could escalate into a regional conflict are clouding the global economy’s outlook, threatening to dampen growth and reignite a rise in energy and food prices.Rich and poor nations were just beginning to catch their breath after a three-year string of economic shocks that included the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Stinging inflation has been dropping, oil prices have stabilized and predicted recessions have been avoided.Now, some leading international financial institutions and private investors warn that the fragile recovery could turn bad.“This is the first time that we’ve had two energy shocks at the same time,” said Indermit Gill, chief economist at the World Bank, referring to the impact of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East on oil and gas prices.Those price increases not only chip away at the buying power of families and companies but also push up the cost of food production, adding to high levels of food insecurity, particularly in developing countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.As it is, nations are already struggling with unusually high levels of debt, limp private investment and the slowest recovery in trade in five decades, making it tougher for them to grow their way out of the crisis. Higher interest rates, the result of central bank efforts to tame inflation, have made it more difficult for governments and private companies to get access to credit and stave off default.Israeli soldiers surveying destruction in Kfar Azza, a community near the Gaza border that Hamas militants raided last month.Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times“All of these things are happening all at the same time,” Mr. Gill said. “We are in one of the most fragile junctures for the world economy.”Mr. Gill’s assessment echoes those of other analysts. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said last month that “this may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades,” and described the conflict in Gaza as “the highest and most important thing for the Western world.”The recent economic troubles have been fueled by deepening geopolitical conflicts that span continents. Tensions between the United States and China over technology transfers and security only complicate efforts to work together on other problems like climate change, debt relief or violent regional conflicts.The overriding political preoccupations also mean that traditional monetary and fiscal tools like adjusting interest rates or government spending may be less effective.The brutal fighting between Israel and Hamas has already taken the lives of thousands of civilians and inflicted wrenching misery on both sides. If the conflict stays contained, though, the ripple effects on the world economy are likely to remain limited, most analysts agree.Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, said on Wednesday that “it isn’t clear at this point that the conflict in the Middle East is on track to have significant economic effects” on the United States, but he added, “That doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly important.”Mideast oil producers do not dominate the market the way they did in the 1970s, when Arab nations drastically cut production and imposed an embargo on the United States and some other countries after a coalition led by Egypt and Syria attacked Israel.At the moment, the United States is the world’s largest oil producer, and alternative and renewable energy sources make up a bit more of the world’s energy mix.“It’s a highly volatile, uncertain, scary situation,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. But there is “a recognition among most of the parties, the U.S., Europe, Iran, other gulf countries,” he continued, referring to the Persian Gulf, “that it’s in no one’s interest for this conflict to significantly expand beyond Israel and Gaza.”Mr. Bordoff added that missteps, poor communication and misunderstandings, however, could push countries to escalate even if they didn’t want to.And a significant and sustained drop in the global supply of oil — whatever the reasons — could simultaneously slow growth and inflame inflation, a cursed combination known as stagflation.Women buying and selling grain in Yola, Nigeria. The aftereffects of the pandemic have stunted growth in emerging markets like Nigeria.Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York TimesGregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, said a worst-case scenario in which the war broadened could cause oil prices to spike to $150 a barrel, from about $85 currently. “The global economic consequences of this scenario are severe,” he warned, citing a mild recession, a plunge in stock prices and a loss of $2 trillion for the global economy.The prevailing mood now is uncertainty, which is weighing on investment decisions and could discourage businesses from expanding into emerging markets. Borrowing costs have soared, and companies in several countries, from Brazil to China, are expected to have trouble refinancing their debt.At the same time, emerging markets like Egypt, Nigeria and Hungary have experienced some of the worst scarring from the pandemic, according to Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, resulting in lower growth than had been projected.Conflict in the Middle East as well as economic strains could also increase the stream of migrants heading to Europe from that region and North Africa. The European Union, which is teetering on the brink of a recession, is in the middle of negotiations with Egypt over increasing financial aid and controlling migration.China, which gets half its oil imports from the Persian Gulf, is struggling with a collapse in the real estate market and its weakest growth is nearly three decades.By contrast, the United States has confounded forecasters with its strong growth. From July through September, the economy grew at an annual rate of just a shade under 5 percent, buoyed by slowing inflation, stockpiled savings and robust hiring.India, backed by enthusiastic consumers, is on track to perform well next, with estimated growth of 6.3 percent.A natural gas pipeline terminal in Ashkelon, Israel, in 2017. When it comes to energy markets, events in the Middle East “will not stay in the Middle East,” said M. Ayhan Kose, a World Bank economist.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesThe region with the gloomiest prospects is sub-Saharan Africa, where, even before fighting broke out in Israel and Gaza, total output this year was estimated to fall 3.3 percent. Incomes in the region have not increased since 2014, when oil prices crashed, said M. Ayhan Kose, who oversees the World Bank’s annual Global Economic Prospects report.“Sub-Saharan Africa has already experienced a lost decade,” Mr. Kose said in an interview. Now “think about another lost decade.”As far as energy markets are concerned, something that “happens in the Middle East will not stay in the Middle East,” he added. “It will have global implications.” More