Shortages

More stories

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Powell Says Fed Could Raise Rates More Quickly to Tame Inflation

    by

    Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, said on Monday that the central bank was prepared to more quickly withdraw support from the economy if doing so proved necessary to bring rapid inflation under control.Mr. Powell signaled that the Fed could make big interest rate increases and push rates to relatively high levels in its quest to cool off demand and temper inflation, which is running at its fastest pace in 40 years. His comments were the clearest statement yet that the central bank was ready to forcefully attack rapid price increases to make sure that they do not become a permanent feature of the American economy.“There is an obvious need to move expeditiously to return the stance of monetary policy to a more neutral level, and then to move to more restrictive levels if that is what is required to restore price stability,” Mr. Powell said during remarks to a conference of business economists.Policymakers raised interest rates by a quarter point last week and forecast six more similarly sized increases this year. On Monday, Mr. Powell foreshadowed a potentially more aggressive path. A restrictive rate setting would squeeze the economy, slowing consumer spending and the labor market — a move akin to the Fed’s hitting the brakes rather than just taking its foot off the accelerator.“If we conclude that it is appropriate to move more aggressively by raising the federal funds rate by more than 25 basis points at a meeting or meetings, we will do so,” Mr. Powell said. “And if we determine that we need to tighten beyond common measures of neutral and into a more restrictive stance, we will do that as well.”Asked what would keep the Fed from raising interest rates by half a percentage point at its next meeting in May, Mr. Powell replied, “Nothing.” He said the Fed had not yet made a decision on its next rate increase but noted that officials would make a supersized move if they thought one was appropriate.“The expectation going into this year was that we would basically see inflation peaking in the first quarter, then maybe leveling out,” Mr. Powell said. “That story has already fallen apart. To the extent that it continues to fall apart, my colleagues and I may well reach the conclusion that we’ll need to move more quickly.”Stocks fell in response to Mr. Powell’s comments and were down 0.6 percent by the time he finished speaking in the early afternoon; the S&P 500 index closed the day down 0.4 percent. Higher interest rates can push down stock prices as they pull money away from riskier assets — like shares in companies — and toward safer havens, like bonds, and as they make money more expensive to borrow for businesses. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note rose as high as 2.3 percent as Mr. Powell was speaking, and the yield on two-year Treasurys rose above 2 percent for the first time since 2019.Rising rates can especially hurt share prices if they tank economic growth or cause the economy to contract.While the Fed has often caused recessions by raising interest rates in a bid to slow down demand and cool off price increases, Mr. Powell voiced optimism that the central bank could avoid such an outcome this time, in part because the economy is starting from a strong place. Even so, he acknowledged that guiding inflation down without severely hurting the economy would be a challenge.“No one expects that bringing about a soft landing will be straightforward in the current context,” Mr. Powell said.But getting price gains under control is the Fed’s priority, and while the central bank had been hoping for inflation to fade as pandemic disruptions abate, Mr. Powell was adamant that it could no longer watch and wait for that to happen.In addition to raising rates, the Fed plans to reduce its large bond holdings by allowing securities to expire, which would push up longer-term borrowing costs, including mortgage rates, helping to take steam out of the economy. Mr. Powell emphasized that the balance sheet shrinking could begin imminently.Action on the balance sheet “could come as soon as our next meeting in May, though that is not a decision that we have made,” Mr. Powell said.The Fed is preparing to pull back support even as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stokes economic uncertainty. The conflict has pushed energy prices higher, something that the Fed would typically discount, since it is likely to fade eventually. But Mr. Powell said it could not ignore the increase when inflation was already high.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 150 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How the War in Ukraine Could Slow the Sales of Electric Cars

    by

    The price of nickel, an essential ingredient in most batteries, has soared because of fear that Russian supplies could be cut off.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shaken the global market for nickel just as the metal gains importance as an ingredient in electric car batteries, raising fears that high prices could slow the transition away from fossil fuels.The price of nickel doubled in one day last week, prompting the London Metal Exchange to freeze trading and effectively bring the global nickel market to a standstill. After two years of supply chain chaos caused by the pandemic, the episode provided more evidence of how geopolitical tensions are destroying trading relationships that companies once took for granted, forcing them to rethink where they get the parts and metals they use to make cars and many other products.Automakers and other companies that need nickel, as well as other battery raw materials like lithium or cobalt, have begun looking for ways to shield themselves against future shocks.Volkswagen, for example, has begun to explore buying nickel directly from mining companies, Markus Duesmann, chief executive of the carmaker’s Audi division, said in an interview on Thursday. “Raw materials are going to be an issue for years to come,” he said.The prospect of prolonged geopolitical tensions is likely to accelerate attempts by the United States and Europe to develop domestic supplies of commodities that often come from Russia. There are nickel deposits, for example, in Canada, Greenland and even Minnesota.“Nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium, even copper — we already realized we need those metals for the green transition, for mitigating climate change,” said Bo Stensgaard, chief executive of Bluejay Mining, which is working on extracting nickel from a site in western Greenland in a venture with KoBold Metals, whose backers include Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. “When you see the geopolitical developments with Ukraine and Russia, it’s even more obvious that there are supply risks with these metals.”But establishing new mining operations is likely to take years, even decades, because of the time needed to acquire permits and financing. In the meantime, companies using nickel — a group that also includes steel makers — will need to contend with higher prices, which will eventually be felt by consumers.An average electric-car battery contains about 80 pounds of nickel. The surge in prices in March would more than double the cost of that nickel to $1,750 a car, according to estimates by the trading firm Cantor Fitzgerald.Russia accounts for a relatively small proportion of world nickel production, and most of it is used to make stainless steel, not car batteries. But Russia plays an outsize role in nickel markets. Norilsk Nickel, also known as Nornickel, is the world’s largest nickel producer, with vast operations in Siberia. Its owner, Vladimir Potanin, is one of Russia’s wealthiest people. Norilsk is among a limited number of companies authorized to sell a specialized form of nickel on the London Metal Exchange, which handles all nickel trading.Unlike other oligarchs, Mr. Potanin has not been a target of sanctions, and the United States and Europe have not tried to block nickel exports, a step that would hurt their economies as well as Russia’s. The prospect that Russian nickel could be cut off from world markets was enough to cause panic.Analysts expect prices to come down from their recent peaks but remain much higher than they were a year ago. “The trend would be to come down to a level close to where we last left off,” around $25,000 a metric ton compared to the peak of $100,000 a ton, said Adrian Gardner, a principal analyst specializing in nickel at Wood Mackenzie, a research firm.A plant owned by Nornickel, the world’s leading producer of nickel and palladium, in Norilsk, Russia.Tatyana Makeyeva/ReutersNickel was on a tear even before the Russian invasion as hedge funds and other investors bet on rising demand for electric vehicles. The price topped $20,000 a ton this year after hovering between $10,000 and $15,000 a ton for much of the past five years. At the same time, less nickel was being produced because of the pandemic.After Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, the price rose above $30,000 in a little over a week. Then came March 8. Word spread on the trading desks of brokerage firms and hedge funds in London that a company, which turned out to be the Tsingshan Holding Group of China, had made a huge bet that the price of nickel would drop. When the price rose, Tsingshan owed billions of dollars, a situation known on Wall Street as a short squeeze.The price shot up to a little over $100,000 a ton, threatening the existence of many other companies that had bet wrong and prompting the London Metal Exchange to halt trading.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Ukrainian Invasion Adds to Chaos for Global Supply Chains

    by

    Russia’s military incursion is severing key supply chains and setting off a scramble among global companies to comply with new sanctions.WASHINGTON — The Russian invasion of Ukraine has rattled global supply chains that are still in disarray from the pandemic, adding to surging costs, prolonged deliveries and other challenges for companies trying to move goods around the world.The clash in Ukraine, a large country at the nexus of Europe and Asia, has caused some flights to be canceled or rerouted, putting pressure on cargo capacity and raising concerns about further supply chain disruptions. It is putting at risk global supplies of products like platinum, aluminum, sunflower oil and steel, and shuttering factories in Europe, Ukraine and Russia. And it has sent energy prices soaring, further raising shipping costs.The conflict is also setting off a scramble among global companies as they cut off trade with Russia to comply with the most far-reaching sanctions imposed on a major economic power since the end of the Cold War.The new challenges follow more than two years of disruptions, delays and higher prices for beleaguered companies that use global supply chains to move products around the world. And while the economic implications of the war and sweeping sanctions on Russia are not yet clear, many industries are bracing for a bad situation to get worse.“Global supply chains are already hurting and stressed because of the pandemic,” said Laura Rabinowitz, a trade lawyer at Greenberg Traurig. She said the effects would vary for specific industries and depend on the length of the invasion, but the impacts would be magnified because of an already-vulnerable supply chain.“There’s still tremendous port congestion in the United States. Freight costs are very high. Factory closures in Asia are still an issue,” she said.Companies with complex global supply chains, like automakers, are already feeling the effects. Volkswagen, which had already announced it was suspending production at its main factory for electric cars, said Tuesday that it would also be forced to shut down production at several other factories, including its main factory in Wolfsburg, Germany, in coming weeks because of parts shortages.Automakers could see shortages of other key materials. Ukraine and Russia are both substantial sources for palladium and platinum, used in catalytic converters, as well as aluminum, steel and chrome.Semiconductor manufacturers are warily eyeing global stocks of neon, xenon and palladium, necessary to manufacture their products. Makers of potato chips and cosmetics could face shortages of sunflower oil, the bulk of which is produced in Russia and Ukraine.And if the conflict is prolonged, it could threaten the summer wheat harvest, which flows into bread, pasta and packaged food for vast numbers of people, especially in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Food prices have already skyrocketed because of disruptions in the global supply chain, increasing the risk of social unrest in poorer countries.On Tuesday, the global shipping giant Maersk announced that it would temporarily suspend all shipments to and from Russia by ocean, air and rail, with the exception of food and medicine. Ocean Network Express, Hapag-Lloyd and MSC, the world’s other major ocean carriers, have announced similar suspensions.“The war just makes the worldwide situation for commodities more dire,” said Christopher F. Graham, a partner at White and Williams.Jennifer McKeown, the head of global economics service at Capital Economics, said the global economy appeared relatively insulated from the conflict. But she said shortages of materials like palladium and xenon, used in semiconductor and auto production, could add to current difficulties for those industries. Semiconductor shortages have halted production at car plants and other facilities, fueling price increases and weighing on sales.“That could add to the shortages that we’re already seeing, exacerbate those shortages, and end up causing further damage to global growth,” she said.International companies are also trying to comply with sweeping financial sanctions and export controls imposed by Europe, the United States and a number of other countries that have clamped down on flows of goods and money in and out of Russia.In just a few days, Western governments moved to exclude certain Russian banks from using the SWIFT messaging system, limit the Russian central bank’s ability to prop up the ruble, cut off shipments of high-tech goods and freeze the global assets of Russian oligarchs.The Biden administration said the technology restrictions alone would stop about a fifth of Russian imports. But the impact on trade from the financial curbs is likely to be even larger, cutting off Russia’s imports from and exports to nearly all of its major trading partners, said Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University.“Even when trade flows may take place directly between Russia and its trading partners, the reality is that payments often have to go through a Western-dominated financial system, and usually have to go through a Western currency,” he said.In a statement on Saturday, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that Europe and its allies were “resolved to continue imposing massive costs on Russia” and that disconnecting Russian banks from SWIFT would also halt Russian trade.“Cutting banks off will stop them from conducting most of their financial transactions worldwide and effectively block Russian exports and imports,” she said.The economic consequences of these moves are not yet entirely clear. Russia accounts for less than 2 percent of global domestic product, so the implications for other countries may be somewhat limited.The departures board displayed flight cancellations at Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow on Monday.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesBut for the Russian government and the economy, both of which are heavily dependent on trade to generate revenue, the impact could be catastrophic. Capitol Economics has estimated Russian gross domestic product could contract by 5 percent this year, a change that in isolation would knock just 0.2 percentage points off global growth.Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist at Capitol Economics, said financial sanctions were halting the trade of metals and agricultural commodities, likely exacerbating strains in global supply chains.Credit Suisse and Société Generale have suspended financing for commodity trading with Russia, as has the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, she said.Russia’s Attack on Ukraine and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Patrick Gelsinger is Intel's True Believer

    by

    Patrick Gelsinger was 18 years old and four months into an entry-level job at Intel when he heard a pivotal sermon at a Silicon Valley church in February 1980. There, a minister quoted Jesus from the Book of Revelation.“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!” the minister said. “So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”The words jolted Mr. Gelsinger, reshaping his philosophy. He realized he had been a lukewarm believer, one who practiced his faith just once a week. He vowed never to be neither hot nor cold again.Now, at age 60, Mr. Gelsinger is hot about one thing in particular: Revitalizing Intel, a Silicon Valley icon that lost its leading position in chip manufacturing.The 120,000-person company was a household name in the 1990s, celebrated as a fount of innovation as its microprocessors became the electronic brains in the vast majority of computers. But Intel failed to place its chips into smartphones, which became the device of choice for most people. Apple and Google instead grew into the trillion-dollar emblems of Silicon Valley.Rejuvenating Intel is partly about Mr. Gelsinger’s own ambitions. As a young engineer, he once wrote down a goal of leading Intel one day. But in 2009, after spending his entire career at the company, he was forced out. A year ago, he was wooed back for a surprise second chance.His mission is also about America’s place in the world. Mr. Gelsinger wants to return the United States to a leading role in semiconductor production, reducing the country’s dependence on manufacturers in Asia and easing a global chip shortage. Intel, he believes, can spearhead the charge. If he succeeds, the impact could extend far beyond computers to just about every device with an on-off switch.The quest faces many obstacles. Steering a $200 billion company while chasing a goal of raising U.S. chip production to 30 percent globally from about 12 percent today requires tens of billions of dollars, political maneuvering with governments and years of patience.“You’re going to have to spend a lot of money and you’re going to have to spend it for a long period of time,” said Simon Segars, who recently stepped down as chief executive of Arm, a British company whose chip designs power most smartphones. “Whether governments have the stomach for that over the long term remains to be seen.”In four interviews, Mr. Gelsinger acknowledged the difficulties. But the father of four and grandfather of eight has pursued the goals with intensity.In March, he unveiled a $20 billion project to add two chip factories to Intel’s complex near Phoenix. Last month, he joined President Biden to showcase a $20 billion investment in a new chip manufacturing site near Columbus, Ohio. On Tuesday, he announced a $5.4 billion deal to buy Tower Semiconductor, which operates chip production services from factories in four countries.To drum up government support for his investments, Mr. Gelsinger has attended three virtual White House gatherings, spoken with two dozen members of Congress and four governors. He became a key ally to President Biden over a $52 billion package that would provide grants to companies willing to set up new U.S. chip factories. And in Europe, Mr. Gelsinger met with President Emmanuel Macron of France, President Mario Draghi of Italy, their counterparts in other countries, and the pope.Mr. Gelsinger with President Emmanuel Macron of France last June.Pool photo by Stephane De SakutinIt has been a tough slog. Intel’s stock has dropped as Mr. Gelsinger committed huge sums to chip manufacturing. The $52 billion funding package stalled for months in the House of Representatives, finally passing this month as part of broader legislation that must now be reconciled with a Senate version. Criticism of the chief executive from Wall Street analysts has ramped up.“Every day the job is way bigger than me,” Mr. Gelsinger said. But “it’s OK,” he added, because he believes he has help. “God, I need you showing up with me today because this job is way more than I could possibly do myself.”Faith and WorkIf his father had managed to buy a farm, Mr. Gelsinger would almost certainly have inherited it and become a farmer. That was expected in Robesonia, a borough in Pennsylvania Dutch country where he was raised and worked on his uncles’ farms.But there was no farm to inherit. So at age 16, Mr. Gelsinger passed a scholarship exam that took him to the Lincoln Technical Institute, a for-profit vocational school, where he earned an associate degree.Mr. Gelsinger tells this and other stories self-deprecatingly in a 2003 book of advice that he wrote for Christians titled “Balancing Your Family, Faith & Work,” which was expanded in 2008 and titled, “The Juggling Act: Bringing Balance to Your Faith, Family, and Work.”In 1979, he was interviewed at the technical institute by a manager from Intel. Unlike most of the other students there, Mr. Gelsinger had heard of the company. He breezed through questions related to his studies and predicted he could earn bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees while holding down a full-time job, said Ronald Smith, the former Intel executive who conducted the interview.“He is very smart, very ambitious and arrogant,” Mr. Smith said he wrote in a summary of the conversation. “He’ll fit right in.”Mr. Gelsinger took his first plane ride to interview at Intel in California, where he started in October 1979 as a technician. He worked on improving the reliability of microprocessors while studying for a bachelor’s degree at Santa Clara University.He soon started hanging out with the engineers who designed the chips, coming up with ideas to test the chips more efficiently. In 1982, he became the fourth engineer on the team that introduced the groundbreaking 80386 microprocessor.During a 1985 presentation near the completion of the chip, Mr. Gelsinger chided Intel’s leaders Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove about balky company computers that were slowing the process.A few days later, he got a surprise call from Mr. Grove. The Hungarian-born executive, then Intel’s president who later wrote the management book “Only the Paranoid Survive,” had built a culture where lower-level employees were encouraged to challenge superiors if they could back up their positions. Mr. Grove began mentoring Mr. Gelsinger, a relationship that lasted three decades.By 1986, Mr. Grove had convinced Mr. Gelsinger not to pursue a doctorate at Stanford University and instead made him, at age 24, the leader of a 100-person team designing Intel’s 80486 microprocessor. Mr. Gelsinger eventually earned eight patents, became Intel’s youngest vice president in 1992 and the first person with the title of chief technology officer in 2001.His climb up Intel’s ladder was shaped by another priority: his faith.Though raised in the mainstream United Church of Christ, Mr. Gelsinger said he didn’t really become a Christian until he attended the nondenominational church in Silicon Valley where he met Linda Fortune, who later became his wife. It was at that church in 1980 that he heard the minister quote Revelations.After Mr. Gelsinger became a born-again Christian, he wrestled privately with whether to join the clergy. In a 2019 oral history conducted by the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif., he said he eventually decided to become a “workplace minister,” where “you really view yourself as working for God as your C.E.O., even though you’re working for Intel.”Intel SlipsIn the mid-2000s, Mr. Gelsinger’s footing within Intel shifted. Mr. Grove retired as board chairman in 2004. Another executive, Paul Otellini, was appointed chief executive in 2005. Mr. Gelsinger said he was a “dissonant voice” on Intel’s senior executive team.Mr. Otellini pushed him to leave, Mr. Gelsinger said. (Mr. Otellini died in 2017.) In 2009, Mr. Gelsinger accepted an offer to become president and chief operating officer of EMC, a maker of data storage gear.Departing Intel after 30 years as a company man hurt badly. “I was just so angry and emotional about the departure,” Mr. Gelsinger said.In 2012, he became chief executive of VMware, a software company that EMC controlled. He weathered challenges there, including an aborted effort to compete in cloud computing services with Amazon, but broadened the company’s business and nearly tripled revenues.During those years, Intel slipped. For decades, the company had led the industry in delivering regular factory advances that pack more processing power into chips. But delays in perfecting new production processes allowed rivals such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and Samsung Electronics to grab the lead in manufacturing technology between 2015 and 2019.Mr. Gelsinger in 2006, when he was senior vice president of Intel’s digital enterprise group, with the company’s dual core next generation chip.Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesToday, T.S.M.C. makes chips designed by hundreds of other companies. It supplies the world with more than 90 percent of the chips made with the most advanced production technology. Because it is headquartered in Taiwan, which China has laid territorial claim to, its location has made it a political and supply chain chokepoint should conflict erupt over the island nation.Intel was also suffering from its missteps in the mobile market, which consumes billions of processors compared with the hundreds of millions sold for computers.After convincing Apple to use its chips in Macintosh computers in 2005, Intel had a chance to win a place in the iPhone, which debuted in 2007. But Mr. Otellini said in a 2013 interview in The Atlantic that he turned down the opportunity because the price that Apple was willing to pay for chips was too low to make a profit.The decision, which Mr. Otellini said he regretted, led Apple to use rival Arm technology for smartphones and, later, tablets. So did Samsung and other companies that make devices using Google’s Android software. More recently, Apple started using Arm chips in many new Macs.Mr. Otellini and his successors prioritized Intel’s profit margins while failing to take risks to move into new markets and outflank rivals, former company insiders now acknowledge. If boiled down to a book, “it could be called ‘the insufficiently paranoid don’t survive,’” said Reed Hundt, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman who served on Intel’s board from 2001 to 2020, in a nod to Mr. Grove’s “Only the Paranoid Survive.”As questions swirled about Intel’s future, Mr. Gelsinger was viewed as a possible savior. But he insisted he was committed to VMware, a point he seemed to underscore by adding a temporary tattoo with the company’s name on his arm during a 2018 conference in Las Vegas.Then, just before Thanksgiving 2020, an Intel director asked Mr. Gelsinger to join the company’s board. Mr. Gelsinger asked for permission from Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Technologies, which then controlled VMware.“I knew Intel needed some help and Pat was somebody who could help a lot, so I said ‘sure,’” Mr. Dell said.Understand the Global Chip ShortageCard 1 of 7In short supply. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Food Prices Approach Record Highs, Threatening the World’s Poorest

    by

    The prices have climbed to their highest level since 2011, according to a U.N. index. It could cause social unrest “on a widespread scale,” one expert said.WASHINGTON — Food prices have skyrocketed globally because of disruptions in the global supply chain, adverse weather and rising energy prices, increases that are imposing a heavy burden on poorer people around the world and threatening to stoke social unrest.The increases have affected items as varied as grains, vegetable oils, butter, pasta, beef and coffee. They come as farmers around the globe face an array of challenges, including drought and ice storms that have ruined crops, rising prices for fertilizer and fuel, and pandemic-related labor shortages and supply chain disruptions that make it difficult to get products to market.A global index released on Thursday by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization showed food prices in January climbed to their highest level since 2011, when skyrocketing costs contributed to political uprisings in Egypt and Libya. The price of meat, dairy and cereals trended upward from December, while the price of oils reached the highest level since the index’s tracking began in 1990.Maurice Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who was formerly chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, said that food price increases would strain incomes in poorer countries, especially in some parts of Latin America and Africa, where some people may spend up to 50 or 60 percent of their income on food.He said that it wasn’t “much of an exaggeration” to say the world was approaching a global food crisis, and that slower growth, high unemployment and stressed budgets from governments that have spent heavily to combat the pandemic had created “a perfect storm of adverse circumstances.”“There’s a lot of cause for worry about social unrest on a widespread scale,” he added.Even before the pandemic, global food prices had been trending upward as disease wiped out much of China’s pig herd and the U.S.-China trade war resulted in Chinese tariffs on American agricultural goods.But as the pandemic began in early 2020, the world experienced seismic shifts in demand for food. Restaurants, cafeterias and slaughterhouses shuttered, and more people switched to cooking and eating at home. Some American farmers who could not get their products into the hands of consumers were forced to dump milk in their fields and cull their herds.Two years later, global demand for food remains strong, but higher fuel prices and shipping costs, along with other supply chain bottlenecks like a shortage of truck drivers and shipping containers, continue to push up prices, said Christian Bogmans, an economist at the International Monetary Fund.Drought and bad weather in major agricultural producing countries like Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Russia and Ukraine have worsened the situation.The I.M.F.’s data shows that average food inflation across the world reached 6.85 percent on an annualized basis in December, the highest level since their series started in 2014. Between April 2020 and December 2021, the price of soybeans soared 52 percent, and corn and wheat both grew 80 percent, the fund’s data showed, while the price of coffee rose 70 percent, due largely to droughts and frost in Brazil.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.While food prices appear set to stabilize, events like a conflict in Ukraine, a major producer of wheat and corn, or further adverse weather could change that calculation, Mr. Bogmans said.The effects of rising food prices have been felt unevenly around the world. Asia has been largely spared because of a plentiful rice crop. But parts of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America that are more dependent on imported food are struggling.Countries like Russia, Brazil, Turkey and Argentina have also suffered as their currencies lost value against the dollar, which is used internationally to pay for most food commodities, Mr. Bogmans said.In Africa, bad weather, pandemic restrictions and conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Sudan and Sudan have disrupted transportation routes and driven up food prices.Joseph Siegle, the director of research at National Defense University’s Africa Center for Strategic Studies, estimated that 106 million people on the continent are facing food insecurity, double the number since 2018.“Africa is facing record levels of insecurity,” he said.While shopping at a market in Mexico City’s Juarez neighborhood on Thursday, Gabriela Ramírez Ramírez, a 43-year-old domestic worker, said the increase in prices had strained her monthly budget, about half of which goes to food. Inflation in Mexico reached its highest rate in more than 20 years in November, before easing slightly in December.“It affects me a lot because you don’t earn enough, and the raises they give you are very small,” she said. “Sometimes we barely have enough to eat.”The impact has been less severe in the United States, where food accounts for less than one-seventh of household spending on average, and inflation has become broad-based, spilling into energy, used cars, dishwashers, services and rents as price increases reach a 40-year high.Yet American food prices have still risen sharply, putting a burden on the poorest households who spend more of their overall budget on food. Food prices rose 6.3 percent in December compared with a year ago, while the price of meat, poultry, fish and eggs jumped 12.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.The Biden administration has tried to restrain some of these increases, including with an effort to combat consolidation in the meat packing business, which it says is a source of higher prices.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Commerce Dept. Survey Uncovers ‘Alarming’ Chip Shortages

    by

    Increased demand for the semiconductors that power cars, electronics and electrical grids have stoked inflation and could cause more factory shutdowns in the United States.WASHINGTON — The United States is facing an “alarming” shortage of semiconductors, a government survey of more than 150 companies that make and buy chips found; the situation is threatening American factory production and helping to fuel inflation, Gina M. Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said in an interview on Monday.She said the findings showed a critical need to support domestic manufacturing and called on Congress to pass legislation aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness with China by enabling more American production.“It’s alarming, really, the situation we’re in as a country, and how urgently we need to move to increase our domestic capacity,” Ms. Raimondo said.The findings show demand for the chips that power cars, electronics, medical devices and other products far outstripping supply, even as global chip makers approach their maximum production capacity.While demand for semiconductors increased 17 percent from 2019 to 2021, there was no commensurate increase in supply. A vast majority of semiconductor fabrication plants are using about 90 percent of their capacity to manufacture chips, meaning they have little immediate ability to increase their output, according to the data that the Commerce Department compiled.The need for chips is expected to increase, as technologies that use vast amounts of semiconductors, like 5G and electric vehicles, become more widespread.The combination of surging demand for consumer products that contain chips and pandemic-related disruptions in production has led to shortages and skyrocketing prices for semiconductors over the past two years.Chip shortages have forced some factories that rely on the components to make their products, like those of American carmakers, to slow or suspend production. That has dented U.S. economic growth and led to higher car prices, a big factor in the soaring inflation in the United States. The price of a used car grew 37 percent last year, helping to push inflation to a 40-year high in December.The Commerce Department sent out a request for information in September to global chip makers and consumers to gather information about inventories, production capacity and backlogs in an effort to understand where bottlenecks exist in the industry and how to alleviate them.The results of that survey, which the Commerce Department published Tuesday morning, reveal how scarce global supplies of chips have become.The median inventory among buyers had fallen to fewer than five days from 40 days before the pandemic, meaning that any hiccup in chip production — because of a winter storm, for example, or another coronavirus outbreak — could cause shortages that would shut down U.S. factories and again destabilize supply chains, Ms. Raimondo said.“We have no room for error,” she added.To help address the issue, Biden administration officials have coalesced behind a bill that the Senate passed in June as an answer to some of the nation’s supply chain woes.The bill, known in the Senate as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, would pour nearly a quarter-trillion dollars into scientific research and development to bolster competitiveness against China and prop up semiconductor makers by providing $52 billion in emergency subsidies.Momentum on the legislation stalled amid ideological disputes between the House and Senate over how to direct the funding. In June, House lawmakers passed a narrower bill, eschewing the Senate’s focus on technology development in favor of financing fundamental research.But administration officials, led by Ms. Raimondo, have begun prodding lawmakers behind the scenes in an effort to help bridge their differences to swiftly pass the bill, emphasizing the urgency of quickly signing solutions into law.“There’s no getting around this. There is no other solution,” Ms. Raimondo said. “We need more facilities.”On Tuesday evening, House Democrats unveiled a sweeping, 2,900-page bill that lawmakers said they hoped would be a starting point for negotiations with the Senate, in an effort to ultimately pass a manufacturing and supply chain bill into law. In a statement minutes after the bill text was made public, President Biden hailed both proposals and encouraged “quick action to get this to my desk as soon as possible.”Understand the Global Chip ShortageCard 1 of 7In short supply. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Omicron’s Economic Toll: Missing Workers, More Uncertainty and Higher Inflation (Maybe)

    by

    The Omicron wave of the coronavirus appears to be cresting in much of the country. But its economic disruptions have made a postpandemic normal ever more elusive.Forecasters have slashed their estimates for economic growth in the first three months of 2022. Some expect January to show the first monthly decline in employment in more than a year. And retail sales and manufacturing production fell in December, suggesting that the impact began well before cases hit their peak.“Those are Omicron’s fingerprints,” said Constance L. Hunter, chief economist for the accounting firm KPMG. “It will slow growth in the beginning of the first quarter.”On Monday, global markets were in a frenzy, with the S&P 500 plunging nearly 4 percent before recovering its losses. Market analysts said the early declines reflected fears that the Federal Reserve might need to respond more aggressively than expected to rapidly rising prices, a prospect that some economists say has been made more likely by Omicron.Recovery prospects in the longer run are uncertain. Some economists say even temporary job losses could force consumers to pull back their spending, especially now that federal programs that helped families early in the pandemic have largely ended. Others worry that Omicron could compound supply-chain backlogs both in the United States and overseas, prolonging the recent bout of high inflation and putting pressure on the Fed to act. But some see Omicron as the equivalent of a severe winter storm, causing disruptions and delays but ultimately doing little permanent economic damage. The recovery has proved resilient so far, they argue, and has enough underlying momentum to carry it through.“There are so many potential ways that this could go,” said Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University. “We didn’t even agree on where we were going without Omicron, and then you throw Omicron on top.”Omicron is aggravating labor shortages.Travelers at Kennedy International Airport last month. Airlines canceled thousands of flights over the holidays because so many crew members were out sick.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesMore than 8.7 million Americans weren’t working in late December and early January because they had Covid-19 or were caring for someone who did, according to the latest estimate from the Census Bureau’s experimental Household Pulse Survey. Another 5.3 million were taking care of children who were home from school or day care. The cumulative impact is larger than at any other point in the pandemic.Covid-related absences are creating headaches for businesses that were struggling to hire workers even before Omicron. Restaurants and retail stores have cut back hours. Broadway shows called off performances. Airlines canceled thousands of flights over the holidays because so many crew members called in sick; on one day last month, nearly a third of United Airlines workers at Newark Liberty International Airport, a major hub, called in sick.The Status of U.S. JobsMore Workers Quit Than Ever: A record number of Americans — more than 4.5 million people — ​​voluntarily left their jobs in November.Jobs Report: The American economy added 210,000 jobs in November, a slowdown from the prior month.Analysis: The number of new jobs added in November was below expectations, but the report shows that the economy is on the right track.Jobless Claims Plunge: Initial unemployment claims for the week ending Nov. 20 fell to 199,000, their lowest point since 1969.At Designer Paws Salon, a pet grooming company with two locations in the Columbus, Ohio, area, business has been strong in recent months, thanks in part to a pandemic boom in pet ownership. But Misty Gieczys, the company’s founder and chief executive, has been struggling to fill 11 positions despite generous benefits and pay that can reach $95,000 a year in commissions and tips.Omicron has only made things worse, she said. Since Christmas, she has received only three job applications, and just one applicant got back to her after she reached out. Then Ms. Gieczys, who has two young daughters, got Covid-19 herself for the second time, forcing her to stay home. That, on top of day care shutdowns because of the virus, has meant she has spent a significant amount of time away from work.“If I wasn’t the owner, I think I would be fired, honestly,” she said.But while the Omicron wave has contributed to businesses’ staffing woes, there is little sign so far that it has set back the job market recovery more generally. New filings for unemployment insurance have risen only modestly in recent weeks, suggesting that employers are holding on to their workers. Job postings on the career site Indeed have edged down only slightly from record highs.“It’s a vast difference from 2020, where there were mass layoffs,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who was an adviser to President Barack Obama. “Now employers are holding on to people because they expect to be in business in a month.”The new variant could make inflation worse (or maybe better).When the pandemic began in early 2020, it was a shock to both supply and demand, as companies and their customers pulled back in the face of the virus.With each successive wave, however, the impact on demand has gotten smaller. Businesses and consumers learned to adapt. Federal aid helped prop up people’s income. And more recently, the availability of vaccines and improved treatment options have made many people comfortable resuming more normal activities.Supply problems have been slower to dissipate, and in some cases have gotten worse as production and shipping backlogs have grown. If Omicron follows the same pattern, limiting the supply of goods and workers while doing little to dent consumers’ willingness to spend, it could lead to faster inflation.“What should happen is the supply shock should be much larger than the demand shock,” said Aditya Bhave, senior economist at Bank of America. “All of that just means more inflation.”But Omicron’s impact on inflation is not straightforward. Retail sales fell 1.9 percent in December, and restaurant reservations on OpenTable have fallen in January. That suggests that the record-breaking number of coronavirus cases is having an effect on demand, even if it is more muted than in past waves.The latest Covid surge is also the first to hit after the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits, the expanded child tax credit and most other emergency federal aid programs. Nearly a quarter of private-sector workers get no paid sick time, meaning that even a temporary absence from work could force them to cut back spending now that government benefits aren’t replacing lost income.“That stimulus pay really helped push people past their reticence and say, ‘It’s OK to spend,’” said Nela Richardson, chief economist for ADP, the payroll company. “Now there’s no big push in stimulus, and so people might change their spending behavior.”One possibility is that Omicron could reduce inflation in the short term, as consumers pull back spending, but increase it in the longer run, as the virus leads to shutdowns in Asia that could prolong supply-chain disruptions.Increased uncertainty could cause longer-run damage.Testing facilities were inundated as the Omicron variant took off last month. Covid-related absences are creating headaches for businesses.Kim Raff for The New York TimesCozy Earth, a bamboo bedding and clothing company based in Salt Lake City, was poised to start 2022 on a strong note. Then Omicron “just hit the brakes on us,” said Tyler Howells, the company’s founder and president.Over a three-week period, roughly two-thirds of the company’s 50 employees contracted the virus. A group of web developers flew in for a meeting, but one tested positive, so the meeting had to be canceled. A contractor that was producing signs for an upcoming trade show put the order on hold for a few weeks because too many employees were sick. With so many people out sick in early January, Mr. Howells shut down the office for more than a week.Still, the direct damage to Cozy Earth’s business has been manageable, Mr. Howells said. He is more concerned about the subtler toll that each new false dawn takes on his business, and his ability to plan for the future.“If it continues, it will be a problem,” he said. “It will create damage to the business in terms of fits and starts.”Ms. Sinclair, the George Washington University economist, said the most lasting consequence of the Omicron wave might be the way it had again upended the plans of both businesses and workers. Every time that happens, she said, it increases the risk of permanent damage: Project delays turn into cancellations; expansion plans are abandoned; people who had been thinking about returning to work decide to retire instead.“This piling on of compounding uncertainty is causing further damage,” she said. “This uncertainty is particularly damaging because families aren’t able to make plans, businesses aren’t able to make plans, policymakers aren’t able to make plans.” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Spike in Inflation Reignites Debate on Price Controls

    by

    A discussion over whether price controls would work to stem inflation is sweeping progressives. So far, it has little political acceptance.America’s recent inflation spike has prompted renewed interest in an idea that many economists and policy experts thought they had long ago left behind for good: price controls.The federal government last imposed broad-based limits on how much private companies could charge for their goods and services in the 1970s, when President Richard M. Nixon ushered in wage and price freezes over the course of a few years. That experiment was widely regarded as a failure, and ever since, the phrase “price controls” has, at least for many people, called to mind images of product shortages and bureaucratic overreach. In recent decades, few economists have bothered to study the idea at all.As consumer prices soared this fall, however, a handful of mostly left-leaning economists reignited the long-dormant debate, arguing in opinion columns, policy briefs and social-media posts that the idea deserves a second look. Few if any are arguing for a return to the Nixon-era policies. Many say they aren’t yet ready to endorse price controls, and just want the idea to be taken seriously.Even so, the renewed discussion brought a swift reaction from many mainstream economists on both the right and left, some of whom suggested it would be a mistake to even open the door to the idea. So far, decision makers in Washington haven’t embraced price caps, even in a more modest form.Here’s what to know about the push for price controls, the history of the idea and the possible outcomes if they were to be tried in 2022.Why do (most) economists dislike price controls?In the most basic economic models, prices are a function of supply and demand. If prices for a product are too high, people won’t buy as much of it. If prices are too low, companies won’t make as much money, and will make less of the product. In a free market, prices naturally settle at the point that balances out those two forces.In that model, when the government imposes an artificial cap on prices, supply falls (since companies won’t make as much money) and demand rises (since more people will want to buy at the government-imposed lower price). As a result, supply can’t meet demand, resulting in shortages.That’s the theory. In the real world, a variety of factors — imperfect competition between producers, unpredictable behavior by consumers, practical limits on how quickly operations can ramp up and down — mean that prices don’t always behave the way simple models predict.Still, most economists argue that the basic logic of that theory still holds: Artificially holding down prices leads to shortages, inefficiencies or other unintended consequences, like an increase in black-market activity. And while some economists say price controls on specific products can make sense in specific situations — to prevent price-gouging after a natural disaster, for example — most argue that they are a poor tool for fighting inflation, which is a broad increase in prices.In a recent survey of 41 academic economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 61 percent said that price controls similar to those imposed in the 1970s would fail to “successfully reduce U.S. inflation over the next 12 months.” Others said the policy might bring down inflation in the short-term but would lead to shortages or other problems.“Price controls can of course control prices — but they’re a terrible idea!” David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in response to the survey.Have price controls worked in the past?In August 1971, with consumer prices rising at their fastest pace since the Korean War, Mr. Nixon announced that he was imposing a 90-day freeze on most wages, prices and rents. Once the freeze ended, companies were allowed to raise prices, but subject to limits set by a council headed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, who later served as defense secretary for Presidents Gerald R. Ford and George W. Bush.The controls initially looked like a success. Inflation fell from a peak of more than 6 percent in 1970 to below 3 percent in the middle of 1972. But almost as soon as the government began to ease the restrictions, prices shot back up, leading Mr. Nixon to impose another price freeze, followed by another round of even more stringent controls. This time, the controls failed to tame inflation, in part because of the first Arab oil embargo. The price controls expired in 1974, shortly before Mr. Nixon resigned from office.Not all attempts at reining in prices have been such clear failures. During World War II, the Roosevelt administration imposed strict price controls to prevent wartime shortages from making food and other basic supplies unaffordable. Those rules were generally viewed as necessary at the time, and economists have tended to view them more favorably. In fact, there have been plenty of instances of wartime price controls throughout history, often paired with rationing and wage growth limits.Why do some economists want to reopen the debate?Few economists today defend the Nixon price controls. But some argue that it is unfair to consider their failure a definitive rebuttal of all price caps. The 1970s were a period of significant economic turmoil, including the Arab oil embargo and the end of the gold standard — hardly the setting for a controlled experiment. And the Nixon-era price caps were broad, whereas modern proponents suggest a more tailored approached.Many progressive economists in recent years have reconsidered once-scorned ideas like the minimum wage in response to evidence suggesting that real-world markets often don’t behave the way simple economic models would predict. Price controls, some economists argue, are due for a similar reappraisal.“This is a great suppressed topic,” said James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas. “It was absolutely mainstream from the start of World War II until the Reagan administration.”Isabella Weber, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has pointed to the period after World War II, when the government quickly lifted wartime price controls and inflation spiked. In a recent opinion column in the Guardian newspaper, Dr. Weber argued that had the controls been removed more slowly, as many prominent economists suggested at the time, inflation might have been lower. The huge, unexpected wartime disruption, she said, might offer parallels for today.But other experts said there were key differences between the two periods. Wartime price caps typically came alongside rationing, in which the quantity of goods people were allowed to buy was limited, said Rebecca L. Spang, a money historian at Indiana University.“If you try to have price controls without rationing, you end up with shortages, you end up with purveyors pulling their goods from the market,” she said.Enforcing price controls is also difficult: It requires popular acceptance, agency personnel and wide governmental support. Broad buy-in of shared ideas is not a feature of the modern political landscape.“The cultural context has changed so much,” she said, noting that the world since World War II has begun to treat economics as an individual pursuit, emphasizing freedom and low regulation.What would price controls look like in 2022?Shoppers at a grocery store in Queens, N.Y., last year. As consumer prices soared this past fall, a handful of mostly left-leaning economists argued that price controls deserved a second look.Janice Chung for The New York TimesSo far, few people have offered specific proposals for price controls in response to the recent jump in inflation. But economists who are exploring the idea are focused on areas where the pandemic has disrupted supply chains.Those disruptions, this argument goes, may take time to resolve. In the meantime, if needed products — meat, computer chips, gas — come up short, it is not clear that market forces will be able to rapidly expand production to meet demand. That could lead to a situation where companies can make big profits by charging more for goods in short supply, and in which only the rich can afford some products.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More