Supply Chain

More stories

  • 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

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Drought Saps the Panama Canal, Disrupting Global Trade

    by

    For over a century, the Panama Canal has provided a convenient way for ships to move between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, helping to speed up international trade.But a drought has left the canal without enough water, which is used to raise and lower ships, forcing officials to slash the number of vessels they allow through. That has created expensive headaches for shipping companies and raised difficult questions about water use in Panama. The passage of one ship is estimated to consume as much water as half a million Panamanians use in one day.“This is the worst we have seen in terms of disruption,” said Oystein Kalleklev, the chief executive of Avance Gas, which transports propane from the United States to Asia.The problems at the Panama Canal, an engineering marvel that opened in 1914 and handles an estimated 5 percent of seaborne trade, is the latest example of how crucial parts of global supply chains can suddenly seize up. In 2021, one of the largest container ships ever built got stuck for days in the Suez Canal, choking off trade. And the huge demand for goods like surgical masks, home appliances and garden equipment during the pandemic strained supply chains to their breaking point.Before the water problems, the canal handled some 38 ships a day. In July the authorities cut that to 32 vessels.Fewer passages could deprive Panama of tens of millions of dollars in revenue, push up the cost of shipping and increase greenhouse gas emissions when ships travel longer routes.In Panama, a lack of water has hampered canal operations in recent years, and some shipping experts say vessels may soon have to avoid the canal altogether if the problem gets worse. Fewer passages could deprive Panama’s government of tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue, push up the cost of shipping and increase greenhouse gas emissions when ships travel longer routes.Though Panama has an equatorial climate that makes it one of the wettest countries, rainfall there has been 30 percent below average this year, causing water levels to plunge in the lakes that feed the canal and its mighty locks. The immediate cause is the El Niño climate phenomenon, which initially causes hotter and drier weather in Panama, but scientists believe that climate change may be prolonging dry spells and raising temperatures in the region.Before the water problems, as many as 38 ships a day moved through the canal, which was built by the United States and remained under its control until 2000. The canal authority in July cut the average to 32 vessels, and later announced that the number would drop to 31 on Nov. 1. Further reductions could come if water levels remain low. The canal authority is also limiting how far a ship’s hull can go below the water, known as its draft, which significantly reduces the weight it can carry.Container ships, which transport finished consumer goods, typically reserve passage well in advance, and have not faced long delays. But ships carrying bulk commodities generally don’t book passage.Tree trunks are visible due to low levels of water. The drought also presents tough choices for Panama’s leaders, who must balance the water needs of the canal with those of residents.Vessels waiting to cross the Panama Canal. The passage of one ship is estimated to consume as much water as half a million Panamanians use in one day.This presents bulk shipping companies with an expensive calculus: They can risk waiting for days, pay a big fee to jump the line or avoid the canal entirely by taking a longer route.Mr. Kalleklev, the shipping executive, said his company decided in August to pay $400,000 in a special auction to move a ship ahead in the queue, roughly doubling the total cost of using the canal. Other companies have paid over $2 million, a cost they will sometimes bear to ensure ships don’t miss their next assignment. A portion of these extra costs will be passed on to consumers, already pummeled by inflation.The pain, however, has been limited because the U.S. economy is not running very hot and demand for imported goods is relatively muted.“If this was a year ago, when we still had record high freight rates and consumers still spending a lot on containerized goods from the Far East, then you would see more drama than you have now,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, a shipping market analytics company.But traffic through the canal is likely to remain at lower levels in the coming months. Reducing passages helps conserve water, because huge amounts are used up every time a ship goes through the locks as it travels the 40 miles across Panama.The drought also presents tough choices for Panama’s leaders, who must balance the water needs of the canal with those of residents, over half of whom rely on the same sources of water that feed the canal.The canal’s board recently proposed building a new reservoir in the Indio River to bolster the water supply and increase traffic through the canal, which generates over 6 percent of Panama’s gross domestic product. Under the plan, the new water supply could allow for an additional 12 to 15 passages daily.For over a century, the Panama Canal has provided a convenient way for ships to move between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.The canal’s board recently proposed building a new reservoir in the Indio River to bolster the water supply and increase traffic through the canal.“In optimal terms, the canal can handle 38 transits per day, so 12 to 15 is a lot,” said Rodrigo Noriega, a lawyer and a columnist for Panama’s La Prensa newspaper.Building the reservoir is expected to cost nearly $900 million, and the canal authority could start accepting bids from contractors toward the middle of next year with construction starting early in 2025. But that timeline could well be delayed; the construction of larger locks was completed two years late, in 2016, and that project was marred by cost disputes.The new reservoir would also involve acquiring land that is protected by a 2006 law, and displace at least some of its inhabitants. Mr. Noriega said he expected Panama’s legislature to pass a law that would lift the ban on acquiring land. But he and others note that new water sources could also be built in other places.Without a new water source, the canal could lose significant amounts of business. Other ocean routes are, of course, longer and more expensive, but they are less likely to have unpredictable delays. One alternative is to transport goods between Asia and United States through the Suez Canal to the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Another is to ship goods from Asia to the West Coast ports — and then transport them overland by train or truck.“In theory, something that offers a cheaper, shorter route should always be in favor, but it’s the uncertainty that can be a killer,” said Chris Rogers, head of supply chain research at S&P Global Market Intelligence.Protracted disruptions at the canal could stoke interest in building land routes in Mexico, Colombia and other countries that have coastlines on both oceans, said Richard Morales, a political economist who is running as an independent candidate for vice president in an election next year.The efforts to secure new water supplies could be a race against climate change.Because interest in building a canal dates to the 19th century, Panama has rainfall records going back some 140 years. That gives scientists more confidence when concluding that a weather change is a permanent shift and not merely random, said Steven Paton, a director of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute’s Physical Monitoring Program on an island in Lake Gatun, which makes up a large part of the canal and supplies most of its water.He said that while scientists were unsure about climate change’s impact on El Niño, two of the driest El Niño periods of the last 140 years had occurred in the last quarter-century, and that the current one could be the third.“It doesn’t say that this is climate change,” Mr. Paton said, “but it does say that this is wholly consistent with almost all of the climate change models.”Sol Lauría More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Shipping Contributes Heavily to Climate Change. Are Green Ships the Solution?

    by

    On a bright September day on the harbor in Copenhagen, several hundred people gathered to welcome the official arrival of Laura Maersk.Laura was not a visiting European dignitary like many of those in attendance. She was a hulking containership, towering a hundred feet above the crowd, and the most visible evidence to date of an effort by the global shipping industry to mitigate its role in the planet’s warming.The ship, commissioned by the Danish shipping giant Maersk, was designed with a special engine that can burn two types of fuel — either the black, sticky oil that has powered ships for more than a century, or a greener type made from methanol. By switching to green methanol, this single ship will produce 100 fewer tons of greenhouse gas per day, an amount equivalent to the emissions of 8,000 cars.The effect of global shipping on the climate is hard to overstate. Cargo shipping is responsible for nearly 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — producing roughly as much carbon each year as the aviation industry does.Figuring out how to limit those emissions has been tricky. Some ships are turning to an age-old strategy: harnessing the wind to move them. But ships still need a more constant source of energy that is powerful enough to propel them halfway around the world in a single go.Unlike cars and trucks, ships can’t plug in frequently enough to be powered by batteries and the electrical grid: They need a clean fuel that is portable.Ursula von der Leyen, center, the president of the E.U. Commission, stands with the captains of the Laura Maersk as well as company and government officials in Copenhagen in September.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesThe Laura Maersk is the first of its kind to set sail with a green methanol engine and represents a significant step in the industry’s efforts to address its contribution to climate change. The vessel is also a vivid illustration of just how far the global shipping sector has to go. While roughly 125 methanol-burning ships are now on order at global shipyards from Maersk and other companies, that is just a tiny portion of the more than 50,000 cargo ships that ply the oceans today, which deliver 90 percent of the world’s traded goods.The market for green methanol is also in its infancy, and there is no guarantee that the new fuel will be made in sufficient quantities — or at the right price — to power the vast fleet of cargo ships operating worldwide.Shipping is surprisingly efficient: Transporting a good by container ship halfway around the world produces far less climate-warming gas than trucking it across the United States.That’s true in part because of the scale of modern cargo vessels. The biggest container ships today are larger than aircraft carriers. Each one is able to carry more than 20,000 metal containers, which would stretch for 75 miles if placed in a row.That incredible efficiency has lowered the cost of transport and enabled the modern consumer lifestyle, allowing retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Ikea and Home Depot to offer a vast suite of products at a fraction of their historical cost.Yet that easy consumption has come at the price of a warmer and dirtier planet. In addition to affecting the atmosphere, ships burning fossil fuel also spew out pollutants that reduce the life expectancy of the large percentage of the world’s people who live near ports, said Teresa Bui, policy director for climate at Pacific Environment, an environmental organization.Cargo ships at the Port of Los Angeles in 2021 sometimes had to wait days to dock because of congestion, producing huge amounts of pollution.Coley Brown for The New York TimesThat pollution was particularly bad during the Covid-19 pandemic, when supply chain bottlenecks caused ships to pile up outside of the Port of Los Angeles, producing pollution equivalent to nearly 100,000 big rigs per day, she said.“They have been under regulated for decades,” Ms. Bui said of the shipping industry.Some shipping companies have tried to cut emissions in recent years and comply with new global pollution standards by fueling their vessels with liquefied natural gas. Yet environmental groups, and some shipping executives, say that adopting another fossil fuel that contributes to climate change has been a move in the wrong direction.Maersk and other shipping companies now see greener fuels such as methanol, ammonia and hydrogen as the most promising path for the industry. Maersk is trying to cut its carbon emissions to zero by 2040, and is pouring billion of dollars into cleaner fuels, along with other investors. But making the switch — even to methanol, the most commercially viable of those fuels today — is no easy feat.Switching to methanol requires building new ships, or retrofitting old ones, with different engines and fuel storage systems. Global ports must install new infrastructure to fuel the vessels when they dock.Perhaps most crucially, an entire industry still needs to spring up to produce green methanol, which is in demand from airlines and factory owners as well as from shipping carriers.Methanol, which is used to make chemicals and plastics as well as fuel, is typically produced using coal, oil or natural gas. Green methanol can be made in far more environmentally friendly ways by using renewable energy and carbon captured from the atmosphere or siphoned from landfills, cow and pig manure, or other bio waste.By using green methanol, the Laura Maersk could produce 100 fewer tons of greenhouse gas per day, equivalent to the emissions of 8,000 cars.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesCargo ships require fuel sources that are powerful enough to propel them halfway around the world in a single go.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesFlemming Sogaard Christensen, the chief engineer of the Laura Maersk, inside the engineering room. The ship’s engine can burn oil or a greener type of fuel made from methanol.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesBut the world today does not yet produce much green methanol. Maersk has committed to using only sustainably produced methanol, but if other shipping companies end up using methanol fuel made with coal or oil, that will be no better for the environment.Ahmed El-Hoshy, the chief executive of OCI Global, which makes methane from natural gas and greener sources like landfill gas, said companies today were producing “infinitesimally small volumes” of green methanol using renewable energy.“Companies haven’t done much in our industry yet quite frankly,” he said. “It’s all hype.”Fuel producers still need to master the technology to build these projects, he said. And in order to finance them they need buyers who are willing to commit to long-term contracts for green fuel, which can be three to five times as expensive as conventional fuel.Maersk has signed contracts with fuel providers including OCI and European Energy, which is building in Denmark what will be the world’s largest plant producing methanol with renewable electricity. The shipping company already has clients like Amazon and Volvo that are willing to pay more to have their goods transported with green fuels, in order to reduce their own carbon footprints.But many other companies are not yet willing to pay the necessary cost for greener technologies, Mr. El-Hoshy said.The missing piece, said Mr. El-Hoshy and others in the shipping and methanol industries, is regulation that would help level the playing field between companies trying to clean up their emissions and those still burning dirtier fuels.The European Union is ushering in rules that encourage ships to decarbonize, including new subsidies for green fuels and penalties for fossil fuel use. The United States is also spurring new investments in green fuel production and more modern ports through generous domestic spending programs.Maersk has clients like Amazon and Volvo that are willing to pay more to have their goods transported with green fuels, in order to reduce their own carbon footprints.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesBut proponents say the key to a green transition in the shipping sector are global rules that are pending through the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations body that regulates global shipping.The organization has long received heavy criticism for its lagging efforts on climate. This summer, it adopted a more ambitious target: eliminating the global shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions “by or around” 2050.To get there, nations have promised to agree on a legally binding way to regulate emissions by the end of 2025, which they would put into effect in 2027.Yet countries have yet to agree on what kind of regulation to use. They are debating whether to adopt a new standard for cleaner fuels, new taxes per ton of greenhouse gas emitted or some kind of mix of tools.Some developing countries, and nations that export low-value goods like farm products, say that strict regulation would raise shipping costs and be economically harmful.Proponents of the regulation — including Maersk — say it’s necessary to avoid penalizing those who are trying to clean up the business, and provide certainty about the industry’s direction.“There has to be an economic mechanism by which you level the playing field so that people are incentivized and not punished for using low-carbon fuels,” said John Butler, the chief executive of the World Shipping Council, which represents container carriers including Maersk.“Then you can invest with some confidence,” he added.A container ship traveling halfway around the world produce less climate-warming gas than a truck traveling across the United States.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesVincent Clerc, the chief executive of Maersk, said the company would continue to adopt new green technologies as they became available.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesStill, Maersk acknowledges that green methanol is unlikely to be the final solution. Experts say that the fuel’s reliance on finite sources of waste, like corn husks and cow manure, mean there will not be enough to power the entire global shipping fleet.In an interview, Vincent Clerc, the chief executive of Maersk, said that the entire maritime sector was unlikely to ever be powered predominantly by methanol. But Maersk had no regrets about moving some of its fleet from fossil fuels to methanol now, then adopting new technologies as they become available, he said.“This marks a real systemic change for this sector,” Mr. Clerc said, gesturing toward the vessel piled high with 20-foot containers in front of him.Eric Leveridge, the climate campaign manager for Pacific Environment, said his group was glad that Maersk and other shipping companies were moving toward more sustainable fuels. But the organization is still concerned that “it is more for optics and that the impact is potentially being exaggerated,” he said.“When it comes down to it, even if there is this investment, there’s still a lot of heavy fuel oil ships on the water,” he said. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    How High Interest Rates Sting Bakers, Farmers and Consumers

    by

    Home buyers, entrepreneurs and public officials are confronting a new reality: If they want to hold off on big purchases or investments until borrowing is less expensive, it’s probably going to be a long wait.Governments are paying more to borrow money for new schools and parks. Developers are struggling to find loans to buy lots and build homes. Companies, forced to refinance debts at sharply higher interest rates, are more likely to lay off employees — especially if they were already operating with little or no profits.Over the past few weeks, investors have realized that even with the Federal Reserve nearing an end to its increases in short-term interest rates, market-based measures of long-term borrowing costs have continued rising. In short, the economy may no longer be able to avoid a sharper slowdown.“It’s a trickle-down effect for everyone,” said Mary Kay Bates, the chief executive of Bank Midwest in Spirit Lake, Iowa.Small banks like Ms. Bates’s are at the epicenter of America’s credit crunch for small businesses. During the pandemic, with the Fed’s benchmark interest rate near zero and consumers piling up savings in bank accounts, she could make loans at 3 to 4 percent. She also put money into safe securities, like government bonds.But when the Fed’s rate started rocketing up, the value of Bank Midwest’s securities portfolio fell — meaning that if Ms. Bates sold the bonds to fund more loans, she would have to take a steep loss. Deposits were also waning, as consumers spent down their savings and moved money into higher-yielding assets.Higher Interest Rates Are Here More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Fragile Global Economy Faces New Crisis in Israel-Gaza War

    by

    A war in the Middle East could complicate efforts to contain inflation at a time when world output is “limping along.”The International Monetary Fund said on Tuesday that the pace of the global economic recovery is slowing, a warning that came as a new war in the Middle East threatened to upend a world economy already reeling from several years of overlapping crises.The eruption of fighting between Israel and Hamas over the weekend, which could sow disruption across the region, reflects how challenging it has become to shield economies from increasingly frequent and unpredictable global shocks. The conflict has cast a cloud over a gathering of top economic policymakers in Morocco for the annual meetings of the I.M.F. and the World Bank.Officials who planned to grapple with the lingering economic effects of the pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine now face a new crisis.“Economies are at a delicate state,” Ajay Banga, the World Bank president, said in an interview on the sidelines of the annual meetings. “Having war is really not helpful for central banks who are finally trying to find their way to a soft landing,” he said. Mr. Banga was referring to efforts by policymakers in the West to try and cool rapid inflation without triggering a recession.Mr. Banga said that so far, the impact of the Middle East attacks on the world’s economy is more limited than the war in Ukraine. That conflict initially sent oil and food prices soaring, roiling global markets given Russia’s role as a top energy producer and Ukraine’s status as a major exporter of grain and fertilizer.“But if this were to spread in any way then it becomes dangerous,” Mr. Banga added, saying such a development would result in “a crisis of unimaginable proportion.”Oil markets are already jittery. Lucrezia Reichlin, a professor at the London Business School and a former director general of research at the European Central Bank, said, “the main question is what’s going to happen to energy prices.”Ms. Reichlin is concerned that another spike in oil prices would pressure the Federal Reserve and other central banks to further push up interest rates, which she said have risen too far too fast.As far as energy prices, Ms. Reichlin said, “we have two fronts, Russia and now the Middle East.”Smoke rising from bombings of Gaza City and its northern borders by Israeli planes.Samar Abu Elouf for The New York Times Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the I.M.F.’s chief economist, said it’s too early to assess whether the recent jump in oil prices would be sustained. If they were, he said, research shows that a 10 percent increase in oil prices would weigh down the global economy, reducing output by 0.15 percent and increasing inflation by 0.4 percent next year. In its latest World Economic Outlook, the I.M.F. underscored the fragility of the recovery. It maintained its global growth outlook for this year at 3 percent and slightly lowered its forecast for 2024 to 2.9 percent. Although the I.M.F. upgraded its projection for output in the United States for this year, it downgraded the euro area and China while warning that distress in that nation’s real estate sector is worsening.“We see a global economy that is limping along, and it’s not quite sprinting yet,” Mr. Gourinchas said. In the medium term, “the picture is darker,” he added, citing a series of risks including the likelihood of more large natural disasters caused by climate change.Europe’s economy, in particular, is caught in the middle of growing global tensions. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, European governments have frantically scrambled to free themselves from an over-dependence on Russian natural gas.They have largely succeeded by turning, in part, to suppliers in the Middle East.Over the weekend, the European Union swiftly expressed solidarity with Israel and condemned the surprise attack from Hamas, which controls Gaza.Some oil suppliers may take a different view. Algeria, for example, which has increased its exports of natural gas to Italy, criticized Israel for responding with airstrikes on Gaza.Even before the weekend’s events, the energy transition had taken a toll on European economies. In the 20 countries that use the euro, the Fund predicts that growth will slow to just 0.7 percent this year from 3.3 percent in 2022. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is expected to contract by 0.5 percent.High interest rates, persistent inflation and the aftershocks of spiraling energy prices are also expected to slow growth in Britain to 0.5 percent this year from 4.1 percent in 2022.Sub-Saharan Africa is also caught in the slowdown. Growth is projected to shrink this year by 3.3 percent, although next year’s outlook is brighter, when growth is forecast to be 4 percent.Staggering debt looms over many of these nations. The average debt now amounts to 60 percent of the region’s total output — double what it was a decade ago. Higher interest rates have contributed to soaring repayment costs.This next-generation of sovereign debt crises is playing out in a world that is coming to terms with a reappraisal of global supply chains in addition to growing geopolitical rivalries. Added to the complexities are estimates that within the next decade, trillions of dollars in new financing will be needed to mitigate devastating climate change in developing countries.One of the biggest questions facing policymakers is what impact China’s sluggish economy will have on the rest of the world. The I.M.F. has lowered its growth outlook for China twice this year and said on Tuesday that consumer confidence there is “subdued” and that industrial production is weakening. It warned that countries that are part of the Asian industrial supply chain could be exposed to this loss of momentum.In an interview on her flight to the meetings, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said that she believes China has the tools to address a “complex set of economic challenges” and that she does not expect its slowdown to weigh on the U.S. economy.“I think they face significant challenges that they have to address,” Ms. Yellen said. “I haven’t seen and don’t expect a spillover onto us.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Inflation Measure Favored by the Fed Cooled in August

    by

    The Personal Consumption Expenditures Index climbed more slowly, after cutting out food and fuel prices for a sense of the underlying trend.Federal Reserve officials received more good news in their battle against rapid inflation on Friday, when a key inflation measure continued to slow, the latest evidence that a return to normal after the pandemic and higher interest rates are combining to wrestle rapid price increases back to a more normal pace.The Personal Consumption Expenditures Index, which the central bank uses to define its 2 percent inflation goal, is still climbing rapidly on an overall basis. It rose 3.5 percent in August from the previous year, pushed up by higher gas prices, up slightly from 3.4 percent previously.But after stripping out food and fuel costs, both of which are volatile, a “core” measure that Fed officials watch closely appeared much more benign. It picked up by 3.9 percent from a year earlier. Compared with the previous month, it climbed by 0.1 percent, a very muted pace.It’s the latest encouraging sign for Fed policymakers, who have been raising interest rates since March 2022 in a campaign to slow the economy and cool price increases. While economic momentum has held up better than expected, a less ebullient housing market and a grinding return to normalcy in the car market have helped key prices — like automobile and rents — to fade. At the same time, supply chain disruptions that led to shortages and starkly pushed up prices starting in 2021 have gradually cleared up, allowing costs for many goods to stop rising or even come down slightly.Given the progress, central bankers are now contemplating whether they need to raise interest rates further. They left them unchanged and in range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent at their meeting this month, while forecasting that they might make one more rate increase this year. At the same time, given how strong the economy remains, officials have signaled that they may need to leave interest rates set to a high level for longer to ensure that inflation returns to normal in a sustainable way.“We’re taking advantage of the fact that we have moved quickly to move a little more carefully now,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed’s chair, said during a news conference following the Fed’s meeting last week.The question now is whether inflation can fade fully — getting back to something near the Fed’s 2 percent goal and staying there — without a bigger economic slowdown.Multiple data points and anecdotes, from retail sales figures to some company earnings calls, have suggested that American consumers are managing to keep spending despite higher borrowing costs, which have made it more expensive to make big purchases on borrowed money.Friday’s report showed that personal consumption expenditures climbed 0.4 percent in August from a month before, slightly softer than what economists had expected. Spending eked out a small increase after adjusting for inflation.Historically, it has been difficult for the Fed to wrestle inflation lower without causing a big economic slowdown. Companies will generally raise prices if they can, so it requires slower demand to force them to stop. Fed policy is a blunt tool, so it is hard to calibrate it exactly.But increasingly, central bankers have been signaling that they are hopeful they will be able to pull off a rare “soft landing,” cooling price increases without killing growth.“At the end of the day, we will get inflation back to our target, whatever that takes,” Austan Goolsbee, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said during a speech this week. “But we also can’t lose sight of the fact that the Fed has the chance to achieve something quite rare in the history of central banks: to defeat inflation without tanking the economy.” More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Drivers and Dealers Could Soon Feel Impact of U.A.W. Strikes

    by

    Lengthy and expanding walkouts by the United Automobile Workers union against Ford, General Motors and Stellantis could strain a fragile supply chain.More than a week into its targeted strike at the three established U.S. car companies, the United Automobile Workers union has poked holes in a supply chain that has still not fully recovered from the pandemic.The companies and the union remain far apart in negotiations, and the U.A.W. could expand its strikes to more locations as soon as Friday. Depending on how long the strikes last, it could exact a heavy toll on autoworkers and the three companies — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler and Jeep. But the work stoppages could also be painful to drivers, car dealers and auto-parts suppliers.A long and expanding strike will reduce the number of new cars on dealer lots, make it harder for people to repair their vehicles and reduce demand for parts needed to make new vehicles.So far, the economic damage has been limited because the U.A.W. has struck only a small number of plants and warehouses, but the pain could worsen if work stoppages grow to include many more locations and last weeks or months.“The economic spillovers from the U.A.W. strike remain contained as we near the two-week mark,” said Gabriel Ehrlich, an economic forecaster at the University of Michigan. “We are seeing some layoffs among automotive suppliers, ranging from seat makers to steelworkers. We would expect these impacts to accumulate as the strike persists and additional targets are announced.”When the union started walkouts at assembly plants, it appeared to target plants that make popular models, like the Ford Bronco, the Jeep Wrangler and the Chevrolet Colorado. It widened the strike on Sept. 22 to include parts distribution centers at G.M. and Stellantis.As those popular models become more scarce, dealers are likely to push up prices.“They took out the ones that are going to hurt the most,” said Jeff Rightmer, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in supply chain management. “At this point, they’re not going to be able to get that production back.”New-car sales are expected to rise this month, despite the strike and high interest rates, according to Cox Automotive. And for now, overall inventories for the three companies remain stable, except for the most popular models, according to data from CoPilot, a firm that tracks dealer inventories.As of Sept. 24, G.M. had enough vehicles on dealer lots to meet demand for 40 to 70 days across its four brands. Ford had enough cars and trucks for 74 days. And Stellantis had more than 100 days across three of its four divisions; Jeep had less than 100 days.Jeep Wranglers at the Stellantis Toledo Assembly Complex in Toledo, Ohio, at the beginning of the strike.Evan Cobb for The New York TimesAmong the 10 models affected by the first set of U.A.W. strikes, supply for four models has dwindled to less than one month’s sales.“Once that dries up, they’re not building anything, so it’s important that the strike is as short as possible,” said Wes Lutz, a car dealer in Jackson, Mich., who sells Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram models.He has been getting cars from other plants, including large pickup trucks imported from Mexico. But he is worried that an expanding strike could reduce the supply of more models.An even bigger concern, Mr. Lutz said, is that the strikes at G.M. and Stellantis parts warehouses could soon make it hard to repair vehicles, leaving some drivers stranded. He said that he was working with other dealers to trade spare parts among themselves to keep their service departments going.Servicing and repairing vehicles is generally the most profitable part of car dealerships. Service departments bring in so much money that they can cover most or all of the costs of running dealerships, said Pat Ryan, chief executive of CoPilot.That’s why a parts shortage could deal a bigger blow to dealers than not having enough vehicles to sell. If parts are hard to come by for weeks or months, some dealers may suspend repairs and lay off mechanics.Another group of businesses exposed to the strikes are the companies that make parts and components like batteries and mufflers for new vehicles. Nearly 700 auto suppliers could be hurt by the strike, according to Resilinc, a supply chain monitoring company.CIE Newcor, an auto components maker, notified workers on Sept. 21 that it expected to lay off 300 employees at four Michigan plants starting Oct. 2. The extent of the layoffs will be “determined by the length of the potential U.A.W. — Detroit 3 strike,” the company said in a regulatory filing.Much of the auto industry practices “just in time” production, meaning materials are delivered and parts are built and sent to car factories as they are needed.If smaller suppliers go more than a few weeks without selling products to customers, some may have to seek bankruptcy protection, said Ann Marie Uetz, a Detroit-based partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner who represents auto suppliers. “There is definite strain in the supply chain, and you’re going to see some of them suffer as a result of the strike if it lingers for a month or more.” More

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Issues Final Rules to Keep Chip Funds Out of China

    by

    The rules, which aim to prevent chip makers from using new U.S. subsidies to benefit China, take into account the industry’s perspective.The Biden administration on Friday issued final rules that would prohibit chip companies vying for a new infusion of federal cash from carrying out certain business expansions, partnerships and research in China, in what it described as an effort to protect United States national security.The regulations come as the Biden administration prepares to disburse more than $52 billion in federal grants and tens of billions of dollars of tax credits to build up the U.S. chip industry. The new rules aim to prevent chip makers that benefit from U.S. grants from passing technology, business know-how or other benefits to China.The final restrictions will prohibit firms that receive federal money from using it to construct chip factories outside the United States. They also restrict companies from significantly expanding semiconductor manufacturing in “foreign countries of concern” — defined as China, Iran, Russia and North Korea — for 10 years after receiving an award, the administration said.The rules also prevent companies that receive funding from carrying out certain joint research projects in those countries, or licensing technology that would raise national security concerns to those countries.If a company violated those guardrails, the Commerce Department said, the government could claw back the firm’s entire award.“These guardrails will protect our national security and help the United States stay ahead for decades to come,” Gina M. Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said in a statement.The restrictions have been the subject of heavy lobbying from the chip industry, which collectively earns about one-third of its revenue from China. Chip makers in comments filed this year expressed concerns that overly restrictive measures could disrupt supply chains and hamper their global competitiveness.Many of the rule’s broad principles, like the 10-year limit on new investments in China, were outlined in the bipartisan legislation that authorized funding for the sector. But Commerce Department officials were responsible for writing the detailed provisions of the rule.In its final rules issued Friday, the department appeared to take the perspective of chip makers and others into account. A comparison of the restrictions showed that the department had made several changes supported by chip makers, such as abolishing a specific dollar threshold for transactions that would expand chip companies’ manufacturing capacity in China, Russia, North Korea or Iran. Under the proposed rule in March, the Commerce Department would have reviewed any transaction that expanded a company’s semiconductor manufacturing capacity in such a “country of concern” valued at more than $100,000.But companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company suggested that it would be more pragmatic for the department to monitor the physical expansion of the footprint of semiconductor factories, a standard that the commerce department adopted.It remains to be seen if any of the changes will prompt a backlash from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have criticized the Biden administration as not being tough enough on Beijing and condemned a recent set of trips to China by top administration officials.In an interview on Friday, Commerce Department officials said that they had received various requests from the industry to relax certain guidelines, but that they had maintained or even strengthened some provisions where necessary to protect national security.One official added that the national security goal of the program was to have companies operating in the United States and doing so successfully, and that the department aimed to work with companies to ensure they were executing on U.S. grants.“My sense is that they struck a reasonable balance between trying to be restrictive but also not trying to be draconian with the impact on existing facilities in China,” said Chris Miller, the author of “Chip War” and an associate professor of international history at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. More