United States

More stories

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    For Many Small-Business Owners, a Necessary Shift to Digital Payments

    by

    The pandemic accelerated a transition to cashless payments, forcing a reckoning among small-business owners. But there are benefits: One owner said the switch saved her $3,000 a month.“Making It Work” is a series about small-business owners striving to endure hard times.When Egypt Otis opened her business, Comma Bookstore and Social Hub, three years ago in Flint, Mich., the pandemic was full blown. But her neighbors welcomed the literature and art she sold in her store that celebrated people of color, as well as the community programs she hosted.Despite the warm reception, Ms. Otis quickly found that she had a sales problem: Her customers wanted to pay with their cellphones.“I realized that people were hardly keeping a wallet or a physical card, which limited my ability to sell and make money,” Ms. Otis said. So she upgraded her transactions platform to include tap-and-go purchases on mobile devices. “People are not carrying cash,” she said. “It’s becoming obsolete.”The number of Americans who say they are “cashless” has jumped in the last five years. Forty-one percent of Americans said they did not use cash for their purchases in a typical week in 2022, up from 29 percent in 2018, according to a Pew Research Center survey released last October.Small-business owners increasingly are making the switch to cashless payments for several reasons, including rising consumer demand, faster checkout, lower labor costs and increased security. Those who wait risk losing revenue, experts say.But there are drawbacks to going cash-free, including a learning curve for entrepreneurs who may not understand how to set up digital payments, a lack of accessibility to credit cards for low-income consumers, and privacy concerns.Signs at a pizza joint in New York indicating it takes multiple forms of cashless payments, a switch that accelerated in the pandemic.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesJuanny Romero was an early adopter of digital payments for her small business. Fifteen years ago, when she founded Mothership Coffee Roasters, a chain of coffee shops in Las Vegas, she began using Square, a low-cost digital payments system for small businesses.“​​I was a young businesswoman and not astute,” she said. But Square saved her $3,000 a month in merchant fees for credit card processing.As Ms. Romero expanded her businesses (to four locations in Las Vegas, with two more on the way), she added more payment options, including Apple Pay and Google Pay.But she noticed a shift during the pandemic: Her customers no longer wanted to use cash, and her employees did not want to handle it. “We didn’t know where Covid was coming from,” she said. “There were still people bringing in cash, but it was scary and dangerous.”When the coin shortage hit in 2020, she ran out of cash altogether, but Ms. Romero found it saved on labor costs. “My managers were standing in line for two hours to deposit the cash,” she said. “I can’t get an armored car service to pick up $100 in cash.”Even so, customer demand prompted her to return to cash sales, which Ms. Romero said are holding steady at about 11 percent of her overall revenue. She said she would go cashless if the share dipped below 10 percent.A digital transaction at Mothership Coffee Roasters in Las Vegas.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesThe pressure to adapt is growing. More that 2.8 billion mobile wallets were in use at the end of 2020, and that is projected to increase nearly 74 percent to 4.8 billion — nearly 60 percent of the world’s population — by the end of 2025, according to a study released in 2021 by Boku, a fintech companyThe United States lags other countries in adopting cashless payments. Among the most cashless countries in the world is Britain, where the pound makes up only 1 percent of all transactions, according to a report from Merchant Machine, a payment research firm based in London. But in the United States, some small-business owners do not understand the complexities of digital payments.“Smaller merchants, they don’t always have the knowledge and resources to know what to do,” said Ginger Siegel, who leads the North America small-business segment at Mastercard, which offers training to business owners like Ms. Otis of Comma Bookstore.Ms. Otis said she noticed an increase in sales when she began offering mobile payments, which made the checkout process faster. “As a retailer, you want to make the experience as efficient as possible,” she said. “It is a matter of survival.”A veteran using a tap-and-go device to collect donations for the Royal British Legion in London in 2020.Guy Bell/AlamyBenefits include immediate payment, increased sales and the ability to sell to customers who might use other currencies. “You have to set it up, but it’s worth it,” said Kimberley A. Eddleston, a professor of entrepreneurship at Northeastern University.But some business owners say they are hesitant to move too quickly, worried that today’s technology could become obsolete tomorrow. And there are compatibility and cost issues to consider, said Wayne Read, the chief executive of Forged & Formed, an online jeweler with a physical store, Studio D Jewelers, in Woodstock, Ill. In his jewelry sales, where items can be pricey, he said a speedy transaction might not be suitable. “We don’t want people to feel they have rushed their decision,” he said.Despite advances in technology, many Americans still have little or no access to financial services like credit cards and mobile wallets, although that is slowly improving. An estimated 5.9 million households did not have a bank account in 2021, down from 7.1 million households in 2019, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve.Rewards points displayed on a checkout screen at Mothership. Mobile apps allow for cashless payments and can increase customer loyalty.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesAnother obstacle to adoption is privacy concerns: Some people prefer the anonymity that cash provides. And cash is perceived as a way for consumers to remain aware of expenditures. Complicating the transition to the digital economy, the recent banking turmoil in the United States has made many depositors question the security of financial institutions.But experts agree that cash is unlikely to go away. Consumers in lower income households continue to rely on cash for payments, according to the Fed survey.And small-business owners say that despite the speed and efficiency that cashless payments offer, cash is still a viable option for their customers.“At the end of the day, I know the people I serve,” Ms. Romero said. “I would feel conflicted if I didn’t do the right thing.” More

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision Suggests Big-Bank Regulation Changes

    by

    In a series of changes that has bank lobbyists on the defensive, Michael Barr is calling for higher bank capital and tougher annual stress tests.Michael S. Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, announced on Monday that he would be pushing for significant changes to how America’s largest banks were overseen in a bid to make them more resilient in times of trouble — partly by ratcheting up how much capital they have to get them through a rough patch.The overhaul would require the largest banks to increase their holdings of capital — cash and other readily available assets that could be used to absorb losses in times of trouble. Mr. Barr predicted that his tweaks, if put into effect, would be “equivalent to requiring the largest banks hold an additional two percentage points of capital.”“The beauty of capital is that it doesn’t care about the source of the loss,” Mr. Barr said in his speech previewing the proposed changes. “Whatever the vulnerability or the shock, capital is able to help absorb the resulting loss.”Mr. Barr’s proposals are not a done deal: They would need to make it through a notice-and-comment period — giving banks, lawmakers and other interested parties a chance to voice their views. If the Fed Board votes to institute them, the transition will take time. But the sweeping set of changes that he set out meaningfully tweak how banks both police their own risks and are overseen by government regulators.“It’s definitely meaty,” said Ian Katz, an analyst at Capital Alpha who covers banking regulation.The Fed’s vice chair for supervision, who was nominated by President Biden, has spent months reviewing capital rules for America’s largest banks, and his results have been hotly anticipated: Bank lobbyists have for months been warning about the changes he might propose. Midsize banks in particular have been outspoken, saying that any increase in regulatory requirements would be costly for them, reining in their ability to lend.Monday’s speech made clear why banks have been worried. Mr. Barr wants to update capital requirements based on bank risk “to better reflect credit, trading and operational risk,” he said in his remarks, delivered at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.For instance, banks would no longer be able to rely on internal models to estimate some types of credit risk — the chance of losses on loans — or for particularly tough-to-predict market risks. Beyond that, banks would be required to model risks for individual trading desks for particular asset classes, instead of at the firm level.“These changes would raise market risk capital requirements by correcting for gaps in the current rules,” Mr. Barr said.Perhaps anticipating more bank pushback, Mr. Barr also listed existing rules that he did not plan to tighten, among them special capital requirements that apply only to the very largest banks.The new proposal would also try to address vulnerabilities laid bare early this year when a series of major banks collapsed.One factor that led to the demise of Silicon Valley Bank — and sent a shock wave across the midsize banking sector — was that the bank was sitting on a pile of unrealized losses on securities classified as “available for sale.”The lender had not been required to count those paper losses when it was calculating how much capital it needed to weather a tough period. And when it had to sell the securities to raise cash, the losses came back to bite.Mr. Barr’s proposed adjustments would require banks with assets of $100 billion or more to account for unrealized losses and gains on such securities when calculating their regulatory capital, he said.The changes would also toughen oversight for a wider group of large banks. Mr. Barr said his more stringent rules would apply to firms with $100 billion or more in assets — lowering the threshold for tight oversight, which now applies the most enhanced rules to banks that are internationally active or have $700 billion or more in assets. Of the estimated 4,100 banks in the nation, roughly 30 hold $100 billion or more in assets.Mr. Katz said the expansion of tough rules to a wider set of banks was the most notable part of the proposal: Such a tweak was expected based on remarks from other Fed officials recently, he said, but “it’s quite a change.”The bank blowups this year illustrated that even much smaller banks have the potential to unleash chaos if they collapse.Still, “we’re not going to know how significant these changes are until the lengthy rule-making process plays out over the next couple of years,” said Dennis Kelleher, the chief executive of the nonprofit Better Markets.Mr. Kelleher said that in general Mr. Barr’s ideas seemed good, but added that he was troubled by what he saw as a lack of urgency among regulators.“When it comes to bailing out the banks, they act with urgency and decisiveness,” he said, “but when it comes to regulating the banks enough to prevent crashes, they’re slow and they take years.”Bank lobbyists criticized Mr. Barr’s announcement.“Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Barr appears to believe that the largest U.S. banks need even more capital, without providing any evidence as to why,” Kevin Fromer, the chief executive of the lobby group the Financial Services Forum, said in a statement to the news media on Monday.“Further capital requirements on the largest U.S. banks will lead to higher borrowing costs and fewer loans for consumers and businesses — slowing our economy and impacting those on the margin hardest,” Mr. Fromer said. Susan Wachter, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, said the proposed changes were “long overdue.” She said it was a relief to know that a plan to make them was underway.The Fed vice chair hinted that additional bank oversight tweaks inspired by the March turmoil were coming.“I will be pursuing further changes to regulation and supervision in response to the recent banking stress,” Mr. Barr said in his speech. “I expect to have more to say on these topics in the coming months.” More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Chips Make It Tough for the U.S. to Quit China

    by

    Chipmakers are finding it increasingly hard to operate in China but say doing business in the country is still key to their survival.In May, Micron Technologies, the Idaho chipmaker, suffered a serious blow as part of the U.S.-China technology war. The Chinese government barred companies that handle crucial information from buying Micron’s chips, saying the company had failed a cybersecurity review.Micron said the change could destroy roughly an eighth of its global revenue. Yet in June, the chipmaker announced that it would increase its investments in China — adding $600 million to expand a chip packaging facility in the Chinese city of Xian.“This investment project demonstrates Micron’s unwavering commitment to its China business and team,” an announcement posted on the company’s Chinese social media account said.Global semiconductor companies are finding themselves in an extremely tricky position as they try to straddle a growing rift between the United States and China. The semiconductor industry has become ground zero for the technology rivalry between Washington and Beijing, with new restrictions and punitive measures imposed by both sides.U.S. officials say American products have fed into Chinese military and surveillance programs that run counter to the national security interest of the United States. They have imposed increasingly tough restrictions on the kind of chips and chip-making equipment that can be sent to China, and are offering new incentives, including grants and tax credits, for chipmakers who choose to build new operations in the United States.But factories can take years to construct, and corporate ties between the countries remain strong. China is a major market for chips, since it is home to many factories that make chip-rich products, including smartphones, dishwashers, cars and computers, that are both exported around the world and purchased by consumers in China.Overall, China accounts for roughly a third of global semiconductor sales. But for some chipmakers, the country accounts for 60 percent or 70 percent of their revenue. Even when chips are manufactured in the United States, they are often sent to China for assembly and testing.“We can’t just flip a switch and say all of sudden you have to take everything out of China,” said Emily S. Weinstein, a research fellow at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.The industry’s reliance on China highlights how a close — but extremely contentious — economic relationship between Washington and Beijing is posing challenges for both sides.Those tensions were reflected during Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen’s visit to Beijing this week, where she tried to walk a fine line by faulting some of China’s practices while insisting the United States was not looking to sever ties with the country.Ms. Yellen criticized punitive measures China has recently taken against foreign firms, including limiting the export of some minerals used in chip making, and suggested that such actions were why the Biden administration was trying to make U.S. manufacturers less reliant on China. But she also affirmed the U.S.-China relationship as strategic and important.“I have made clear that the United States does not seek a wholesale separation of our economies,” Ms. Yellen said during a roundtable with U.S. companies operating in China. “We seek to diversify, not to decouple. A decoupling of the world’s two largest economies would be destabilizing for the global economy, and it would be virtually impossible to undertake.”The Biden administration is poised to begin investing heavily in American semiconductor manufacturing to lure factories out of China. Later this year, the Commerce Department is expected to begin handing out funds to help companies build U.S. chip facilities. That money will come with strings: Firms that take funding must refrain from expanding high-tech manufacturing facilities in China.The administration is also weighing further curbs on the chips that can be sent to China, as part of a push to expand and finalize sweeping restrictions it issued last October.These measures could include potential limits on sales to China of advanced chips used for artificial intelligence, new restrictions for Chinese companies’ access to U.S. cloud computing services, and restrictions on U.S. venture capital investments in the Chinese chip sector, according to people familiar with the plans.The administration has also been considering halting the licenses it has extended to some U.S. chipmakers that have allowed them to continue selling products to Huawei, the Chinese telecom firm.Japan and the Netherlands, which are home to companies that make advanced chip manufacturing equipment, have also put new restrictions on their sales to China, in part because of urging from the United States.China has issued restrictions of its own, including new export controls on minerals used in chip manufacturing.Amid tighter regulations and new incentive programs from the United States and Europe, global chip companies are increasingly looking outside China as they choose the locations for their next major investments. But these facilities will likely take years to construct, meaning any changes to the global semiconductor market will unfold gradually.John Neuffer, the president of the Semiconductor Industry Association, which represents the chip industry, said in a statement that the ongoing escalation of controls posed a significant risk to the global competitiveness of the U.S. industry.“China is the world’s largest market for semiconductors, and our companies simply need to do business there to continue to grow, innovate and stay ahead of global competitors,” he said. “We urge solutions that protect national security, avoid inadvertent and lasting damage to the chip industry, and avert future escalations.” More

  • 75 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and China, by the Numbers

    by

    From movie theaters to military spending, here’s how one of the world’s most important economic relationships stacks up.China and the United States are locked in an increasingly intense rivalry when it comes to national security and economic competition, with American leaders frequently identifying China as their greatest long-term challenger.Yet the world’s two largest economies, which together represent 40 percent of the global output, remain integral partners in many ways. They sell and buy important products from each other, finance each other’s businesses, provide a home to millions of each other’s people, and create apps and movies for audiences in both countries.As Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen meets with top Chinese officials in Beijing this week, her challenge will be to navigate this multifaceted relationship, which ranges from conflict to cooperation. Here are some figures that illustrate the links between the two nations.Economic and military powerThe U.S. economy continues to outstrip China’s by dollar value: In 2022, Chinese gross domestic product was $18 trillion, compared with $25.5 trillion for the United States.But China’s population is more than four times America’s. And the economic picture looks different when adjusted for local prices: Based on purchasing power parity, China’s share of world G.D.P. is 18.9 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund, surpassing the United States at 15.4 percent.China has provided more than a trillion dollars for global infrastructure through its Belt and Road Initiative, which analysts see as an effort to project power around the world.The rapid growth and modernization of China’s military have sparked concerns in the United States. China has more naval vessels than the United States and more military personnel, with 2.5 million in 2019.But American armed forces are far better equipped, and the United States still spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined — $877 billion in 2022, compared with $292 billion in reported spending by China.Trade relationsDespite the rising tensions, trade between the countries remains extremely strong. China is America’s third-largest trading partner, after Canada and Mexico.U.S. imports of goods and services from China hit a record $563.6 billion last year. But the share of U.S. imports that come from China has been falling, a sign of how some businesses are breaking off ties with China.China is also a major export market, with half of all soybeans that the United States sends abroad going to China. The U.S.-China Business Council estimated that U.S. exports to China supported nearly 1.1 million jobs in the United States in 2021.China dominates supply chains for both critical and everyday goods. It is the world’s largest producer of steel, solar panels, electronics, coal, plastics, buttons and car batteries, and it has quadrupled its car exports in just two years, becoming the world’s largest auto exporter through its growing clout in electric vehicles.The United States has steadily expanded sanctions against Chinese companies and organizations because of national security and human rights concerns, placing 721 Chinese companies, organizations and people on an “entity list” that restricts their ability to buy products from the United States, according to the Commerce Department.Financial and corporate tiesChina is one of America’s largest lenders and holds nearly $1 trillion of U.S. debt.Members of the S&P 500 index, which tracks the largest public companies in the United States, generate 7.6 percent of their revenue in mainland China, the biggest source of international sales by far, according to FactSet. The revenue that large U.S. firms derive from China is more than their revenue from the next three countries — Japan, Britain and Germany — combined.But the outlook for American companies doing business in China has turned grimmer. In the American Chamber of Commerce in China’s most recent survey of U.S. companies in China, 56 percent described their business as unprofitable in 2022, with some blaming China’s strict Covid-19 lockdown measures.Also in the survey, 46 percent of American companies thought that U.S.-China relations would deteriorate in 2023, while only 13 percent thought they would improve.Personal and cultural connectionsThe United States is home to nearly 2.4 million Chinese immigrants, making it the top destination for Chinese immigrants worldwide. Chinese immigrants in the United States are more than twice as likely as U.S.-born adults to have a graduate or professional degree.In the 2021-22 school year, 296,000 students from China attended U.S. institutions of higher learning, nearly a third of all international students in the United States.Roughly three in four Chinese Americans experienced racial discrimination in the previous 12 months, and 9 percent were physically intimidated or assaulted, according to a survey by Columbia University and the Committee of 100, a Chinese American leadership organization.Long considered a low-end manufacturer, China has become more of a source for innovation and cultural creation. TikTok, the popular social media app whose parent company is China’s ByteDance, says it has more than 150 million users in the United States.Last year, 20 American movies opened in China, and their box office total was roughly $673 million, according to Comscore. China had more than 80,000 movie screens by late 2021, compared with roughly 39,000 in the United States.Pandemic restrictions have made it much harder to travel between the countries. Air carriers are running only 24 flights a week between the United States and China, compared with about 350 before the pandemic.Sapna Maheshwari and Nicole Sperling contributed reporting. More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen’s China Visit Aims to Ease Tensions Amid Deep Divisions

    by

    Mutual skepticism between the United States and China over a wide range of economic and security issues has festered in recent years.The last time a U.S. Treasury secretary visited China, Washington and Beijing were locked in a trade war, the Trump administration was preparing to label China a currency manipulator, and fraying relations between the two countries were roiling global markets.Four years later, as Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen prepares to arrive in Beijing, many of the economic policy concerns that have been festering between the United States and China remain — or have even intensified — despite the Biden administration’s less antagonistic tone.The tariffs that President Donald J. Trump imposed on Chinese goods are still in effect. President Biden has been working to restrict China’s access to critical technology such as semiconductors. And new restrictions curbing American investment in China are looming.Treasury Department officials have downplayed expectations for major breakthroughs on Ms. Yellen’s four-day trip, which begins when she arrives in Beijing on Thursday. They suggest instead that her meetings with senior Chinese officials are intended to improve communication between the world’s two largest economies. But tensions between United States and China remain high, and conversations between Ms. Yellen and her counterparts are likely to be difficult. She met in Washington with Xie Feng, China’s ambassador, on Monday, and the two officials had a “frank and productive discussion,” according to the Treasury.Here are some of the most contentious issues that have sown divisions between the United States and China.Technology and trade controlsChinese officials are still smarting at the Biden administration’s 2022 decision to place significant limitations on the kinds of advanced semiconductors and chip-making machinery that can be sent to China. Those limits have hampered China’s efforts to develop artificial intelligence and other kinds of advanced computing that are expected to help power each country’s economy and military going forward.The government of the Netherlands, which is home to semiconductor machinery maker ASML, on Friday announced new restrictions on machinery exports to China. On Monday, China placed restrictions on exports of germanium and gallium, two metals used to make chips.The Biden administration is mulling further controls on advanced chips and on American investment into cutting-edge Chinese technology.Semiconductors have always been one of the biggest and most valuable categories of U.S. exports to China, and while the Chinese government is investing heavily in its domestic capacity, it remains many years behind the United States.The Biden administration’s subsidy program to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor industry has also rankled Chinese officials, especially since it includes restrictions on investing in China. Companies that accept U.S. government money to build new chip facilities in the United States are forbidden to make new, high-tech investments in China. And while Chinese officials — and some American manufacturers — were hopeful that the Biden administration would lift tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports, that does not seem to be in the offing. While Ms. Yellen has questioned the efficacy of tariffs, other top officials within the administration see the levies as helpful for encouraging supply chains to move out of China.The administration is employing both carrots and sticks to carry out a policy of “de-risking” or “friend-shoring” — that is, enticing supply chains for crucial products like electric vehicle batteries, semiconductors and solar panels out of China.President Biden during a visit to a Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company plant under construction in Phoenix. The Biden administration’s efforts to assist the U.S. semiconductor industry has rankled Chinese officials.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesDeteriorating business environmentsCompanies doing business in China are increasingly worried about attracting negative attention from the government. The most recent target was Micron Technology, a U.S. memory chip maker that failed a Chinese security review in May. The move could cut Micron off from selling to Chinese companies that operate key infrastructure, putting roughly an eighth of the company’s global revenue at risk. In recent months, consulting and advisory firms in China with foreign ties have faced a crackdown.American officials are growing more concerned with the Chinese government’s use of economic coercion against countries like Lithuania and Australia, and they are working with European officials and other governments to coordinate their responses.Businesses are also alarmed by China’s ever-tightening national security laws, which include a stringent counterespionage law that took effect on Saturday. Foreign businesses in China are reassessing their activities and the market information they gather because the law is vague about what is prohibited. “We think this is very ill advised, and we’ve made that point to several members of the government here,” said R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to China, in an interview in Beijing.In the United States, companies with ties to China, like the social media app TikTok, the shopping app Temu and the clothing retailer Shein, are facing increasing scrutiny over their labor practices, their use of American customer data and the ways they import products into the United States.CurrencyChina’s currency, the renminbi, has often been a source of concern for American officials, who have at times accused Beijing of artificially weakening its currency to make its products cheaper to sell abroad.The renminbi’s recent weakness may pose the most difficult issue for Ms. Yellen. The currency is down more than 7 percent against the dollar in the past 12 months and down nearly 13 percent against the euro. That decline makes China’s exports more competitive in the United States. China’s trade surplus in manufactured goods already represents a tenth of the entire economy’s output.The renminbi is not alone in falling against the dollar lately — the Japanese yen has tumbled for various reasons, including rising interest rates in the United States as the Federal Reserve tries to tamp down inflation.Chinese economists have blamed that factor for the renminbi’s weakness as well. Zhan Yubo, a senior economist at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said the decline in the renminbi was the direct result of the Fed’s recent increases in interest rates.At the same time, China has been cutting interest rates to help its flagging economy. The interest rate that banks charge one another for overnight loans — a benchmark that tends to influence all other interest rates — is now a little over 5 percent in New York and barely 1 percent in Shanghai. That reverses a longstanding pattern in which interest rates were usually higher in China.The Fed’s rate increases have made it more attractive for companies and households to send money out of China and invest it in the United States, in defiance of Beijing’s stringent limits on overseas money movements.China pledged as part of the Phase 1 trade agreement with the United States three years ago not to seek an advantage in trade by pushing down the value of its currency. But the Biden administration’s options may be limited if China lets its currency weaken anyway.Global debtChina has provided more than $500 billion to developing countries through its lending program, making it one of the world’s largest creditors. Many of those borrowers, including several African nations, have struggled economically since the pandemic and face the possibility of defaulting on their debt payments.The United States, along with other Western nations, has been pressing China to allow some of those countries to restructure their debt and reduce the amount that they owe. But for more than two years, China has insisted that other creditors and multilateral lenders absorb financial losses as part of any restructuring, bogging down the loan relief process and threatening to push millions of people in developing countries deeper into poverty.In June, international creditors including China agreed to a debt relief plan with Zambia that would provide a grace period on its interest payments and extend the dates when its loans are due. The arrangement did not require that the World Bank or International Monetary Fund write off any debts, offering global policymakers like Ms. Yellen hope for similar debt restructuring in poorer countries.Human rights and national security issuesTensions over national security and human rights have created an atmosphere of mutual distrust and spilled over into economic relations. The flight of a Chinese surveillance balloon across the United States this year deeply unsettled the American public, and members of Congress have been pressing the administration to reveal more of what it knows about the balloon. Mr. Biden’s recent labeling of China’s leader, Xi Jinping, as a “dictator” also rankled Chinese officials and state-run media.American officials continue to be concerned about China’s human rights violations, including the suppression of the democracy movement in Hong Kong and the detention of mainly Muslim ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region of northwestern China. A senior Treasury Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity before Ms. Yellen’s trip, said the United States had no intention of shying away from its views on human rights during the meetings in China.Chinese officials continue to protest the various sanctions that the United States has issued against Chinese companies, organizations and individuals for national security threats and human rights violations — including sanctions against Li Shangfu, China’s defense minister. The Chinese government has cited those sanctions as a reason for its rejection of high-level military dialogues. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Opposition Grows to U.S. Imports of ‘Laundered’ Russian Oil

    by

    Human rights groups and Ukrainian officials want the United States to stop buying Russian crude oil that has been refined into other products in third countries like IndiaUkrainian officials and human rights groups are asking the United States to close what they describe as a loophole that allows Russian crude oil that has been refined in other countries to be shipped to the United States.The Biden administration issued a ban in March last year on purchasing crude oil and other petroleum products directly from Russia, immediately after the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine. The European Union, which was heavily dependent on Russia for supplies of energy, banned Russian crude in December and then petroleum products in February.But both the United States and the European Union continue to buy Russian oil that has been refined in other countries into gasoline, fuel oil and other products. Countries like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, China and particularly India are snapping up Russian oil, which must now be sold at a reduced price under a cap imposed by the United States and Europe. These nations — which have been described as “laundromat” countries by environmental and human rights groups — then refine the oil and send it to other markets.This activity is legal: Once Russian crude oil has been “substantially transformed” by being refined in another country, it legally ceases to be Russian. The same standards have long applied to oil from other nations that are under sanctions, like Iran and Venezuela.Still, opposition to this sort of trade is growing.Oleg Ustenko, an economic adviser to the Ukrainian president, said such U.S. purchases meant “that we are indirectly supporting this insurrection, which is just not acceptable.”“I don’t know how it sounds in English, but in Ukrainian I’m calling this strategy as a cockroach strategy, meaning they are trying to find all possible loopholes, as a cockroach trying to crawl through these holes into your apartment,” he said of Russia’s oil trade. “And what you need to do, you need to close all these holes.”It’s difficult to estimate how much refined petroleum the United States is importing that originally came from Russia. But a report released Thursday by Global Witness, a London-based organization that advocates environmental and human rights, suggested that the volume was small but not insignificant.Take India, one of the biggest participants in this activity. The United States imported roughly 152 million barrels of refined petroleum products in the first five months of this year, with about 8 percent coming from India.More than 80 percent of refined oil that the United States imports from India came from a single port: Sikka, in Gujarat Province, which is home to the Jamnagar Refinery, the world’s largest refinery, according to calculations by Global Witness. And in the first five months of the year, the group estimated, 35 percent of the crude oil arriving at the port was of Russian origin.To block these flows, Global Witness proposes banning all imports from refineries that buy Russian crude oil. The group sent members to Washington last week to lobby members of Congress on the move, including in the committees overseeing energy and support for Ukraine.“Banning oil from refineries running on Russia crude is a common-sense decision for the U.S.,” said Lela Stanley, senior investigator at Global Witness.Mr. Ustenko and Ms. Stanley said such a ban was unlikely to have much impact on U.S. gas prices. But Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks wholesale and retail prices of oil, said he believed it would have some effect.“If you remove a number of countries as potential sources for gasoline and diesel, there’s an impact in the U.S. and an impact in Europe,” he said.Mr. Kloza said that the Biden administration might be reluctant to take any step that would raise gas prices with an election approaching — and that such a ban could also prove difficult to police. He pointed to the example of Saudi Arabia, which last year had started importing Russian diesel, while also exporting more diesel from Saudi refineries to other countries.“There’s lots of ways to get around the Russian boycott,” he said.It also remains to be seen what such a ban would mean for the U.S. relationship with India, which the Biden administration regards as a key strategic partner. The Jamnagar Refinery is owned by Reliance Industry, which is in turn controlled by Mukesh Ambani, an Indian businessman. Mr. Ambani is a close partner to the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and was a guest at the state dinner that the White House threw for Mr. Modi last week. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why What We Thought About the Global Economy Is No Longer True

    by

    While the world’s eyes were on the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and China, the paths to prosperity and shared interests have grown murkier.When the world’s business and political leaders gathered in 2018 at the annual economic forum in Davos, the mood was jubilant. Growth in every major country was on an upswing. The global economy, declared Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, “is in a very sweet spot.”Five years later, the outlook has decidedly soured.“Nearly all the economic forces that powered progress and prosperity over the last three decades are fading,” the World Bank warned in a recent analysis. “The result could be a lost decade in the making — not just for some countries or regions as has occurred in the past — but for the whole world.”A lot has happened between then and now: A global pandemic hit; war erupted in Europe; tensions between the United States and China boiled. And inflation, thought to be safely stored away with disco album collections, returned with a vengeance.But as the dust has settled, it has suddenly seemed as if almost everything we thought we knew about the world economy was wrong.The economic conventions that policymakers had relied on since the Berlin Wall fell more than 30 years ago — the unfailing superiority of open markets, liberalized trade and maximum efficiency — look to be running off the rails.During the Covid-19 pandemic, the ceaseless drive to integrate the global economy and reduce costs left health care workers without face masks and medical gloves, carmakers without semiconductors, sawmills without lumber and sneaker buyers without Nikes.Calverton National Cemetery in New York in early 2021, where daily burials more than doubled at the height of the pandemic.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesCaring for Covid patients in Bergamo, Italy, in 2020. Cost-cutting and economic integration around the globe left health care workers scrambling for masks and other supplies when the coronavirus hit.Fabio Bucciarelli for The New York TimesThe idea that trade and shared economic interests would prevent military conflicts was trampled last year under the boots of Russian soldiers in Ukraine.And increasing bouts of extreme weather that destroyed crops, forced migrations and halted power plants has illustrated that the market’s invisible hand was not protecting the planet.Now, as the second year of war in Ukraine grinds on and countries struggle with limp growth and persistent inflation, questions about the emerging economic playing field have taken center stage.Globalization, seen in recent decades as unstoppable a force as gravity, is clearly evolving in unpredictable ways. The move away from an integrated world economy is accelerating. And the best way to respond is a subject of fierce debate.Of course, challenges to the reigning economic consensus had been growing for a while.“We saw before the pandemic began that the wealthiest countries were getting frustrated by international trade, believing — whether correctly or not — that somehow this was hurting them, their jobs and standards of living,” said Betsey Stevenson, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration.The financial meltdown in 2008 came close to tanking the global financial system. Britain pulled out of the European Union in 2016. President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on China in 2017, spurring a mini trade war.But starting with Covid-19, the rat-a-tat series of crises exposed with startling clarity vulnerabilities that demanded attention.As the consulting firm EY concluded in its 2023 Geostrategic Outlook, the trends behind the shift away from ever-increasing globalization “were accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic — and then they have been supercharged by the war in Ukraine.”A view of the destruction in Bakhmut, Ukraine, in May.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesUkrainians lined up to receive humanitarian aid in Kherson last year. Trade and shared economic interests weren’t enough to prevent wars, as once thought.Lynsey Addario for The New York TimesIt was the ‘end of history.’Today’s sense of unease is a stark contrast with the heady triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. It was a period when a theorist could declare that the fall of communism marked “the end of history” — that liberal democratic ideas not only vanquished rivals, but represented “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution.”Associated economic theories about the ineluctable rise of worldwide free market capitalism took on a similar sheen of invincibility and inevitability. Open markets, hands-off government and the relentless pursuit of efficiency would offer the best route to prosperity.It was believed that a new world where goods, money and information crisscrossed the globe would essentially sweep away the old order of Cold War conflicts and undemocratic regimes.There was reason for optimism. During the 1990s, inflation was low while employment, wages and productivity were up. Global trade nearly doubled. Investments in developing countries surged. The stock market rose.The World Trade Organization was established in 1995 to enforce the rules. China’s entry six years later was seen as transformative. And linking a huge market with 142 countries would irresistibly draw the Asian giant toward democracy.China, along with South Korea, Malaysia and others, turned struggling farmers into productive urban factory workers. The furniture, toys and electronics they sold around the world generated tremendous growth.China joined the World Trade Organization at a signing ceremony in 2001. ReutersThe favored economic road map helped produce fabulous wealth, lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and spur wondrous technological advances.But there were stunning failures as well. Globalization hastened climate change and deepened inequalities.In the United States and other advanced economies, many industrial jobs were exported to lower-wage countries, removing a springboard to the middle class.Policymakers always knew there would be winners and losers. Still, the market was left to decide how to deploy labor, technology and capital in the belief that efficiency and growth would automatically follow. Only afterward, the thinking went, should politicians step in to redistribute gains or help those left without jobs or prospects.Companies embarked on a worldwide scavenger hunt for low-wage workers, regardless of worker protections, environmental impact or democratic rights. They found many of them in places like Mexico, Vietnam and China.Television, T-shirts and tacos were cheaper than ever, but many essentials like health care, housing and higher education were increasingly out of reach.The job exodus pushed down wages at home and undercut workers’ bargaining power, spurring anti-immigrant sentiments and strengthening hard-right populist leaders like Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orban in Hungary and Marine Le Pen in France.In advanced industrial giants like the United States, Britain and several European countries, political leaders turned out to be unable or unwilling to more broadly reapportion rewards and burdens.Nor were they able to prevent damaging environmental fallout. Transporting goods around the globe increased greenhouse gas emissions. Producing for a world of consumers strained natural resources, encouraging overfishing in Southeast Asia and illegal deforestation in Brazil. And cheap production facilities polluted countries without adequate environmental standards.It turned out that markets on their own weren’t able to automatically distribute gains fairly or spur developing countries to grow or establish democratic institutions.Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said in a recent speech that a central fallacy in American economic policy had been to assume “that markets always allocate capital productively and efficiently — no matter what our competitors did, no matter how big our shared challenges grew, and no matter how many guardrails we took down.”The proliferation of economic exchanges between nations also failed to usher in a promised democratic renaissance.Communist-led China turned out to be the global economic system’s biggest beneficiary — and perhaps master gamesman — without embracing democratic values.“Capitalist tools in socialist hands,” the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said in 1992, when his country was developing into the world’s factory floor. China’s astonishing growth transformed it into the world’s second largest economy and a major engine of global growth. All along, though, Beijing maintained a tight grip on its raw materials, land, capital, energy, credit and labor, as well as the movements and speech of its people.Globalization has had enormous effects on the environment — including deforestation in Roraima State, in the Brazilian Amazon.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesDistributing food in Johannesburg in 2020, where the pandemic caused a significant spike in the need for assistance.Joao Silva/The New York TimesMoney flowed in, and poor countries paid the price.In developing countries, the results could be dire.The economic havoc wreaked by the pandemic combined with soaring food and fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine have created a spate of debt crises. Rising interest rates have made those crises worse. Debts, like energy and food, are often priced in dollars on the world market, so when U.S. rates go up, debt payments get more expensive.The cycle of loans and bailouts, though, has deeper roots.Poorer nations were pressured to lift all restrictions on capital moving in and out of the country. The argument was that money, like goods, should flow freely among nations. Allowing governments, businesses and individuals to borrow from foreign lenders would finance industrial development and key infrastructure.“Financial globalization was supposed to usher in an era of robust growth and fiscal stability in the developing world,” said Jayati Ghosh, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. But “it ended up doing the opposite.”Some loans — whether from private lenders or institutions like the World Bank — didn’t produce enough returns to pay off the debt. Others were poured into speculative schemes, half-baked proposals, vanity projects or corrupt officials’ bank accounts. And debtors remained at the mercy of rising interest rates that swelled the size of debt payments in a heartbeat.Over the years, reckless lending, asset bubbles, currency fluctuations and official mismanagement led to boom-and-bust cycles in Asia, Russia, Latin America and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, extravagant projects undertaken by the government, from ports to cricket stadiums, helped drive the country into bankruptcy last year as citizens scavenged for food and the central bank, in a barter arrangement, paid for Iranian oil with tea leaves.It’s a “Ponzi scheme,” Ms. Ghosh said.Private lenders who got spooked that they would not be repaid abruptly cut off the flow of money, leaving countries in the lurch.And the mandated austerity that accompanied bailouts from the International Monetary Fund, which compelled overextended governments to slash spending, often brought widespread misery by cutting public assistance, pensions, education and health care.Even I.M.F. economists acknowledged in 2016 that instead of delivering growth, such policies “increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion.”Disenchantment with the West’s style of lending gave China the opportunity to become an aggressive creditor in countries like Argentina, Mongolia, Egypt and Suriname.A market in Buenos Aires. China has become an aggressive creditor to countries like Argentina. Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesSelf-reliance replaces cheap imports.While the collapse of the Soviet Union cleared the way for the domination of free-market orthodoxy, the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has now decisively unmoored it.The story of the international economy today, said Henry Farrell, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is about “how geopolitics is gobbling up hyperglobalization.”Old-world style great power politics accomplished what the threat of catastrophic climate collapse, seething social unrest and widening inequality could not: It upended assumptions about the global economic order.Josep Borrell, the European Union’s head of foreign affairs and security policy, put it bluntly in a speech 10 months after the invasion of Ukraine: “We have decoupled the sources of our prosperity from the sources of our security.” Europe got cheap energy from Russia and cheap manufactured goods from China. “This is a world that is no longer there,” he said.Supply-chain chokeholds stemming from the pandemic and subsequent recovery had already underscored the fragility of a globally sourced economy. As political tensions over the war grew, policymakers quickly added self-reliance and strength to the goals of growth and efficiency.“Our supply chains are not secure, and they’re not resilient,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said last spring. Trade relationships should be built around “trusted partners,” she said, even if it means “a somewhat higher level of cost, a somewhat less efficient system.”“It was naïve to think that markets are just about efficiency and that they’re not also about power,” said Abraham Newman, a co-author with Mr. Farrell of “Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy.”Economic networks, by their very nature, create power imbalances and pressure points because countries have varying capabilities, resources and vulnerabilities.Russia, which had supplied 40 percent of the European Union’s natural gas, tried to use that dependency to pressure the bloc to withdraw its support of Ukraine.The United States and its allies used their domination of the global financial system to remove major Russian banks from the international payments system.The Port of Chornomorsk near Odesa, last year. In 2021, Ukraine was the largest wheat exporter in the world.Laetitia Vancon for The New York TimesHarvesting grapes at a vineyard in South Australia. China blocked Australian exports of wine and other goods after the country expressed support for Taiwan.Adam Ferguson for The New York TimesChina has retaliated against trading partners by restricting access to its enormous market.The extreme concentrations of critical suppliers and information technology networks has generated additional choke points.China manufactures 80 percent of the world’s solar panels. Taiwan produces 92 percent of tiny advanced semiconductors. Much of the world’s trade and transactions are figured in U.S. dollars.The new reality is reflected in American policy. The United States — the central architect of the liberalized economic order and the World Trade Organization — has turned away from more comprehensive free trade agreements and repeatedly refused to abide by W.T.O. decisions.Security concerns have led the Biden administration to block Chinese investment in American businesses and limit China’s access to private data on citizens and to new technologies.And it has embraced Chinese-style industrial policy, offering gargantuan subsidies for electric vehicles, batteries, wind farms, solar plants and more to secure supply chains and speed the transition to renewable energy.“Ignoring the economic dependencies that had built up over the decades of liberalization had become really perilous,” Mr. Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said. Adherence to “oversimplified market efficiency,” he added, proved to be a mistake.While the previous economic orthodoxy has been partly abandoned, it is not clear what will replace it. Improvisation is the order of the day. Perhaps the only assumption that can be confidently relied on now is that the path to prosperity and policy trade-offs will become murkier.A solar farm in Yanqing district, in China. The country makes 80 percent of the world’s solar panels.Gilles Sabrié for The New York Times More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    West Coast Dockworkers Reach Contract Deal With Port Operators

    by

    After a year of prolonged negotiations that have led to delays and declines in cargo, the two sides agreed to a new contract with help from the Biden administration.After a year of contract negotiations that resulted in numerous delays and a decline in the movement of cargo at ports along the West Coast, union dockworkers and port operators have reached a tentative deal set to last for six years.In a joint statement released late Wednesday, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association announced a tentative agreement on a new contract that covers 22,000 workers at 29 ports from San Diego to Seattle, some of the busiest in the world.Details about the agreement, which is expected to be formally ratified by both sides, were not immediately released.President Biden, who stepped in last year to urge a swift resolution, released a statement congratulating both parties for reaching an agreement “after a long and sometimes acrimonious negotiation.”“As I have always said, collective bargaining works,” Mr. Biden said. “Above all I congratulate the port workers, who have served heroically through the pandemic and the countless challenges it brought and will finally get the pay, benefits, and quality of life they deserve.”Mr. Biden also thanked Julie Su, the acting U.S. labor secretary, for assistance in finalizing the deal.The outcome on Wednesday somewhat mirrored past negotiations between the two sides. In 2015, as negotiations went on for nine months, officials in the Obama administration intervened amid work slowdowns and increased congestion at ports.The protracted negotiations between the union and the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping terminals, have focused on disagreements over wages and the expanding role of automation.In recent weeks the Longshore and Warehouse Union, or the I.L.W.U., has staged a series of work slowdowns at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which in recent months have lost sizable business to ports along the Gulf and East Coasts. Cargo processing at the Port of Los Angeles, a key entry point for shipments from Asia, was down roughly 40 percent in February, compared with the year before.Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to Mr. Biden urging the administration to intervene immediately in the negotiations and appoint an independent mediator to help the two parties reach an agreement.Matthew Shay, president of the National Retail Federation, said the ongoing delays and disruptions have had a negative impact on retailers and other stakeholders who rely on the West Coast ports for business operations.“As we enter the all-important peak shipping season for holiday merchandise, retailers need a seamless flow of containers through the ports and to their distribution centers,” Mr. Shay said.On Wednesday, Gene Seroka, head of the Port of Los Angeles, said in a statement that the tentative agreement between the I.L.W.U. and the Pacific Maritime “brings the stability and confidence that customers have been seeking.”Matt Schrap, chief executive of the Harbor Trucking Association, a trade group for transportation companies serving West Coast ports, said his organization is eager for cargo traffic to return to normal soon.“We need the certainty,” he said. “This has been a long, hard process.” More