United States

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. to Challenge Mexican Ban on Genetically Modified Corn

    by

    The Biden administration said it would request talks with Mexico over a brewing trade fight.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration said on Monday that it would take initial steps toward challenging a ban that Mexico has placed on shipments of genetically modified corn from the United States, restrictions that have rankled farmers and threatened a profitable export.Mexico has planned to phase out the use of genetically modified corn, as well as an herbicide called glyphosate, by 2024. About 90 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified.Senior administration officials have expressed concerns to the Mexican government about the measures for more than a year in virtual and in-person meetings, saying they could disrupt millions of dollars of agricultural trade and cause serious harm to U.S. producers. Mexico is the second-largest market for U.S. corn, after China.On Monday, U.S. officials said that they were requesting consultations over the issue with their Mexican counterparts under the terms of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which governs the terms of trade in North America. Biden officials said that parties to that agreement, which was signed in 2020, had committed to basing their regulation on scientific research, and that Mexico’s ban on genetically modified corn did not conform to those promises.The consultations are the first step in a process that could lead to the United States bringing a formal dispute against Mexico. The parties must meet to discuss the issue within 30 days, and, if the talks are not successful, the United States could turn to a separate dispute settlement procedure under the trade agreement. That process could result in the United States placing tariffs on Mexican products, if no other resolution can be reached.Senior officials with the Office of the United States Trade Representative said they were focused on finding a resolution through the talks at hand. But in a statement, the office said that it would “consider all options, including taking formal steps to enforce U.S. rights under the U.S.M.C.A.” if the issue was not resolved.Mexico bought more than 20 million metric tons of corn from the United States in the 2021-22 marketing year, which runs from September to August, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.The National Corn Growers Association has said that the impending ban would be “catastrophic” for American corn producers and Mexican consumers alike and undermine the principles of the trade agreement. The industry has maintained that bioengineered corn is safe for human consumption, contrary to health concerns cited by Mexican officials.Scientists, too, widely believe that genetically modified foods are safe, but consumers and Mexican officials remain wary of genetically modified crops.In a statement on Monday, the Mexican Ministry of Economy said its decree was aimed at ensuring that tortillas are made with native Mexican corn varieties, in an effort to ensure the biodiversity of the corn that is grown in the country. It said it would draw on data and evidence to demonstrate that the ban had not had an impact on commerce, and was consistent with the trade agreement.In the United States, the vast majority of corn planted has been bioengineered to be resistant to herbicides and insects. Bt corn, for example, contains a gene from a soil bacterium that kills the European corn borer, an insect that feeds on maize and other grasses.Corn can also be modified to be resistant to glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in agriculture and lawn maintenance in the United States. Glyphosate-based products like Roundup are sprayed on fields, killing weeds and leaving the resistant crops intact.While the Environmental Protection Agency has said the herbicides pose no risk to human health, overuse can wreak ecological havoc in areas where natural plant species are not resistant to the chemical compound. Environmental groups have warned that glyphosate can be particularly deadly for pollinators like bees and butterflies.It is illegal to grow genetically modified corn in Mexico, where maize was first domesticated 8,700 years ago and where white corn is a staple crop. Supporters of Mexico’s ban worry that any imports of bioengineered corn would threaten native species, as the varieties can cross-pollinate.The Mexican government in February moved to soften its restrictions, saying it would allow genetically modified corn to be brought into the country for animal feed and industrial use, though not for human consumption. Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said he was “disappointed” in the decision.It also remains to be seen whether domestic corn production in Mexico is sufficient to replace imports, the eventual goal of the Mexican government. Last year, farmers in Mexico grew 27.3 million metric tons, about 38 percent below domestic demand. One analysis projected that, should the ban remain in place, corn costs could rise by 20 percent in Mexico and increase rates of food insecurity. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    What’s in the CHIPS Act, Aimed at Childcare Expansion and National Security

    by

    A sprawling new program for the semiconductor industry is foremost about national security, but it will try to advance other priorities as well.The Biden administration unveiled rules Tuesday for its “Chips for America” program to build up semiconductor research and manufacturing in the United States, beginning a new rush toward federal funding in the sector.The Commerce Department has $50 billion to hand out in the form of direct funding, federal loans and loan guarantees. It is one of the largest federal investments in a single industry in decades and highlights deepening concern in Washington about America’s dependence on foreign chips.Given the huge cost of building highly advanced semiconductor facilities, the funding could go fast, and competition for the money has been intense.Here’s a look at the CHIPS and Science Act, what it aims to do and how it will work.Funding chip production and researchThe largest portion of the money— $39 billion — will go to fund the construction of new and expanded manufacturing facilities. Another $11 billion will be distributed later this year to support research into new chip technologies.The bulk of the manufacturing money is likely to go to a few companies that produce the world’s most advanced semiconductors — including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Samsung Electronics, Micron Technology and, perhaps in the future, Intel — to help them build U.S. facilities.Some will go to makers of older chips that are still essential for cars, appliances and weapons, as well as suppliers of raw materials for the industry and companies that package the chips into their final products.While some critics have questioned the wisdom of giving grants to a profitable industry, semiconductor executives argue that they have little incentive to invest in the United States, given the higher costs of workers and running a factory.The Global Race for Computer ChipsU.S. Industrial Policy: In return for vast subsidies, the Biden administration is asking chip manufacturers to make promises about their workers and finances, including providing affordable child care.Arizona Factory: Internal doubts are mounting at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s biggest maker of advanced chips, over its investment in a new factory in Phoenix.CHIPS Act: Semiconductor companies, which united to get the sprawling $280 billion bill approved last year, have set off a lobbying frenzy as they argue for more cash than their competitors.A Ramp-Up in Spending: Amid a tech cold war with China, U.S. companies have pledged nearly $200 billion for chip manufacturing projects since early 2020. But the investments have limits.The administration does not plan to fund entire projects: Biden administration officials say they plan to offer grants of between 5 to 15 percent of a company’s capital expenditures for a project, with funding not expected to exceed 35 percent of the cost. Companies can also apply for a tax credit reimbursing them for 25 percent of project construction.Limiting foreign dependenceGina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, describes the program as foremost a national security initiative.While the United States is still a leader in designing chips, most manufacturing has been sent offshore. Today, more than 90 percent of the most technologically advanced chips, which are critical for the U.S. military and the economy, are produced in Taiwan. That has prompted concerns about the supply’s vulnerability, given China’s aggression toward Taiwan and the potential for a military invasion of the island.At the same time, China has increased its market share in less advanced chips that are still critical for cars, electronics and other products. The United States manufactures 12 percent of chips, though none of the world’s most advanced.Chip shortages during the pandemic forced factories to halt work and brought home in a tangible way how vulnerable the supply chain is to disruption. Workers at Ford Motor factories in Michigan and Indiana worked a full week just three times last year because of a chips shortage, Ms. Raimondo said in a speech at Georgetown University last week. That helped create a car shortage and raise the price of cars, stoking inflation.The Commerce Department says the program will also provide the Department of Defense and the national security community with a domestic source of the world’s most advanced chips.An Intel factory under construction in Arizona. The Biden administration unveiled the rules for its program to build up U.S. semiconductor research and manufacturing.Philip Cheung for The New York TimesBuilding chip hubsAccording to Ms. Raimondo, the goal is to build at least two U.S. manufacturing clusters to produce the most advanced types of logic chips, as well as facilities for other kinds of chips, and complex supply networks to support them.Commerce officials have declined to speculate where these facilities might be, saying they must review applications. But chip makers have already announced billions of dollars in plans for new investments around the United States.TSMC, which produces most of the world’s leading-edge chips, has been busy expanding in Arizona, while No. 2 Samsung is growing in Texas. Micron, which makes advanced memory chips, has announced big expansion plans in New York. And Intel, a U.S. technology giant that is investing heavily to try to capture a technological edge, has broken ground on a “megasite” in Ohio.Ms. Raimondo has said the vision is to restore the United States to a position of leadership in semiconductor technology, to the point where every major global chip company wants to have both research and manufacturing facilities in the United States.Still, there is skepticism about how much the program can do. One 2020 study, for example, found that a $50 billion investment in the industry would increase U.S. market share only to 14 percent.Protecting taxpayer fundsThe stakes are high for the Biden administration to prove this foray into industrial policy can work. Critics have argued that the federal government may not be the best judge of winners and losers. If the administration gets it wrong, it could face intense criticism.The Commerce Department said it would look closely at companies that applied for funding, to try to ensure that they were not being given more taxpayer dollars than they needed.In a decision that may irk some companies, the department said projects receiving grants would be required to share a portion of any unanticipated profits with the federal government, to ensure that companies gave accurate financial projections and didn’t exaggerate costs to get bigger awards.The Commerce Department also said it would dole out funding over time as companies hit project milestones, and give preference to those that pledged to refrain from stock buybacks, which tend to enrich shareholders and corporate executives by increasing a company’s share price.Companies are also barred from making new, high-tech investments in China or other “countries of concern” for at least a decade, to try to ensure that taxpayer money does not go to fund new operations in China.But analysts said it remained to be seen how difficult it would be to enforce these provisions. Company finances can be opaque, and when a company saves a dollar in the United States, it may then choose to invest it elsewhere.Helping workers by attaching big stringsThe program also includes some ambitious and unusual requirements aimed at benefiting the people who will staff semiconductor facilities.For one, the department will require companies seeking awards of $150 million or more to guarantee affordable, high-quality child care for plant construction workers and operators. This could include building company child care centers near construction sites or new plants, paying local child care providers to add capacity at an affordable cost or directly subsidizing workers’ care costs. Ms. Raimondo has said child care will draw more people into the work force, when many businesses are struggling in a tight labor market.Applicants are also required to detail their engagement with labor unions, schools and work force education programs, with preference given to projects that benefit communities and workers.Other provisions will encourage companies, universities and other parties to offer more training for workers, both in advanced sciences and in skills like welding. The department said it would give preference to projects for which state and local governments were providing incentives with “spillover” benefits for communities, like work force training, education investment or infrastructure construction.This is part of the Biden administration’s “worker-centered” approach to economic policy, which seeks to use the might of the federal government to benefit workers. But some critics say it could put the program’s goal of building the most advanced semiconductor factories at risk, if it adds excessive costs to new projects. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    War in Ukraine Deepens Divide Among Major Economies at G20 Gathering

    by

    Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen urged her counterparts at a summit in India to condemn Russia’s actions, and she defended the cost of supplying aid to Kyiv.A year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war is deepening the division among the world’s major economies, threatening fragile recoveries by disrupting food and energy supply chains and distracting from plans to combat poverty and restructure debt in poor countries.Those fissures were evident this past week as top economic policymakers from the Group of 20 nations gathered for two days at a resort in Bengaluru, a city in southern India, where efforts to demonstrate unity were overshadowed by flaring tensions over Russia. During the summit, Western nations imposed a barrage of new sanctions on Moscow and unveiled more economic support for Ukraine, while developing countries like India, which have been reaping the benefits of cheap Russian oil, resisted expressing criticism.The differing views left officials struggling to cobble together the traditional joint statement, or communiqué, on Saturday, forcing senior representatives from the Group of 7 nations, the world’s most advanced economies, to try to convince reluctant counterparts that defending Ukraine was worth the cost.“Ukraine is fighting not only for their country, but for the preservation of democracy and peaceful conditions in Europe,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Saturday in an interview, explaining the case that she had made to the more reluctant countries. “It’s an assault on democracy and on territorial integrity that should concern all of us,” she added.The summit took place at a pivotal moment for the global economy. The International Monetary Fund last month upgraded its global output projections but warned that Russia’s war in Ukraine continued to cast a cloud of uncertainty. The fund also noted that increasing “fragmentation” in the world could be a drag on growth in the future.Ms. Yellen was among the most forceful critics of Russia during the two-day meeting. At one point, she directly confronted senior Russian officials in a private session and called them “complicit” in the Kremlin’s atrocities.The grappling over how to characterize Russia’s actions led Bruno Le Maire, the French finance minister, to publicly vent his frustration with some countries that would not assail Russia in writing. He noted that when the leaders of the Group of 20 nations met in November, in Bali, Indonesia, their statement had asserted that most members strongly condemned the war, and he said on Friday that he was opposed to watering down that sentiment.“I want to make it very clear that we will oppose any step back from the statement of the leaders in Bali on this question of the war in Ukraine,” Mr. Le Maire, who declined to name the holdouts, said at a news conference. “We strongly condemn this illegal and brutal attack against Ukraine.”India’s close economic ties with Russia have made its role as the host of the Group of 20 this year especially challenging. Moscow is a major supplier of energy and military equipment to India, while the United States is India’s largest trading partner.To remain neutral, India has tried to avoid describing the conflict as a “war” and instead focused on other issues. In an opening address to the summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid out the threats facing the global economy, but he made no mention of Russia, pointing instead to “rising geopolitical tensions in many parts of the world.”Some of the resistance to condemning Russia is because of concern about the United States’ use of its economic might to isolate a member of the Group of 20.“The fact that the U.S. clearly has so much power to take action against a geopolitical rival is a significant concern,” said Eswar Prasad, a trade policy professor at Cornell University who speaks to both American and Indian officials. “There’s clearly been a splintering of the G20.”Mr. Prasad added that the aggressive use of sanctions by the United States had raised anxiety among other nations — even if they disagreed with Russia’s actions — that they could someday be exposed to Washington’s wrath.That use of economic warfare was on display on Friday, when the United States imposed sanctions on more than 200 individuals and entities in Russia and other countries that are helping to financially support Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions were also placed on Russia’s metals and mining sector and on energy companies.The war in Ukraine was not the only matter this past week that consumed finance ministers in India.The United States and Europe continued to hash out differences over American subsidies for electric vehicles that European countries believe will harm their economies. A global tax agreement that was struck in 2021 continues to flounder, raising the prospect that it could unravel. And talks over restructuring debt burdens facing poor countries to avoid a cascade of defaults failed to bear fruit, largely because of resistance from China.“There hasn’t been a significant change that I see,” said Ms. Yellen, who expressed frustration at China’s role as a roadblock this past week.But it is the war in Ukraine that has left the world’s economic leaders most divided. In many cases, resistance to supporting Ukraine and confronting Russia is the result of complicated domestic politics in many countries, and the United States is no exception.A growing number of Republicans, including former President Donald J. Trump, have been arguing in recent weeks that the United States cannot afford to endlessly support Kyiv. They contend that at a time when the United States is burdened by record levels of debt and a weakening economy, that money would be better spent on domestic problems.In the past year, the United States has directed more than $100 billion dollars of humanitarian, financial and military aid to Ukraine. The Congressional Budget Office projected last week that the United States was on track to add nearly $19 trillion to its national debt over the next decade, $3 trillion more than previously forecast.For the Biden administration, scaling back aid to Ukraine does not appear to be an option.In the interview, Ms. Yellen argued that the United States can afford to bear the costs and that supporting Ukraine was a priority for national security and economic reasons.“The war is having an adverse effect on the entire global economy,” Ms. Yellen said, “and providing the support that’s necessary for Ukraine to win this and bring it to an end is certainly something that we really can’t afford not to do.” More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    As Biden Prepares to Tout Economy, Fed Chair Powell Takes a Cautious Tone

    by

    The White House has embraced signs that the economy is strong. For the Fed, that strength could prolong its fight against inflation.WASHINGTON — Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, underscored that the central bank has more work to do when it comes to slowing the economy and that officials remain determined to wrestle rapid inflation under control, even if that means pushing rates higher than expected.Mr. Powell, speaking on Tuesday in a question-and-answer session at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., called a recent slowdown in price increases “the very early stages of disinflation.” He added that the process of getting inflation back to normal was likely to be bumpy.“There has been an expectation that it will go away quickly and painlessly — and I don’t think that’s at all guaranteed; that’s not the base case,” Mr. Powell said. “The base case for me is that it will take some time, and we’ll have to do more rate increases, and then we’ll have to look around and see whether we’ve done enough.”The Fed chair’s comments came hours before President Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address, which offered a contrasting tone.Democrats are embracing a historically strong economy with super-low unemployment and rapid wage growth, cheering a report last week that showed employers added more than half a million jobs in January. But Fed officials have met the news with more caution. The central bank is supposed to foster both full employment and stable inflation, and policymakers have been concerned that the strength of today’s job market could make it harder for them to return wage and price increases to historically normal levels.Mr. Powell said that the Fed had not expected the jobs report to be so strong, and that the robustness reinforced why the process of lowering inflation “takes a significant period of time.”While he said it was good that the disinflation so far had not come at the expense of the labor market, he also underscored that further interest rate moves would be appropriate and that borrowing costs would need to remain high for some time. And he embraced how markets have adjusted in the wake of the strong hiring numbers: Investors had previously expected the Fed to stop adjusting policy very soon, but now see rate increases in both March and May.The biggest inflation challenge facing the Fed is in the services sector of the economy, which includes restaurants, travel and health care.Jim Wilson/The New York Times“We anticipate that ongoing rate increases will be appropriate,” Mr. Powell said. He said that in the wake of the jobs report, financial conditions were “more well aligned” with that view than they had been previously.To try to slow the economy and choke off inflation, policymakers raised interest rates from near zero early last year to more than 4.5 percent at their last meeting, the quickest pace of adjustment in decades. Higher borrowing costs weigh on demand by making it more expensive to fund big purchases or business expansions. That in turn tempers hiring and wage growth, with further cools the economy. Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Russia Sidesteps Western Punishments, With Help From Friends

    by

    A surge in trade by Russia’s neighbors and allies hints at one reason its economy remains so resilient after sweeping sanctions.WASHINGTON — A strange thing happened with smartphones in Armenia last summer.Shipments from other parts of the world into the tiny former Soviet republic began to balloon to more than 10 times the value of phone imports in previous months. At the same time, Armenia recorded an explosion in its exports of smartphones to a beleaguered ally: Russia.The trend, which was repeated for washing machines, computer chips and other products in a handful of other Asian countries last year, provides evidence of some of the new lifelines that are keeping the Russian economy afloat. Recent data show surges in trade for some of Russia’s neighbors and allies, suggesting that countries like Turkey, China, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are stepping in to provide Russia with many of the products that Western countries have tried to cut off as punishment for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.Those sanctions — which include restrictions on Russia’s largest banks along with limits on the sale of technology that its military could use — are blocking access to a variety of products. Reports regularly filter out of Russia about consumers frustrated by high-priced or shoddy goods, ranging from milk and household appliances to computer software and medication, said Maria Snegovaya, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in an event at the think tank this month.Even so, Russian trade appears to have largely bounced back to where it was before the invasion of Ukraine last February. Analysts estimate that Russia’s imports may have already recovered to prewar levels, or will soon do so, depending on their models.In part, that could be because many nations have found Russia hard to quit. Recent research showed that fewer than 9 percent of companies based in the European Union and Group of 7 nations had divested one of their Russian subsidiaries. And maritime tracking firms have seen a surge in activity by shipping fleets that may be helping Russia to export its energy, apparently bypassing Western restrictions on those sales.While Western countries have not banned the shipment of consumer products like cellphones and washing machines to Russia, other sweeping penalties were expected to clamp down on its economy. They include a cap on the price that Russia can charge for its oil as well as restricted access to semiconductors and other critical technology.Companies like H&M halted operations in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine, but the economy has proved resilient.Maxim Shipenkov/EPA, via ShutterstockSome companies, including H&M, IBM, Volkswagen and Maersk, halted operations in Russia after the invasion, citing moral and logistical reasons. But the Russian economy has proved surprisingly resilient, raising questions about the efficacy of the West’s sanctions. Countries have had difficulty reducing their reliance on Russia for energy and other basic commodities, and the Russian central bank has managed to prop up the value of the ruble and keep financial markets stable.On Monday, the International Monetary Fund said it now expected the Russian economy to grow 0.3 percent this year, a sharp improvement from its previous estimate of a 2.3 percent contraction.The I.M.F. also said it expected Russian crude oil export volume to stay relatively strong under the current price cap, and Russian trade to continue being redirected to countries that had not imposed sanctions.Most container ships have stopped ferrying goods like phones, washing machines and car parts into the port of St. Petersburg. Instead, such products are being carried on trucks or trains from Belarus, China and Kazakhstan. Fesco, the Russian transport operator, has added new ships and new ports of call to a route with Turkey that transports Russian industrial goods and foreign appliances and electronics between Novorossiysk and Istanbul.Sergey Aleksashenko, former deputy minister of finance of the Russian Federation, said at an event this month that 2023 would be “a difficult year” for the Russian economy, but that there would be “no catastrophe, no collapse.”Some parts of the Russian economy are struggling, he said, pointing to car factories that shut down after being unable to secure parts from Germany, France, Japan and South Korea. But military expenditures and higher energy prices helped prop it up last year.“We may not say that Russian economy is in tatters, that it is destroyed, that Putin lacks funds to continue his war,” Mr. Aleksashenko said, referring to President Vladimir V. Putin. “No, it’s not true.”Russia stopped publishing trade data after its invasion of Ukraine. But analysts and economists can still draw conclusions about its trade patterns by adding up the commerce that other countries report with Russia.The International Monetary Fund said it expected Russian crude oil exports to stay relatively strong despite a Western price cap. Andrey Rudakov/BloombergMatthew Klein, an economics writer and a co-author of “Trade Wars Are Class Wars,” is one of the people drawing conclusions about this Russia-size hole in the global economy. According to his calculations, the value of global exports to Russia in November was just 15 percent below a monthly preinvasion average.Global exports to Russia most likely fully recovered in December, though many countries have not yet issued their trade data for the month, he said.“Most of that recovery has been driven overall by China and Turkey particularly,” Mr. Klein said.It’s unclear how much of this trade violates sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe, but the patterns are “suspicious,” he said. “It would be consistent with the idea that there are ways of trying to get around some of the sanctions.”Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington nonprofit, recently issued a similar analysis, estimating that the value of Russian imports from the rest of the world had exceeded prewar levels by September.One of the case studies in that report was the jump in Armenian smartphone sales. Andrew S. David, the senior director of research and analysis at Silverado, said the trends reflected how supply chains had shifted to continue providing Russia with goods.Samsung and Apple, previously major suppliers of Russian cellphones, pulled out of the Russian market after the invasion. Exports of popular Chinese phone brands, like Xiaomi, Realme and Honor, also initially dipped as companies struggled to understand and cope with new restrictions on sending technology or making international payments to Russia.But after an “adjustment period,” Chinese brands started to take off in Russia, Mr. David said. Overall Chinese exports to Russia reached a record high in December, helping to offset a steep drop in trade with Europe. Apple and Samsung phones also appeared to begin to find their way back to Russia, rerouted through friendly neighboring countries.“Armenia is certainly not the only one,” Mr. David said. “There’s a lot coming through central western Asia, Turkey and the former Soviet republics.”Shipments to Russia of other products, like passenger vehicles, have also rebounded. And China has increased exports of semiconductors to Russia, though Russia’s total chip imports remain below prewar levels.President Vladimir V. Putin at a military training facility in Russia. Military expenditures and higher energy prices helped prop up the Russian economy last year.Pool photo by Mikhail KlimentyevOne major open question is how effectively the Western price cap will hold down Russia’s oil revenue this year.The cap allows Russia to sell its oil globally using Western maritime insurance and financing as long as the price does not exceed $60 per barrel. That limit, which is essentially an exception to Group of 7 sanctions, is designed to keep oil flowing on global markets while limiting the Russian government’s revenue from it.Some analysts have suggested that Russia is finding ways around the effort by using ships that do not rely on Western insurance or financing.Ami Daniel, the chief executive of Windward, a maritime data company, said he had seen hundreds of instances in which people from countries like the United Arab Emirates, India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia bought vessels to try to set up what appeared to be a non-Western trading framework for Russia.“Basically, Russia has been gearing up toward being able to trade outside of the rule of law,” he said.Mr. Daniel said his firm had also seen a sharp uptick in shipping practices that appeared to be Russian efforts to contravene Western sanctions. They include transfers of Russian oil between ships far out at sea, in international waters that are not under the jurisdiction of any country’s navy, and attempts by ships to mask their activities by turning off satellite trackers that log their location or transmitting fake coordinates.Much of this activity had been taking place in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. But after media coverage of suspicious practices in this region, the hub moved south, off the coast of West Africa, Mr. Daniel said.“They’re exploding,” he said of deceptive shipping practices. “It’s happening at an industrial scale.”So far, the oil price cap appears to be accomplishing its goal of reducing the price that Russia can charge while keeping global supplies flowing. But it remains to be seen whether this shadow fleet of ships is big enough to allow Russia to buy and sell oil outside the cap, said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, during a January panel discussion.“If that fleet is big enough for Russia to really operate outside the reach” of the Group of 7 countries, the cap probably “won’t have the kind of leverage that policymakers wanted,” Mr. Cahill said. “I think we should know within a couple of months.”Alan Rappeport More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    IMF Upgrades Global Economic Outlook as Inflation Eases

    by

    The International Monetary Fund said the world economy was poised for a rebound as inflation eases.WASHINGTON — The International Monetary Fund said on Monday that it expected the global economy to slow this year as central banks continued to raise interest rates to tame inflation, but it also suggested that output would be more resilient than previously anticipated and that a global recession would probably be avoided.The I.M.F. upgraded its economic growth projections for 2023 and 2024 in its closely watched World Economic Outlook report, pointing to resilient consumers and the reopening of China’s economy as among the reasons for a more optimistic outlook.The fund warned, however, that the fight against inflation was not over and urged central banks to avoid the temptation to change course.“The fight against inflation is starting to pay off, but central banks must continue their efforts,” Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the I.M.F.’s chief economist, said in an essay that accompanied the report.Global output is projected to slow to 2.9 percent in 2023, from 3.4 percent last year, before rebounding to 3.1 percent in 2024. Inflation is expected to decline to 6.6 percent this year from 8.8 percent in 2022 and then to fall to 4.3 percent next year.After a succession of downgrades in recent years as the pandemic worsened and Russia’s war in Ukraine intensified, the I.M.F.’s latest forecasts were rosier than those the fund released in October.Since then, China abruptly reversed its “zero Covid” policy of lockdowns to contain the pandemic and embarked on a rapid reopening. The I.M.F. also said that the energy crisis in Europe had been less severe than initially feared and that the weakening of the U.S. dollar was providing relief to emerging markets.The I.M.F. predicted previously that a third of the world economy could be in recession this year. However, Mr. Gourinchas said in a news briefing ahead of the release of the report that far fewer countries were now facing recessions in 2023 and that the I.M.F. was not forecasting a global recession.Lukoil oil field in the Baltic Sea. A coordinated plan by the United States and Europe to cap the price of Russian oil exports at $60 a barrel is not expected to substantially curtail its energy revenues.Vitaly Nevar/Reuters“We are seeing a much lower risk of recession, either globally, or even if we think about the number of countries that might be in recession,” Mr. Gourinchas said.Despite the more hopeful outlook, global growth remains weak by historical standards and the war in Ukraine continues to weigh on activity and sow uncertainty. The report also cautions that the global economy still faces considerable risks, warning that “severe health outcomes in China could hold back the recovery, Russia’s war in Ukraine could escalate and tighter global financing costs could worsen debt distress.”Growth in rich countries is expected to be particularly sluggish this year, with nine out of 10 advanced economies likely to have slower growth than they had in 2022.The I.M.F. projects growth in the United States to slow to 1.4 percent this year from 2 percent in 2022. It expects the jobless rate to rise from 3.5 percent to 5.2 percent next year, but that it is still possible that a recession can be avoided in the world’s largest economy.“There is a narrow path that allows the U.S. economy to escape a recession altogether, or if it has a recession, the recession would be relatively shallow,” Mr. Gourinchas said.The slowdown in Europe will be more pronounced, the I.M.F. said, as the boost from the reopening of its economies fades this year and consumer confidence frays in the face of double-digit inflation. In the euro area, growth is projected to slow to 0.7 percent from 3.5 percent.China is projected to pick up the slack with output accelerating to 5.2 percent in 2023 from 3 percent in 2022.Combined, China and India are expected to account for about half of global growth this year. I.M.F. officials said at a press briefing on Monday night that China’s economic trajectory would be a major driver for the world economy, noting that after a period of flux, China appears to have stabilized and is able to fully produce.However, Mr. Gourinchas noted that there were still signs of weakness in China’s property market and that its growth could moderate in 2024. The report described the sector as a “major source of vulnerability” that could lead to widespread defaults by developers and instability in the Chinese financial sector.A surprising contributor to global growth is Russia, suggesting that efforts by Western nations to cripple its economy appear to be faltering. The I.M.F. predicts Russian output to expand 0.3 percent this year and 2.1 percent next year, defying earlier forecasts of a steep contraction in 2023 amid a raft of Western sanctions.A coordinated plan by the United States and Europe to cap the price of Russian oil exports at $60 a barrel is not expected to substantially curtail the country’s energy revenues.“At the current oil price cap level of the Group of 7, Russian crude oil export volumes are not expected to be significantly affected, with Russian trade continuing to be redirected from sanctioning to non-sanctioning countries,” the I.M.F. said in the report.Among the I.M.F.’s most pressing concerns is the growing trend toward “fragmentation.” The war in Ukraine and the global response have divided nations into blocs and reinforced pockets of geopolitical tension, threatening to hamper economic progress.“Fragmentation could intensify — with more restrictions on cross-border movements of capital, workers and international payments — and could hamper multilateral cooperation on providing global public goods,” the I.M.F. said. “The costs of such fragmentation are especially high in the short term, as replacing disrupted cross-border flows takes time.” More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Wall St. Is Counting on a Debt Limit Trick That Could Entail Trouble

    by

    If the debt limit is breached, investors expect Treasury to put bond payments first. It’d be politically and practically fraught.Washington’s debt limit drama has Wall Street betting that the United States will employ a fallback option to ensure it can make good on payments to its lenders even if Congress doesn’t raise the nation’s borrowing limit before America runs out of cash.But that untested idea has significant flaws and has been ruled out by the Biden administration, which could make it less of a bulwark against disaster than many investors and politicians are counting on.Many on Wall Street believe that the Treasury Department, in order to avoid defaulting on U.S. debt, would “prioritize” payments on its bonds if it could no longer borrow funds to cover all its expenses. They expect that America’s lenders — the bondholders who own U.S. Treasury debt — would be first in line to receive interest and other payments, even if it meant delaying other obligations like government salaries or retirement benefits.Those assumptions are rooted in history. Records from 2011 and 2013 — the last time the U.S. tipped dangerously close to a debt limit crisis — suggested that officials at the Treasury had laid at least some groundwork to pay investors first, and that policymakers at the Federal Reserve assumed that such an approach was likely. Some Republicans in the House and Senate have painted prioritization as a fallback option that could make failure to raise the borrowing cap less of a disaster, arguing that as long as bondholders get paid, the U.S. will not experience a true default.But the Biden administration is not doing prioritization planning this time around because officials don’t think it would prevent an economic crisis and are unsure whether such a plan is even feasible. The White House has not asked Treasury to prepare for a scenario in which it pays back investors first, according to multiple officials. Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, has said such an approach would not avoid a debt “default” in the eyes of markets.“Treasury systems have all been built to pay all of our bills when they’re due and on time, and not to prioritize one form of spending over another,” Ms. Yellen told reporters this month.Perhaps more worrisome is that, even if the White House ultimately succumbed to pressure to prioritize payments, experts from both political parties who have studied the temporary fix say it might not be enough to avert a financial catastrophe.Senator Ted Cruz, center, and other Republicans during a news conference on debt ceiling on Capitol Hill last week.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times“Prioritization is really default by another name,” said Brian Riedl, formerly chief economist to former Republican Senator Rob Portman and now an economist at the Manhattan Institute. “It’s not defaulting on the government’s debt, but it’s defaulting on its obligations.”Congress must periodically raise the nation’s debt ceiling to authorize the Treasury to borrow to cover America’s commitments. Raising the limit does not entail any new spending — it is more like paying a credit-card bill for spending the nation has already incurred — and it is often completed without incident. But Republicans have occasionally attempted to attach future spending cuts or other legislative goals to debt limit increases, plunging the United States into partisan brinkmanship.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 5What is the debt ceiling? More