YCLOAK

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said Tuesday that he sees no need to drop the central bank’s current gradual approach to raising interest rates.

Powell said the combination of steady, low inflation and very low unemployment shows the country is going through “extraordinary times.”

The central bank is trying to make sure it doesn’t raise rates too quickly and push the country into a recession, or move too slowly and set off higher inflation, he said. He added that the Fed’s goal of gradual increases in interest rates is an effort to balance those risks and extend the current expansion, now the second longest in U.S. history.

Powell’s comments, delivered to the annual conference of the National Association of Business Economics, came a week after the central bank approved a third quarter-point hike in its benchmark policy rate, pushing it to a level of 2 percent to 2.25 percent.

It marked the third rate hike this year and the eighth increase. The Fed began gradually raising rates in December 2015 after a period of seven years in which it kept its policy rate at a record low near zero to try to lift the economy out of a deep recession.

During a question and answer session, Powell discussed how the Fed might respond to the next economic downturn.

He said the Fed expects to turn to similar tactics it used during the last recession as needed. The central bank cut rates and purchased billions of dollars of bonds to push long-term rates lower, efforts that brought criticism from some in Congress that it had been too aggressive in its efforts.

“We will use the tools we used in the financial crisis to the extent that we have to,” Powell said. Last year the Fed examined potential responses to the next recession and plans to further study the issue in the coming year.

Powell noted in his speech that the unemployment rate stands near a 20-year low of 3.9 percent, while inflation has risen close to the Fed’s 2 percent target for annual increases in inflation.

The Fed’s economic forecast is in line with many others that show unemployment remaining below 4 percent through the end of 2020, with inflation staying near the 2 percent target over the same period, he said.

He was asked by a reporter at his news conference last week whether this forecast was too good to be true. He called that “a reasonable question” given that since 1950, the country has never experienced such a long period of low, stable inflation and very low unemployment for such an extended period.

He said it runs counter to an economic theory known as the “Phillips curve,” which argues that low unemployment forces employers to push up wages to compete for scarce workers, triggering more inflation.

Powell said he did not think the Phillips curve is dead. But various changes in the economy, including better conduct of monetary policy by the Fed, had “greatly reduced, but not eliminated, the effects that tight labor markets have on inflation,” he said.

He said these developments support the Fed’s current cautious approach in raising interest rates even as unemployment keeps moving to lows not seen in 50 years. But he said there were risks to the Fed’s current gradual approach to raising rate hikes. For that reason, central bank officials will be prepared quickly to change policy if conditions warrant such a change.
…

Can ex-convicts completely turn their lives around? A program called “Homeboy Industries” believes so. It provides training, classes and support to former gang members and people just out of prison. The aim: make them productive citizens and leave a life of crime behind. Angelina Bagdasaryan has the story.
…

About half of young Americans expect to be financially better off than their parents, according to a new poll, a sign that the dream of upward mobility is alive but somewhat tempered.

The poll, by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and MTV, found that half of 15- to 26-year-olds said they thought they would be better off than their parents in terms of household finances. About 29 percent expected to do as well as their parents, and 20 percent expected to be worse off. 

Parents were slightly more optimistic: Sixty percent said they thought their children would do better than they did, a view that held true for parents across all income groups. Overall, only 12 percent of parents said that they felt their children might do worse.

It’s no longer a guarantee that children will achieve upward income mobility. About half of the Americans born in 1984 earned more at age 30 than their parents, down from 92 percent in 1940, according to the study by famed economist Raj Chetty and others that was released in 2016.

Jennifer Narvaez, 23, is among those who expect their financial futures to be brighter than those of their parents. The Miami resident said she expected to have more opportunities as a college graduate to get a job and own a home than her parents, who grew up in Nicaragua and immigrated to the United States. Narvaez holds an undergraduate degree in biology and is planning on attending medical school to become a cardiologist. 

‘A weird time’

Narvaez is less certain about the prospects of the U.S. economy, particularly as the nation appears to be marching into a trade war with China.

“It’s a weird time,” she said. “I feel like it’s hard to predict what will happen because of the kind of administration we have.”

Alex Barner, 20, also felt optimistic that he might fare better than his mother, who had him at age 18 and raised him as a single mother. He is attending college in New Mexico and is considering a career in business management.

While Barner is hopeful he will do well in life, he also has some concerns about the trajectory of the nation and its economy. Like Narvaez, he’s concerned by the trade policy of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Barner also said he felt politicians needed to focus more on matters that affect people in the here and now, such as health care and student loan relief. 

Respondents were divided about how they expected the nation’s economy would fare in the year ahead. About 29 percent of young people expected the economy to improve, 30 percent expected it would get worse and 41 thought it would stay the same. Similarly, 35 percent of parents expected improvement, 27 percent expected conditions to get worse and 38 percent expected the economy to stay as is.

The Youth Political Pulse poll was conducted Aug. 23-Sept. 10 by the AP-NORC Center and MTV. The poll was conducted using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. It includes 580 young people ages 15-26 and 591 parents of children in the same age group. The margin of sampling error for all young people is plus or minus 6.6 percentage points and for parents plus or minus 7.5 percentage points.
…

Auto parts output in Mexico will jump about 10 percent over the next three years as automakers scramble to adhere to stricter content rules laid out in a new North American trade deal, a top industry executive said on Monday.

The United States and Canada reached an agreement on Sunday after weeks of tense bilateral talks to update the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico and the United States first brokered a bilateral accord in late August.

The new trilateral deal, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), will raise the minimum North American content threshold for cars needed to qualify for duty-free market access to 75 percent from 62.5 percent.

“Carmakers, especially Asian and European carmakers, will have to invest more in tools, in North American components to comply with the new content rules,” Oscar Albin, head of Mexican auto parts industry association INA, said in an interview.

The so-called rules of origin dictate what percentage of a car needs to be built in North America in order to avoid tariffs in the trade deal.

General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Germany’s Volkswagen AG, Japan’s Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. all build autos in Mexico.

“The American carmakers already have a very well-established footprint in the United States and Mexico” and will more easily adhere to the stricter content rules, Albin told Reuters.

The new rules should boost auto parts production from about $90 billion annually at present to “around $100 billion” over the next three years, he added. In the course of that period, the sector should add about 80,000 new jobs, Albin said.

Stocks in auto parts firms were lifted by the deal.

Shares in Nemak, the auto parts unit of Mexican industrial conglomerate Alfa, closed up by more than 8.5 percent. Stock in Mexican auto parts maker Rassini rose by more than 4.5 percent.

“The United States and Canada will also grow since the three countries will benefit (from the new agreement),” said Albin.

The deal set a five-year transition period once the accord enters into force to meet the new content requirements.

That looked like a tough deadline, Albin said.

“I think (time) is a bit short because any adjustment or change of the supply (chain) for cars already being assembled is practically impossible,” he said.

U.S. President Donald Trump had put creating more manufacturing jobs at the heart of his desire to rework NAFTA.
…

American dairy farmers get more access to the Canadian market. U.S. drug companies can fend off generic competition for a few more years. Automakers are under pressure to build more cars where workers earn decent wages.

The North American trade agreement hammered out late Sunday between the United States and Canada, following an earlier U.S.-Mexico deal, shakes up — but likely won’t revolutionize — the way businesses operate within the three-country trade bloc.

The new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement replaces the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement, which tore down trade barriers between the three countries. But NAFTA encouraged factories to move to Mexico to take advantage of low-wage labor in what President Donald Trump called a job-killing “disaster” for the United States.

Sunday’s agreement is meant to bring manufacturing back to the United States. The president, never known for understatement, said the new deal would “transform North America back into a manufacturing powerhouse.”

But America had to make some concessions, too. For example, it agreed to retain a NAFTA dispute-resolution process that it wanted to jettison but Canada insisted on keeping.

Overall, financial markets were relieved the countries reached a deal. For a time, it had looked like Trump might pull out of a regional free trade pact altogether — or strike one without Canada, America’s No. 2 trading partner. At noon Monday, the Dow Jones industrial average was up more than 240 points.

Economists, trade attorneys and businesses are still parsing the agreement. But here’s an early look at what it means for different players.

How dairy farmers are affected

Trump has raged about Canada’s tariffs on dairy imports, which can approach 300 percent. American dairy farmers have also complained about Canadian policies that priced the U.S. out of the market for some dairy powders and allowed Canada to flood world markets with its own versions.

The new agreement ends the discriminatory pricing and restricts Canadian exports of dairy powders.

It also expands U.S. access to up to 3.75 percent of the Canadian dairy market (versus 3.25 percent in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement the Obama administration negotiated but Trump nixed his first week in office). Above that level, U.S. dairy farmers will still face Canada’s punishing tariffs. And the “supply management” system Canada uses to protect its farmers is still largely in place.

Still, trade attorney Daniel Ujczo of the Dickinson Wright law firm said that “the U.S. dairy industry seems happy … for now.”

Shaking things up for automakers

NAFTA remade the North American auto market. Automakers built complicated supply chains that straddled NAFTA borders. In doing so, they took advantage of each country’s strengths — cheap labor in Mexico, and skilled workers and proximity to customers in the United States and Canada.

The new agreement changes things up. For one thing, the percentage of a car’s content that must be built within the trade bloc to qualify for duty-free status rises to 75 percent from 62.5 percent. A bolder provision requires that 40 percent to 45 percent of a car’s content be built where workers earn $16 an hour. That is meant to bring production back to the United States or Canada and away from Mexico (and perhaps to put some upward pressure on Mexican wages).

The provisions could drive up car prices for consumers.

The new deal also provides some protection to Canada and Mexico if Trump goes ahead with his threat to slap 20 percent to 25 percent taxes on imported cars, trucks and auto parts. It would exclude from the proposed tariffs 2.6 million passenger vehicles from both Canada and Mexico.

The impact on multinational companies  

Like other U.S. trade agreements, NAFTA allowed multinational companies to go to private tribunals to challenge national laws they said discriminated against them and violated the terms of the trade agreement. Critics charged the process gave companies a way to get around environmental and labor laws and regulations they didn’t like, overruling democratically elected governments in the process.

U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer, who negotiated the new deal, had another complaint: The tribunals took some of the risk out of investing in unstable or corrupt countries such as Mexico. Why, Lighthizer argued, should the United States negotiate deals that encourage investment in other countries?

The new pact scales back provisions protecting foreign investment. Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and a sharp critic of NAFTA, praised the new agreement for reining in what she called NAFTA’s “outrageous” tribunal system that had allowed big companies to launch “attacks on environmental and health policies.”

Windfall for drug companies

The new trade pact delivers a windfall to pharmaceutical companies that make biologics — ultra-expensive drugs produced in living cells. It gives them 10 years of protection from generic competition, up from eight the Obama administration had negotiated in the TPP.

But good news for the pharmaceutical industry could be bad news for users of the drugs and for government policymakers trying to hold down health-care costs.

“New monopoly privileges for pharmaceutical firms … could undermine reforms needed to make medicine more affordable here and increase prices in Mexico and Canada, limiting access to lifesaving medicines,” Wallach said.

Some retailers benefit, other do not

The United States pressured Canada and Mexico to raise the dollar amount that shipments must reach before they become subject to import duties. Canada, for instance, will allow tax- and duty-free shipments worth up to 40 Canadian dollars (about $31), up from 20 Canadian dollars ($16) under NAFTA.

The change makes U.S. products more competitive in Canada because they will be subject to less tax at the border — and delivers savings to Canadians who shop online. However, trade attorney Ujczo notes, the higher threshold poses a threat to Canadian retailers. 
…

General Electric ousted its CEO, took a $23 billion charge and said it would fall short of profit forecasts this year, further signs that the century-old industrial conglomerate is struggling to turn around its vastly shrunken business.

 

H. Lawrence Culp Jr. will take over immediately as chairman and CEO from John Flannery, who had been on the job for just over a year. Flannery began a restructuring of GE in August 2017, when he replaced Jeffrey Immelt, whose efforts to create a higher-tech version of GE proved unsuccessful.

 

However, in Flannery’s short time, GE’s value has dipped below $100 billion and shares are down more than 35 percent this year, following a 45 percent decline in 2017.

 

The company was booted from the Dow Jones Industrial Average this summer and, last month, shares tumbled to a nine-year low after revealing a flaw in its marquee gas turbines, which caused the metal blades to weaken and forced the shutdown of a pair of power plants where they were in use.

GE warned Monday that it will miss its profit forecasts this year and it’s taking a $23 billion charge related to its power business.

 

The 55-year-old Culp was CEO and president of Danaher Corp. from 2000 to 2014. During that time, Danaher’s market capitalization and revenues grew five-fold. He’s already a member of GE’s board.

 

It’s a track record that GE appears to need after a series of notable changes under Flannery failed to gain momentum immediately, although some analysts wonder whether Culp’s history of accomplishments will be enough to reverse the direction of the company.

 

The challenges GE faces — including the power sector’s cyclical, structural and operational challenges — are not easily or quickly fixable, but “GE should be commended for selecting a credible, seasoned GE outsider as chairman/CEO who is likely to more candidly and quickly identify how bad things may be and what needs to be done about it,” said Gautam Khanna, an analyst at Cowen Inc., in a note to investors.

 

Investors will want Culp to “clean house, and fast,” said Scott Davis, founding partner of Melius Research, in a research note where he compared GE’s recent history to a slow but fatal train wreck.

 

“If I’m a GE employee today, I’m happy for the turnaround, but expectations are about to get a whole lot higher…GE employees will either step up or will be replaced,” Davis said.

 

Flannery faced a titanic task in redirecting General Electric, which was founded in 1892 in Schenectady, New York.

 

Just six months after taking over as CEO, Flannery said the company would be forced to pay $15 billion to make up for the miscalculations of an insurance subsidiary. While Wall Street was aware of the issues at GE’s North American Life & Health, the size of the hit caught many off guard.

 

Flannery on the same day said that GE might take the radical step of splitting up the main company’s three main components — aviation, health care and power — into separate businesses.

 

In June GE said it would spin off its health-care business and sell its interest in Baker Hughes, a massive oil services company. It’s been selling off assets and trying to sharpen its focus since the recession, when it’s finance division was hammered.

 

“GE still has too much debt and plenty to fix, but at least we have an outsider with an accelerated mandate to fix it,” Davis said.

 

Flannery vowed to give GE more of a high-tech and industrial focus by honing in on aviation, power and renewable energy — businesses with big growth potential. The shift is historic for a company that defined the phrase “household name.”

 

GE traces its roots to Thomas Edison and the invention of the light bulb, and the company grew with the American economy. At the start of the global financial crisis in 2008, it was one of the nation’s biggest lenders, its appliances were sold by the millions to homeowners around the world and it oversaw a multinational media powerhouse including NBC television.

 

But the economic crises revealed how unwieldy General Electric had become, with broad exposure damage during economic downturns.

 

Shares of General Electric Co., based in Boston, surged 11 percent in midday trading.

 

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who helped lure GE to Boston from Connecticut in 2016 with incentives like state grants and property tax relief, said he’s not too concerned about GE’s latest travails. He noted that the company is still worth about $100 billion and has what he called a “huge footprint” in Massachusetts in health care, green technology, and renewable energy.

 

He said the state “did not write a big check to GE based on job projections or anything like that.”
…

Fresh from clinching an updated North American commerce pact, U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday criticized Indian and Brazilian trade tactics, describing the latter as being “maybe the toughest in the world” in terms of protectionism.

Addressing reporters at a White House event to celebrate the agreement of an updated trilateral trade deal between the United States, Mexico and Canada, Trump added India and Brazil to a growing list of countries that, he argues, treat the world’s top economy unfairly in terms of commerce.

“India charges us tremendous tariffs. When we send Harley Davidson motorcycles, other things to India, they charge very, very high tariffs,” Trump said, adding that he had brought up the issue with Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi, who he said was “going to reduce them very substantially.”

Modi’s office could not immediately be reached for a request for comment. India’s government has become more protectionist in recent months, raising import tariffs on a growing number of goods as it promotes its ‘Make in India’ program.

After criticizing India, Trump turned to Brazil, the second-largest economy in the Americas behind the United States.

“Brazil’s another one. That’s a beauty. They charge us whatever they want,” he said. “If you ask some of the companies, they say Brazil is among the toughest in the world – maybe the toughest in the world.”

Brazil is one of the world’s most closed major economies, and in recent months has tussled with the Trump administration over trade in sectors such as ethanol and steel.

After Trump’s comments, Brazil’s Foreign Trade Minister, Abrão Neto, defended the relationship, saying it was “very positive.” He added that over the last 10 years, the United States has enjoyed a trade surplus with Brazil of $90 billion in goods, and of $250 billion in goods and services.

Neto pointed out that the United States was Brazil’s second-largest trading partner, behind China, and that the two countries had a “complementary and strategic” commercial relationship that could, nonetheless, be improved.

Trump’s “America First” trade policies, particularly his escalating trade war with China, are aimed at boosting U.S. manufacturing, but they have spooked investors who worry that supply lines could be fractured and global growth derailed.

There are now U.S. tariffs active on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, with threats on additional goods worth $267 billion.
…

The economy should grow at a healthy pace this year and next, though the Trump administration’s trade policy will likely act as a drag, a group of business economists said. 

Growth should reach 2.9 percent this year, according to a survey of 51 economists by the National Association for Business Economics, released Monday. That would be up from just 2.3 percent in 2017. And growth is forecast to be 2.7 percent in 2019, the survey found. 

Overall, the economists are slightly more optimistic than they were when last surveyed three months ago. Buoyed by solid consumer spending and a healthy increase in business investment, the survey respondents expect the economy will overcome any negative impacts from higher tariffs. 

Just over half of the respondents expect that the next recession won’t arrive until 2020 at the earliest, while one-third said it wouldn’t occur until 2021. 

Inflation should remain in check, the survey found, rising to just 2.5 percent this year from 2.1 percent last year. Yet price gains will then likely moderate to 2.3 percent in 2019, the survey said. 

Still, worries over trade policy have darkened the outlook for many. Nearly 80 percent of the economists surveyed cut their growth forecasts for next year by up to one-half a percentage point, the NABE said, because of trade concerns. The Trump administration has slapped tariffs on most steel and aluminum imports and on nearly half the imports from China.

And one-half of the respondents have increased their inflation forecasts because of the import taxes.

More economists cited “trade policy” as the greatest risk to future growth, the NABE said, than any other issue. Higher interest rates and a large drop in the stock market were tied as the second-most likely risk, while just a few economists cited rising inflation and “labor shortages” as risks to growth. 

 

 
…

After less than two years and a precipitous decline in the share price at General Electric, John Flannery is being ousted as chairman and CEO.

 

Flannery took over for longtime CEO Jeff Immelt in June 2017 with the company trying to re-establish its industrial roots, albeit a high-tech version of itself.

 

However, as Flannery has restructured the multinational conglomerate, its value has dipped below $100 billion and shares are down more than 35 percent this year.

 

GE warned Monday that it will miss its profit forecasts this year and it’s taking a $23 billion charge.

 

The company said Monday that H. Lawrence Culp Jr. will take over as chairman and CEO immediately.

 

Shares of General Electric Co., based in Boston, surged 9 percent before the opening bell.

 

 
…

After intense last-minute discussions ahead of a self-imposed midnight deadline, U.S. and Canadian officials announced late Sunday they reached a trade deal, allowing a modified three-way pact with Mexico to replace the nearly quarter-century old North American Free Trade Agreement. 

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) — underpinning $1.2 trillion in annual trade — is expected to be signed in 60 days by President Donald Trump and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts. 

Trump hailed the “wonderful new Trade Deal” on Monday and calling it a “great deal for all three countries” that “solves the many deficiencies and mistakes in NAFTA.”

 
Trump had made criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) a centerpiece of his successful 2016 election campaign. 

“The worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country,” Trump had termed NAFTA, blaming it for the loss of American manufacturing jobs since it went into effect in 1994. 

The U.S. Congress is likely to act on USMCA next year. Its fate in the hands of American lawmakers remains far from certain, especially if the Democrats would take back control of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections. 

“USMCA will give our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses a high-standard trade agreement that will result in freer markets, fairer trade and robust economic growth in our region,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland in a joint statement. “It will strengthen the middle class, and create good, well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half billion people who call North America home.”

The U.S. agreement with Ottawa will boost American access to Canada’s dairy market — with some concessions on its heavily protected supply management system — while shielding the Canadians from possible U.S. auto tariffs. 

Steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Washington, will remain, however. Canada had demanded protection from Trump’s tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

The metal tariffs discussions are on a “completely separate track,” according to a senior U.S. official. 

In a big victory for Canada, NAFTA’s Chapter 19 dispute resolution system will remain intact. 

Leaving a Sunday night 75-minute Cabinet meeting, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau only said it was “a good day for Canada.”

The Trump administration had imposed a midnight Sunday deadline for Trudeau’s government to reach agreement on an updated NAFTA, or face exclusion from the treaty.

“This deadline was real,” according to a senior U.S. official. “We ended up in a good place that we ultimately think is a good deal for all three countries.” 

U.S. officials, in recent weeks, had been adamant that the text for a new deal — whether it would only be with Mexico or also include Canada — to be released by September 30 to meet congressional notification requirements and to allow outgoing Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to be able to sign the deal before he is succeeded by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a left-wing populist. 

Canada’s government had faced strong opposition to elements of the revised pact from the country’s dairy farmers. Voters in Quebec, home to 354,000 dairy cows – the most of any province — head to the polls for provincial elections Monday, which cast a shadow over the last-minute negotiations. 

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in the United States declared itself “extremely encouraged” by initial details of the new three-way pact. 

“As we review the agreement text, we will be looking to ensure that this deal opens markets, raises standards, provides enforcement and modernizes trade rules so that manufacturers across the United States can grow our economy,” said NAM President and Chief Executive Officer Jay Timmons. 

“This administration is committed to strong and effective enforcement of this agreement,” a senior U.S. official told reporters. “This is not going to just be words on paper. This is real.” 
…

After lengthy delays, an $8.2 billion revamp of a colonial-era rail line snaking from the Arabian Sea to the foothills of the Hindu Kush has become a test of Pakistan’s ability to rethink signature Chinese “Silk Road” projects due to debt concerns.

The rail megaproject linking the coastal metropolis of Karachi to the northwestern city of Peshawar is China’s biggest Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project in Pakistan, but Islamabad has balked at the cost and financing terms.

Resistance has stiffened under the new government of populist Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has voiced alarm about rising debt levels and says the country must wean itself off foreign loans.

“We are seeing how to develop a model so the government of Pakistan wouldn’t have all the risk,” Khusro Bakhtyar, minister in Pakistan’s planning ministry, told reporters recently.

The cooling of enthusiasm for China’s investments mirrors the unease of incoming governments in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Maldives, where new administrations have come to power wary of Chinese deals struck by their predecessors.

Pakistan’s new government had wanted to review all BRI contracts. Officials say there are concerns the deals were badly negotiated, too expensive or overly favored China.

But to Islamabad’s frustration, Beijing is only willing to review projects that have not yet begun, three senior government officials have told Reuters.

China’s Foreign Ministry said, in a statement in response to questions faxed by Reuters, that both sides were committed to pressing forward with BRI projects, “to ensure those projects that are already built operate as normal, and those which are being built proceed smoothly.”

Pakistani officials say they remain committed to Chinese investment but want to push harder on price and affordability, while re-orientating the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) — for which Beijing has pledged about $60 billion in infrastructure funds — to focus on projects that deliver social development in line with Khan’s election platform.

China’s Ambassador to Pakistan, Yao Jing, told Reuters that Beijing was open to changes proposed by the new government and “we will definitely follow their agenda” to work out a roadmap for BRI projects based on “mutual consultation.”

“It constitutes a process of discussion with each other about this kind of model, about this kind of roadmap for the future,” Yao said.

Beijing would only proceed with projects that Pakistan wanted, he added. “This is Pakistan’s economy, this is their society,” Yao said.

Islamabad’s efforts to recalibrate CPEC are made trickier by its dependence on Chinese loans to prop up its vulnerable economy.

Growing fissures in relations with Pakistan’s historic ally the United States have also weakened the country’s negotiating hand, as has a current account crisis likely to lead to a bailout by the International Monetary Fund, which may demand spending cuts.

“We have reservations, but no other country is investing in Pakistan. What can we do?” one Pakistani minister told Reuters.

Crumbling railways

The ML-1 rail line is the spine of country’s dilapidated rail network, which has in recent years been edging toward collapse as passenger numbers plunge, train lines close and the vital freight business nosedives.

Khan’s government has vowed to make the 1,872 km (1,163 mile) line a priority CPEC project, saying it will help the poor travel across the vast South Asian nation.

But Islamabad is exploring funding options for CPEC projects that depart from the traditional BRI lending model — whereby host nations take on Chinese debt to finance construction of infrastructure – and has invited Saudi Arabia and other countries to invest.

One option for ML-1, according to Pakistani officials, is the build-operate-transfer (BOT) model, which would see investors or companies finance and build the project and recoup their investment from cashflows generated mainly by the rail freight business, before returning it to Pakistan in a few decades time.

Yao, the Chinese envoy, said Beijing was open to BOT and would “encourage” its companies to invest.

Rail mega-projects under China’s BRI umbrella have run into problems elsewhere in Asia. A line linking Thailand and Laos has been beset by delays over financing, while Malaysia’s new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad outright cancelled the Chinese-funded $20 billion East Coast Rail Link (ECRL).

Beijing is happy to offer loans, but reticent to invest in the Pakistan venture as such projects are seldom profitable, according to Andrew Small, author of a book on China-Pakistan relations.

“The problem is that the Chinese don’t think they can make money on this project and are not keen on BOT,” said Small.

Off-book debts

During President Xi Jinping’s visit to Pakistan in 2015, the ML-1 line was placed among a list of “early harvest” CPEC projects that would be prioritized, along with power plants urgently needed to end crippling electricity shortages.

But while many other projects from that list have now been completed the rail scheme has been stuck.

Pakistani officials say they became wary of how early BRI contracts were awarded to Chinese firms, and are pushing for a public tender for ML-1.

Partly to help with price discovery, Pakistan asked the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to finance a chunk of the rail project through tendering. The ADB began discussions on a $1.5-2 billion loan, but China insisted the project was “too strategic”, and Islamabad kicked out the ADB under pressure from Beijing in early 2017, according to Pakistani and ADB officials.

“If it’s such a strategic project then it should be a viable project for them to finance on very concessional terms or invest in?” said one senior Pakistani official familiar with the project, referring to the BOT model.

China’s foreign ministry said Beijing was engaged in “friendly consultations” with Pakistan on the rail project.

Chinese companies participated in BRI projects in an open and transparent way, “pooling benefits and sharing risks,” it said.

Analysts say Pakistan will struggle to attract non-Chinese investors into the project, which may force it to choose between piling on Chinese debt or walking away from the project. In 2017, Pakistan turned down Chinese funding for a $14 billion mega-dam project in the Himalayas due to cost concerns and worries Beijing could end up owning a vital national asset if Pakistan could not repay loans, as occurred with a Sri Lankan port.

Khan’s government chafes at several Chinese intercity mass transport projects in Punjab, the voter heartland of the previous government, which now need hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies every year.

They also fume about the risk of accumulating off-books sovereign debt through power contracts, where annual profits of above 20 percent, in dollar terms, were guaranteed by the previous administration.

With the ML-1 line, there are also those who harbor doubts closer to home, including the previous government’s finance minister, Miftah Ismail, who said his ministry had always had concerns about its viability.

“When people say it’s a project of national importance, that usually means it makes no sense financially,” he said.
…

Tesla Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk and the electric car company have agreed to pay a total of $40 million and make a series of concessions to settle a government lawsuit alleging Musk duped investors with misleading statements about a proposed buyout of the company.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement Saturday, two days after filing a case seeking to oust Musk as CEO.

The settlement will require Musk to relinquish his role as chairman for at least three years, but he will able to remain as CEO.
…

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland postponed her U.N. speech Saturday as free-trade talks between the U.S. and Canada intensified.

Freeland had been scheduled to deliver Canada’s address to the General Assembly in New York, but Canada exchanged the slot with another country. Freeland may or may not give the speech on Monday.

A senior Canadian government official said they were making progress in the talks but that it wasn’t certain that they would reach a deal soon. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Canada would sign only a good deal.

Canada, the United States’ No. 2 trading partner, was left out when the U.S. and Mexico reached an agreement last month to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement. The U.S. and Canada are under pressure to reach a deal by the end of the day Sunday, when the U.S. must make public the full text of the agreement with Mexico.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said he wants to go ahead with a revamped NAFTA, with or without Canada. It is unclear, however, whether Trump has authority from Congress to pursue a revamped NAFTA with only Mexico, and some lawmakers say they won’t go along with a deal that leaves out Canada. 

Dairy tariffs

Among other things, the negotiators are battling over Canada’s high dairy tariffs. Canada also wants to keep a NAFTA dispute-resolution process that the U.S. wants to jettison.

U.S.-Canada talks bogged down earlier this month, and most trade analysts expected the Sept. 30 deadline to come and go without Canada’s reinstatement. They suspected that Canada, which had said it wasn’t bound by U.S. deadlines, was delaying the talks until after provincial elections Monday in Quebec, where support for Canadian dairy tariffs runs high.

But trade attorney Daniel Ujczo of the Dickinson Wright law firm, who follows the NAFTA talks closely, said the United States put pressure on Canada, contending there would “consequences” if it didn’t reach an agreement by the end of the day Sunday. Trump has repeatedly threatened to start taxing Canadian auto imports. Ujczo put the odds of a deal this weekend at 75 percent. 

Relations between the two neighbors have been strained since Trump assailed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the Group of Seven meeting in June, calling him “weak” and “dishonest.” Canadian leaders have objected to Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Canadian steel, citing national security.
…

U.S. consumer spending increased steadily in August, supporting expectations of solid economic growth in the third quarter, while a measure of underlying inflation remained at the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target for a fourth straight month.

Economists said Friday’s report from the Commerce Department should allay fears of the economy overheating and likely keeps the U.S. central bank on a gradual path of interest rate increases. The Fed raised rates Wednesday for the third time this year and removed the reference to monetary policy remaining “accommodative.”

“Growth is solid and inflation pressures modest,” said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at MUFG in New York. “This is exactly the environment the Fed needs to move interest rates up at a gradual pace as further rate hikes start to look like tightening.”

Consumer spending

The Commerce Department said consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, rose 0.3 percent last month after an unrevised 0.4 percent gain in July. Spending last month was driven by outlays on health care, which offset a drop in motor vehicle purchases.

August’s increase in consumer spending was in line with economists’ expectations. When adjusted for inflation, consumer spending rose 0.2 percent after climbing 0.3 percent in July.

The report came on the heels of data Thursday showing a decline in orders for key capital goods in August and a further widening of the goods trade deficit, which prompted economists to downgrade their gross domestic product growth estimates for the third quarter to as low as a 2.8 percent annualized rate.

Third-quarter GDP growth forecasts were previously as high as a 4.4 percent pace.

Economic growth

The economy grew at a 4.2 percent rate in the second quarter, powered by robust consumer spending. Economists said data in hand suggested that consumer spending was on track to grow around 3.6 percent in the third quarter, close to the 3.8 percent pace set in the April-June period.

Consumer spending is being driven by a tightening labor market, which is starting to boost wage growth, as well as higher savings. It is also being supported by robust consumer confidence.

A separate report Friday showed the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index at a six-month high in September. A survey earlier this week from the Conference Board showed consumer confidence hitting an 18-year high in September.

The Conference Board places more weight on the labor market.

The dollar was trading higher against a basket of currencies, while U.S. Treasury yields fell. Stocks on Wall Street were little changed in late afternoon trade.

Eyes on tariffs

In August, spending on goods increased 0.3 percent, likely lifted by higher gasoline prices. Spending on goods rose 0.5 percent in July. Outlays on services advanced 0.4 percent, with spending on health care accounting for much of the increase.

There was a moderation in monthly price gains in August. The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index excluding the volatile food and energy components was unchanged. That was the weakest reading since March 2017 and followed a 0.2 percent gain in July.

August’s flat reading left the year-on-year increase in the so-called core PCE price index at 2.0 percent. The core PCE index is the Fed’s preferred inflation measure. It hit the U.S. central bank’s 2 percent inflation target in March for the first time since April 2012.

Economists say inflation could slightly overshoot its target amid concerns an escalating trade war between the United States and China could lead to price increase for a range of consumer goods.

Washington on Monday slapped tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, with Beijing retaliating with duties on $60 billion worth of U.S. products. The United States and China had already imposed tariffs on $50 billion worth of each other’s goods.

Walmart Inc, the largest U.S. retailer, said last week it might hike prices because of the duties on Chinese imports.

“With this $200 billion increase, you are effectively tripling the amount of goods subject to a tariff and that has potential to influence prices,” said Tim Quinlan, a senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, North Carolina.

JPMorgan estimates that the tariffs could add 0.2 to 0.3 percentage point to core inflation.

In August, personal income rose 0.3 percent after increasing by the same margin in July. Wages jumped 0.5 percent, the biggest gain in seven months, after rising 0.3 percent in July.

The saving rate was unchanged at 6.6 percent last month.
…

Tesla without Elon Musk at the wheel? To many of the electric car maker’s customers and investors, that would be unthinkable. But that’s what government securities regulators now want to see.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has asked a federal court to oust Musk as Tesla’s chairman and chief executive officer, alleging he committed securities fraud with false statements about plans to take the company private.

The agency says in a complaint filed Thursday that Musk falsely claimed in an Aug. 7 statement on Twitter that funding had been secured for Tesla Inc. to go private at $420 per share, a substantial premium over the stock price at the time.

The SEC is asking the U.S. District Court in Manhattan to bar Musk from serving as an officer or director of a public company. It also is asking for an order enjoining Musk from making false and misleading statements along with repayment of any gains as well as civil penalties.

Ousting Musk, who has a huge celebrity status with more than 22 million Twitter followers, would be difficult and could damage the company. He’s viewed by many shareholders as the leader and brains behind Tesla’s electric car and solar panel operations.

The stock market shuddered at the prospect. Shares slid more than 12 percent to $269.52 in Friday morning trading after a number of analysts either downgraded the stock or issued negative notes.

Citi analyst Itay Michaeli downgraded Tesla Inc. shares to Sell/High Risk from Neutral/High Risk, telling investors in a note that the SEC case raises the risk of Musk’s ouster.

“There’s little question that Mr. Musk’s departure would likely cause harm to Tesla’s brand, stakeholder confidence and fundraising — thereby increasing the risk of triggering a downward confidence spiral given the state of Tesla’s balance sheet,” Michaeli wrote.

​’Reputational harm’

He also told investors that Musk could stay on, but “the reputational harm from this might still prevent the stock from immediately returning to ‘normal.’ ” Michaeli set a $225 one-year price target for the stock.

Tesla shares have a $130 “Musk premium” due to future business driven by Musk as a disrupter of multiple industries, but that could go away if Musk is ousted, Barclays analyst Brian Johnson wrote in a note.

“Should the SEC be successful in barring Mr. Musk from serving as an officer or director, investors would focus back on the value of Tesla as a niche automaker,” wrote Johnson, who reiterated an “Underweight” rating and set a price target of $210.

CFRA analyst Garrett Nelson downgraded the stock from “hold” to “sell” and reduced his price target to $225. “Despite Musk’s recent erratic behavior, we think most investors want him to remain with the company and they value shares at what we view as extremely lofty multiples given the potential for Musk’s vision to drive future growth,” he wrote. “Given uncertainty about Musk’s role going forward, we think a lower valuation is justified.”

Musk, in a statement issued by Tesla, disputed the SEC’s claims. “I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way,” the statement said.

According to a person knowledgeable about talks between Tesla and federal securities regulators, Musk rejected a settlement that would have allowed him to pay a small fine and stay on as CEO of the electric car company if he agreed to certain conditions, including restrictions on when he could release information publicly.

The person, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations were private, said Friday that Musk rejected the offer because he didn’t want a blemish on his record.

The SEC complaint alleges that Musk’s tweet harmed investors who bought Tesla stock after the tweet but before accurate information about the funding was made public.

No license in ‘celebrity status’

“Corporate officers hold positions of trust in our markets and have important responsibilities to shareholders,” Steven Peikin, co-director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, said in a statement. “An officer’s celebrity status or reputation as a technological innovator does not give license to take those responsibilities lightly.”

Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University and a former SEC lawyer, said it’s the first fraud case involving use of social media by the CEO of a public company. Musk and Tesla didn’t fully disclose details of the plan in the Aug. 7 tweet or in later communications that day as required, he noted.

“You can’t make full disclosure in 280 characters,” he said, referring to the length limit of a tweet.

Joseph Grundfest, a professor at Stanford Law School and former SEC commissioner, said Musk will likely want to settle before trial so that he could conceivably stay on as CEO, with some constraints such as prohibiting him from making public statements without supervision. But Musk also could agree to step down as CEO and instead take another title, such as chief production officer.

Grundfest also said that the challenge for the SEC is to “appropriately discipline Musk while not harming Tesla’s shareholders.”

According to the complaint, Musk met with representatives of a sovereign investment fund for 30 to 45 minutes on July 31 at Tesla’s Fremont, Calif., factory. Tesla has identified the fund as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which owns almost 5 percent of the company.

Fund representatives expressed interest in taking Tesla private and asked about building a factory in the Middle East, Musk told the SEC. But at the meeting, there was no discussion of a dollar amount or ownership stake for the fund, nor was there discussion of a premium to be paid to Tesla shareholders, the complaint said. Musk told the SEC that the lead representative of the fund told him he would be fine with reasonable terms for a go-private deal.

No specific terms

“Musk acknowledged that no specific deal terms had been established at the meeting and there was no discussion of what would or would not be considered reasonable. Nothing was exchanged in writing,” the complaint stated.

The SEC alleged in the 23-page complaint that Musk made the statements using his mobile phone in the middle of a trading day. That day, Tesla shares closed up 11 percent from the previous day.

The statements, the complaint said, “were premised on a long series of baseless assumptions and were contrary to facts that Musk knew.” Later in the month, Tesla announced that the go-private plan had been scrapped.

In its complaint, the SEC said that Musk’s statements hurt short sellers, who are investors who borrow a company’s stock betting that it will fall. Then they buy the shares back at a lower price and return them to the lenders, pocketing the profit.

In August, more than $13 billion worth of Tesla shares were being “shorted” by investors, the complaint said, as the stock was under pressure due to questions about Tesla’s finances and Musk’s erratic behavior.

Mark Spiegel, a short-seller and constant Musk critic, applauded the SEC for pursuing what he predicted would be easy for the government to prove.

Tesla’s board said in a statement Thursday night that it is “fully confident in Elon, his integrity, and his leadership of the company.” 
…

Italy’s stock market fell sharply Friday after the new populist, euroskeptic government announced a sharp public spending increase that will push the budget deficit to 2.4 percent of gross domestic product next year, risking a collision with the European Union.

The benchmark FTSE MIB dropped 2.2 percent early Friday, hours after the government announced its first financial targets since taking office three months ago. 

Italy’s government partners, the 5-Star movement and the League, pressed for money to fulfill campaign pledges, namely a basic citizen’s income for job seekers and a flat tax. Finance Minister Giovanni Tria, who is politically unaligned, had wanted to keep the budget deficit capped at no more than 2 percent.

The leader of the 5-Star Movement, Luigi Di Maio, called the document approved early Friday by the Cabinet “a maneuver of the people.”

“The historic measures are a victory,” Di Maio said. “It is not the government that wins, but citizens. It is a maneuver that allows us to relaunch investments and growth.”

The 2019 deficit target is a significant jump from the 2018 target of 1.6 percent, set by the former center-left government, but still remains within the 3-percent ceiling set by the EU. The European Union has been pressing Italy to address its deficit in a bid to reduce the country’s debt, the second largest in the EU after Greece. 

The spending targets contained in the document calls for spending of 27 billion euros, including blocking an increase in value-added tax, launching the 5-Star Movement’s basic income scheme, undoing pension reforms and introducing a flat tax.

 

To pay for the new spending, the government has pledged a tax amnesty, a spending review and possible changes to tax breaks.

 

The government must submit a draft budget to the EU by Oct. 15.
…

Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello flew to New York this week on a mission: convince potential tourists that the hurricane-ravaged island was ready for their return.

But Puerto Rico’s recovery from last year’s Hurricane Maria has been a “mixed bag,” Rossello told Reuters on Thursday, acknowledging that the bankrupt U.S. territory, while improving, was far from out of the woods.

Puerto Rico has received only a small fraction of the federal funding it needs to get back on its feet, Rossello said in a 75-minute interview, and getting access to the rest could take more than a decade.

$4 billion or less

His administration estimates that fixing Puerto Rico fully will require $139 billion, but the federal government has earmarked only about $60 billion to $65 billion for the recovery, he said. Of that, only about $3 billion to $4 billion has actually flowed into the island’s coffers. 

Obtaining the remainder could take 10 to 11 years, he said, adding that his team was lobbying Congress for more money.

Compounding the problem is Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy in U.S. federal court, where it is trying to restructure $120 billion of debt and pension obligations. There are also ongoing spending disputes between the government and a federally appointed fiscal oversight board.

In the year since Hurricane Maria, Rossello has at times been diplomatic regarding the federal government’s response, while at other times — especially lately — he’s been more critical. He has also been criticized for sticking with an estimated death toll of 64 early on, when  strong evidence suggested it could be higher. A government-commissioned study by researchers at George Washington University eventually pegged the toll at around 3,000.

When asked whether his administration’s messaging strategies have been tied to an effort to maintain good relations with President Donald Trump, Rossello said a “critical part” of the island’s recovery “is making sure the federal  government responds to our petitions.”

“So ,yes, I have opted for a path that involves dialog, that involves collaboration,” Rossello said, adding that he has not been afraid to be critical.

If Trump does not sign the island’s request to extend the federal  government’s 100 percent coverage of repair costs, “I’ll be the first one to fight it,” Rossello said, “and I’ll be the first to point out that action, or lack of action, is one of the main obstacles to our recovery.”

Rossello said Puerto Rico still has as many as 60,000 homes with temporary tarp roofs. It also has hundreds of thousands of informally constructed homes with many owners lacking title to their property.

Rebuilding will require that the current ranks of about 45,000 construction workers to grow to 130,000, according to Rossello, who recently signed an executive order increasing the minimum hourly construction wage to $15 despite opposition from the oversight board and the private sector.

Power shift

The island’s government is still considering initiatives that could make the its troubled electricity grid more resilient, Rossello said. Ultimately, the island hopes to generate 40 percent of its electricity from renewables and steer away from fossil fuels. The shift would require a new regulatory policy, approval by the bondholders, and, potentially, investment from outside companies or organizations.

“We have received 10 to 12 unsolicited proposals for generation,” he said, while acknowledging the government has yet to find a private operator for the power utility’s transmission and distribution operations.

But changes at the electric agency known as PREPA, which Rossello called one of the most troubled organizations in modern history, will be gradual. The governor said he was working with a search firm to identify outside board members for the utility, after nearly the entire board quit in an uproar over appointment of a new chief executive.

Limited electricity was a major problem for the island’s small-business sector, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of New York report on Thursday. A survey of more than 400 businesses with fewer than 500 employees found 77 percent suffered losses as a result of Hurricanes Irma and Maria.

Broader effort

Meanwhile, Rossello is trying not only to restore tourism, but to expand it in such a way that it incorporates hundreds of square miles of seaside and mountain communities that are largely unvisited. Puerto Rico’s tourism is small compared with that of other Caribbean locales and tends to be centered in San Juan.

The island’s visitor lodgings hit a 2017 high of 204,025 in July, but fell to just under 30,000 in October following the hurricanes, according to Puerto Rico Tourism Company data.

Persuading tourists to leave the capital, though, will require easier travel. “Puerto Rico should be a multiport destination,” he said, discussing plans to beef up airport capacity in the south and west of the island.

He emphasized the possibility of capitalizing on Puerto Rico’s near-constant spate of community festivals. “We have flower festivals, orange festivals, plantain festivals, coffee festivals, music festivals,” he said.

Rossello pointed to so-called chinchorreos as a possible draw, events in which Puerto Rican foodies move from one inexpensive eatery to the next.

“A bar crawl for food — that’s the best way to put it,” the governor said, “and the island is small, so you start in one place and you’re on a beachfront, and 15 minutes later you’re in the mountains.”
…

U.S. securities regulators on Thursday accused Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk of fraud and sought to ban him as an officer of a public company, saying he made a series of “false and misleading” tweets about potentially taking the electric car company private last month.

Musk, 47, is one of the highest-profile tech executives to be accused of fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Losing its public face and guiding force would be a big blow for money-losing Tesla, which has a market value of more than $50 billion, chiefly because of investors’ belief in Musk’s leadership.

Tesla shares tumbled 12 percent in after-hours trading. Company officials were not immediately available for comment.

The SEC’s lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, came less than two months after Musk told his more than 22 million Twitter followers on Aug. 7 that he might take Tesla private at $420 per share, and that there was “funding secured.”

“Neither celebrity status nor reputation as a technological innovator provides an exemption from federal securities laws,” Stephanie Avakian, co-director of enforcement at the SEC, told a news conference announcing its charges against Musk.

Musk has long used Twitter to criticize short-sellers betting against his company, and already faced several investor lawsuits over the Aug. 7 tweets, which caused Tesla’s share price to gyrate.

According to the SEC, Musk “knew or was reckless in not knowing” that his tweets about taking Tesla private at $420 a share were false and misleading, given that he had never discussed such a transaction with any funding source.

The SEC said he also knew he had not satisfied other contingencies when he declared unequivocally that only a shareholder vote would be needed.

Thursday’s complaint also seeks to impose a civil fine and other remedies. The SEC does not have criminal enforcement power.

On Aug. 24, after news of the SEC probe had become known, Musk blogged that Tesla would remain public, citing investor resistance.
…

The United States and Japan have agreed to begin negotiations on a bilateral free-trade agreement, reducing the prospect that Washington might impose tariffs against another trading partner.

“We’ve agreed today to start trade negotiations between the United States and Japan,” U.S. President Donald Trump said at a summit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

“This was something that for various reasons over the years Japan was unwilling to do and now they are willing to do. So we’re very happy about that, and I’m sure that we will come to a satisfactory conclusion, and if we don’t, ohhhhhh,” Trump added.

Fast-track authority

The White House released a statement after the meeting, stating the two countries would enter into talks after completing necessary domestic procedures for a bilateral trade agreement on goods and other key areas, including services.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer called it a “very important step” in expanding U.S.-Japan relations. He told reporters that the U.S. and Japan were aiming to approve a full free-trade agreement soon. Lighthizer said he would talk to Congress on Thursday about seeking authority for the president to negotiate the agreement, under the “fast track” trade authority law.

Lighthizer said he expected the negotiations to include the goal of reaching an “early harvest” on reducing tariffs and other trade barriers.

Tokyo’s reticence

Tokyo had been reluctant to commit to a bilateral free-trade pact and had hoped that Washington would consider returning to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a broader regional trade agreement championed by the Obama administration that Trump pulled out of in January 2017.

Trump has complained about Japan’s $69 billion trade surplus with the U.S. and has been pressuring Abe to agree to a two-way agreement to address it, including during Abe’s visit to Trump’s Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, in April.

Japanese officials have expressed concern Trump might pressure Tokyo to open up its politically sensitive farm market. They also are wary Trump might demand a reduction in Japanese auto imports or impose high tariffs on autos and auto parts, which would be detrimental to Japan’s export-reliant economy.

Trump is expressing confidence the two sides will reach an agreement.

“We’re going to have a really great relationship, better than ever before on trade,” he said. “It can only be better for the United States because it couldn’t get any worse because of what’s happened over the years.”
…

Ford chief Jim Hackett on Wednesday ramped up his warnings about the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, saying his company was seeing profits slashed by $1 billion.

Hackett said the global automaker could face more damage if the trade confrontations were not resolved quickly.

“The metals tariffs took about $1 billion in profit from us,” Hackett said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “If it goes on longer, there will be more damage.”

Trump in June imposed steep tariffs on steel and aluminum and has hit $250 billion in Chinese products with tariffs, prompting retaliation from US trading partners and raising costs for many industries.

The company earlier this year estimated materials costs would be $1.5 billion over 2017, which had already seen a jump. 

And in the July earnings report Ford said it lost $500 million in China in the latest quarter due in part to the tariffs.

General Motors likewise warned the current trade wars should cost it $1 billion this year, mainly due to rising input costs.

Ford recently announced it was scrapping plans to import the compact Focus model from Chinese plants into the US market due to the tariffs.

Joseph Hinrichs, Ford’s executive vice president for global operations, said this week the company was speeding up plans to build some models in China since it was becoming less attractive to export amid the trade tensions.

He also said he did not see any easy resolution to the trade dispute between the United States and China. 
…

Somalia’s finance minister says World Bank grants to the government are a sign the country has “trustable leadership” again after decades of chaos and corruption.

The World Bank said Tuesday it will provide $80 million in grants to Somalia’s federal government, the bank’s first direct grants to a Somali central authority in 27 years.

In an interview with VOA’s Somali service, Finance Minister Abdirahman Duale Beileh said the grants are “proof of Somalia’s merit.”

Beileh said $60 million will be used to increase the capacity of Somalia’s financial institutions, and $20 million will go toward education and energy projects to build the country’s resilience.

He said the grants show that international financial agencies have faith the government is capable of fighting against corruption.

“The work we have done and the trustworthiness we have earned brought us here,” he said. 

The World Bank cut ties with Somalia in 1991, following the collapse of the Mohamed Siad Barre government and the start of a long civil war.

Beileh said that in recent years, Somalia’s government has made tangible improvement in management of the economy and its institutions.

However, the latest global index of Transparency International put Somalia as the world’s most corrupt country.

Somali President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohammed, also known as Farmajo, took power last year in an election by parliament that observers said was characterized by bribes and vote-buying.

Beileh acknowledged the government’s fight against corruption is “far from over.”

“There is a perception that Somalia cannot be trusted because of its corruption history. Most of that is not perception,” he said.

He added: “We are proud that we made progress to at least a transparent level that both the World Bank and the IMF can notice.”
…

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised a key interest rate for the third time this year in response to a strong U.S. economy and signaled that it expected to maintain a pace of gradual rate hikes.

The Fed lifted its short-term rate — a benchmark for many consumer and business loans — by a quarter-point to a range of 2 percent to 2.25 percent. It was the eighth hike since late 2015.

The central bank stuck with its previous forecast for a fourth rate increase before year’s end and for three more hikes in 2019.

The Fed dropped phrasing it had used for years that characterized its rate policy as “accommodative” by favoring low rates. In dropping that language, the central bank may be signaling its resolve to keep raising rates.

Many analysts think the economy could weaken next year, in part from the effects of the trade conflicts President Donald Trump has pursued with China, Canada, Europe and other trading partners. The tariffs and countertariffs that have been imposed on imports and exports are having the effect of raising prices for some goods and supplies and potentially slowing growth.

Compounding the effects of the tariffs, other factors could slow growth next year. The benefits of tax cuts that took effect this year, along with increased government spending, for example, are widely expected to fade.

Still, some analysts hold to a more optimistic scenario. They think momentum already built up from the government’s economic stimulus will keep strengthening the job market and lowering unemployment — at 3.9 percent, already near a 50-year low. A tight employment market, in this scenario, will accelerate wages and inflation and prod the Fed to keep tightening credit to ensure that the economy doesn’t overheat.

Full-year growth

The U.S. economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, is expected to grow 3 percent for 2018 as a whole. That would mark the strongest full-year gain in 13 years. For the first nine years of the economic expansion, annual GDP growth averaged only around 2.2 percent.

The robust job market has helped make consumers, the main drivers of growth, more confident than they’ve been in nearly 18 years. Business investment is up. Americans are spending freely on cars, clothes and restaurant meals.

All the good news has helped fuel a stock market rally. Household wealth is up, too. It reached a record in the April-June quarter, although the gain is concentrated largely among the most affluent.

Many economists worry, though, that Trump’s combative trade policies could slow the economy. Trump insists that the tariffs he is imposing on Chinese imports, for which Beijing has retaliated, are needed to force China to halt unfair trading practices. But concern is growing that China won’t change its practices, the higher tariffs on U.S. and Chinese goods will become permanent, and both economies — the world’s two largest — will suffer.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has so far been circumspect in reflecting on Trump’s trade war. Powell has suggested that while higher tariffs are generally harmful, they could serve a healthy purpose if they eventually force Beijing to liberalize its trade practices.
…

The U.N. Conference on Trade and Development warns the world economy remains fragile, one decade after the collapse of the U.S. financial titan Lehman Brothers triggered a global economic crisis.

In its report Trade and Development Report 2018: Power, Platforms and the Free Trade Delusion, UNCTAD says the world economy once again is under stress. It views trade wars and escalating tariffs as symptoms of a growing economic malaise. It warns the world economy is walking a tightrope between debt-fueled growth and financial instability.

Lead author of the report Richard Kozul-Wright says many of the underlying problems that caused the 2008 financial crisis have not been addressed. He says footloose capital, precarious jobs, persistent inequality and rising debt remain problematic.

“We see growing asset bubbles and emerging crises everywhere,” he said. “Profits have been on an all-time high and real investment in the economy has not picked up. What we know from history is that debt-fueled booms always end badly. We do not know how. We do not know when, but if history is any guide the excessive reliance on debt in the current global economy will not end well for many economies.”

Kozul-Wright says trade wars, in many ways, are a reflection of lack of trust across the political system. He blames much of the tensions and problems seen in the global trading system on hyper globalization, which has not resulted in a win-win world.

The report finds global trade continues to be dominated by big firms. It says more than 50 percent of world trade is run through the top one percent of each country’s exporting firms.

 

 
…

Trade conflicts, rising debt and the potential impact from rising interest rates in the U.S. will likely dampen growth in the coming year, the Asian Development Bank said Wednesday in an update of its regional economic outlook report. 

The Manila, Philippines-based regional lender said Wednesday that it expects economic growth to remain at a robust 6.0 percent in 2018 but to slip to 5.8 percent next year. 

It cited looming financial and trade shocks as the biggest sources of potential trouble. If the U.S. economy shows signs of overheating, interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve could disrupt currency markets and other capital flows, leading to problems with bad loans. 

Overly high housing prices also are risks for China, Hong Kong, Malaysia and South Korea, it said. 

But it said the bigger threat comes from potential damage to supply chains caused by trade conflicts, especially between the U.S. and China. 

President Donald Trump pushed ahead Monday with higher tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports.

In a conflict stemming from U.S. complaints Beijing steals or pressures foreign companies to hand over technology, Trump went ahead Monday with a tax hike on $200 billion of Chinese imports. Beijing retaliated by imposing penalties on $60 billion of U.S. goods.

That move will likely shave 0.5 percentage points off of China’s growth and 0.1 percentage points off of growth in the U.S., the report said. 

It said further expansion would cause still more pain across the region, though while the U.S. trade deficit with China might shrink, the deficit with Asia overall would not decline so much because other countries would likely exporting more to make up the difference. 

China and the United States had earlier imposed 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion of each other’s goods. Combined, the tariffs now cover nearly half the goods and services China sells America and nearly 60 percent of what the United States sells China. 

“Prolonged trade conflict can damage confidence and deter investment,” the ADB report said. It said the impact would be large both regional and globally, especially if it expands to include autos and auto trade. 

“Estimates of impacts do not fully capture possible disruption to production units as overseas business networks are severed and investment plans are cancelled amid a reallocation of global production,” it said.
…