Archive for January, 2010
Davos 2010 World Economic Forum — A Global Perspective on the US Legislative Agenda

The Obama Administration is relying on the US Congress to deliver an ambitious agenda focusing on financial regulation, healthcare, energy and employment.

What are the global implications of implementing the 2010 legislative agenda?

Discussion Leaders
Brian Baird, Congressman from Washington (Democrat), 3rd District, USA
Susan M. Collins, Senator from Maine (Republican), USA
Barney Frank, Congressman from Massachusetts (Democrat), 4th District; Chairman, Financial Services Committee, USA
Lindsey O. Graham, Senator from South Carolina (Republican), USA
Edward J. Markey, Congressman from Massachusetts (Democrat), 7th District, Chairman, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, USA

The panel is moderated by Michael Oreskes, Senior Managing Editor, Associated Press (AP), USA

Return to Main

African Union Summit

African leaders are meeting in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital.

The leaders agreed to consider the proposal by Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade to resettle some of the Haiti earthquake victims in Africa. The summit on day one managed to resolve the controversial issue of its chairman by electing Malawian President Bingu Wa Mutharika to succeed Libyan President Muamar Gaddafi who was reluctant to step down from the rotational position.

A full report from Agence France Presse:

The African Union (AU) summit opened here Sunday and faced an immediate rift over Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi’s likely bid to retain the leadership of the organisation.

The summit’s official theme is information technology and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was expected to highlight the importance of putting the Millennium Development Goals back on their 2015 target.
But the 53-member body’s annual meeting at the Addis Ababa headquarters looked set to be hijacked by one of its most controversial leaders.

Kadhafi was elected almost by default a year ago but set the tone for his tenure by claiming to be the “king of kings” and vowing to achieve the “United States of Africa” project he has championed for years.

“Kadhafi’s chairmanship has been very harmful to the AU’s image, notably in the handling of political crises such as Madagascar and Guinea,” said an official close to Jean Ping, who heads the body’s main executive arm.
The system of rotating regional blocs should hand the job to a southern African leader and a consensus had begun to emerge around Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika, but some diplomats fear Kadhafi will put up a fight.

“It is said that Kadhafi is determined to take this to a vote because he thinks enough countries will support him,” an AU official said.
Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir, who arrived in the Ethiopian capital on Friday, is another leader who is likely to attract some attention.
His movements have been closely monitored since the International Criminal Court last year issued an arrest warrant for him over the atrocities committed in the Darfur region since 2003.

In a report released less than two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch pilloried the AU for supporting the embattled Sudanese leader, arguing that such a move was a blow to the entire institution’s credibility.
“The AU, led by some of the continent’s worst autocrats, began accusing the court of unfairly targeting Africans. In reality, these leaders were cynically trying to protect one of their own,” it said.

The summit it also expected to focus, as is the case every year, on the continent’s various political crises and armed conflicts, notably Somalia, Guinea, Madagascar, Niger and Ivory Coast.

In an interview with AFP on Saturday, Ban put particular emphasis on the fate of Sudan, where tension has been mounting in the run-up to a 2011 referendum in which the south is widely expected to choose independence from Khartoum, only six years after signing a peace deal.

“The UN has a big responsibility with the AU to maintain peace in Sudan and make unity attractive… This year will be crucially important for Sudan with the election in three months and the referendum in a year,” he said.

Return to Main

Davos 2010 World Economic Forum — Rethinking How to Feed the World

Global food demand will double between now and 2050 as the world’s population reaches 9.2 billion.

How can the increased demand for food be met in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner?

The Panelists
William H. Gates III, Co-Chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA
Ellen Kullman, Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, DuPont, USA
Nguyen Tan Dung, Prime Minister of Vietnam; Chair, 2010 ASEAN
Patricia A. Woertz, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), USA; Co-Chair of the Governors Meeting for Consumer Industries 2010; Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010

This panel is moderated by Prannoy Roy, Chairman, New Delhi Television (NDTV), India.

Economist Felix Salmon of Reuters has a compelling article based on a conversation with Dan Barber, a leader in the locavore movement and the chef of the Blue Hill Farm.

Every so often at Davos you have a short, startling conversation which completely changes the way you think about a subject — and I just had one of those standing next to Dan Barber, the chef of Blue Hill Farm. He’s a very smart, very funny guy, who’s passionate about food on every level from preparing the ingredients of the dishes in his restaurants to the logistics of feeding the planet.

I bumped into Barber as we were milling around the Davos conference center, waiting for the panel on “rethinking how to feed the world” to begin. I asked him what he thought of the food in Switzerland; he compared in unfavorably to what he was fed by the airline on the way over here. “I haven’t seen a vegetable since Thursday,” he added, looking a bit overwhelmed by the number of things that the Swiss seem to be able to do with bread, cheese, and bit of veal.

When the panel started, I could almost see the steam coming out of Barber’s ears. It featured two heads of state; two agribusiness CEOs; a representative from the World Bank; and Bill Gates. All of them looked at food mainly as a matter of logistics and problem-solving, and they seemed to do so with real good will and good motives. (Well, maybe not the CEO of ADM.) But they were all very much bought into a model which looks, to Barber’s eyes, incredibly shaky.

Essentially the problem is that the people on the panel have internalized the principles of comparative advantage and free trade to the point at which they are more or less incapable of thinking any other way. In a Ricardian world it makes sense for Ohio to overwhelmingly grow corn and soy, since growing corn and soy is what it does best. And because of economies of scale, it makes sense to grow just one type of each, on farms of mind-boggling size. Ohio can then trade all that corn and soy for the food it wants to eat, and everybody is better off.

Except in reality it doesn’t work like that. Monocultures are naturally prone to disastrous outbreaks of disease, which can wipe out an entire crop. The panel at Davos has a favored method of dealing with such things: the development of disease-resistant crop strains, often through high-tech and patentable genetic modification. Bright research scientists create clever transgenic crops, and then people like Bill Gates and the World Bank try to get them broadly adopted while setting well-intentioned staffers to work minimizing potential problems with IP licensing. Innovation through agricultural technology is the obvious and necessary solution to the problem of global hunger.

Barber isn’t anti-science, nor is he anti-innovation. But he knows (and the panelists know too) that a system of globalized agriculture can break down, as we saw during the commodity boom of 2008. As the price of soy and rice and wheat soared, exporters started hoarding rather than selling, and importers couldn’t obtain necessary supplies at any price. As the World Bank’s Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala noted, Ukraine had 5 million tons of surplus wheat, but the international food markets were very thin, and it was extremely difficult to get that wheat exported. The system didn’t work like it was meant to: when put to a real-world test, it broke down.

(more…)

Davos 2010 World Economic Forum — Global Economic Outlook

The International Monetary Fund is forecasting positive growth in 2010; yet, it warns the pace of growth will be too sluggish to prevent further increases in unemployment across the global economy.

Martin Wolf notes the global economic recovery might be described by the acronym L-U-V. The recovery has been L-shaped in the European Union, U-shaped in the United States and V-shaped in East Asia (ex-Japan).

What is the outlook for the global economy in 2010?

The Panelists
Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank, Germany; Member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum; Chair of the Governors Meeting for Financial Services 2010; Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010
Montek S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, India
Christine Lagarde, Minister of Economy, Industry and Employment of France; Member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Washington DC
Lawrence H. Summers, Director, National Economic Council (NEC), Executive Office of the President, USA
Zhu Min, Deputy Governor of the People’s Bank of China, People’s Republic of China; Global Agenda Council on the International Monetary System

The panel is chaired by Martin Wolf, Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times, United Kingdom; Global Agenda Council on Systemic Financial Risk.

Return to Main

Honour Crimes and Social Exclusion in Yemen

They are punished for behaviour that’s said to bring shame on their families, and the price can be severe.

It could be theft, drugs, sex outside marriage or just marriage without the familys consent, but for some Yemeni women, such issues will remain with them for their whole life.

Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Vall travelled to southern Yemen to visit one woman whose determination to help those she sees as victims of injustice is making a real difference.

Return to Main

World Focus — Week in Review

The idea of a negotiated settlement to the Afghan war gained new currency this week. In our weekly roundtable, James Rubin, a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, and Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs magazine, join Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the pitfalls and possibilities of negotiating with the Taliban.

The London Conference on Afghanistan took place in London at Lancaster House on January 28 2010. The London Conference on Afghanistan brought together Foreign Ministers from International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners, Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours and key regional players as well as representatives from NATO, the United Nations, the EU and other international organisations such as the World Bank to fully align military and civilian resources behind an Afghan-led political strategy.

The 34 point conference communiqué is below the fold. (more…)

President Obama’s Question Time with the GOP House Caucus

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, everybody be seated. Thank you. Thank you, John, for the gracious introduction. To Mike and Eric, thank you for hosting me. Thank you to all of you for receiving me. It is wonderful to be here. I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute. To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us for an elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that’s tough. (Applause.)

I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, “Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months.”

Part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I’m looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn’t end here; that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead. It’s important to me that we do so. It’s important to you, I think, that we do so. But most importantly, it’s important to the American people that we do so.

I’ve said this before, but I’m a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security — and that’s not something that’s only good for our country, it’s absolutely essential. It’s only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth — that imperfect but well-founded process, messy as it often is — is at the heart of our democracy. That’s what makes us the greatest nation in the world.

So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas, and I guarantee you that after reading this I may challenge a few of yours. (Laughter.) I want you to stand up for your beliefs, and knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate. The only thing I don’t want — and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don’t want either — is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks, when we’re in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That’s their obsession.

And I’m not a pundit. I’m just a President, so take it for what it’s worth. But I don’t believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. (Applause.) I don’t think they want more gridlock. I don’t think they want more partisanship. I don’t think they want more obstruction. They didn’t send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see who comes out alive. That’s not what they want. They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they’re grappling with every single day.

And I think your constituents would want to know that despite the fact it doesn’t get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where we’ve acted in a bipartisan fashion. And I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe haven, to break the Taliban’s momentum, and to train Afghan security forces. There’s been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda. And I know that we’re all united in our admiration of our troops. (Applause.)

So it may be useful for the international audience right now to understand — and certainly for our enemies to have no doubt — whatever divisions and differences may exist in Washington, the United States of America stands as one to defend our country. (Applause.)

It’s that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform bill that was cosponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today. We’ve stood together on behalf of our nation’s veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the VA’s budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans’ health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform.

Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a Credit Card Bill of Rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who are out of work. Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes.

So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things, we’ve seen party-line votes that, I’m just going to be honest, were disappointing. Let’s start with our efforts to jumpstart the economy last winter, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large. I didn’t understand then, and I still don’t understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people, or COBRA coverage to help Americans who’ve lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects.

There was an interesting headline in CNN today: “Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it.” And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed.

Well, that’s what the Recovery Act was. And let’s face it, some of you have been at the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities. Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences perhaps on the just the concept of government spending, but, as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity.

Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent — that’s the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year, we weren’t seeing positive job growth; we were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent.

So you’ve seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year. This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades — and it didn’t happen by accident. It happened — as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest — because of some of the steps that we took.

And by the way, you mentioned a Web site out here, John — if you want to look at what’s going on, on the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov — a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor’s idea.

Now, here’s the point. These are serious times, and what’s required by all of us — Democrats and Republicans — is to do what’s right for our country, even if it’s not always what’s best for our politics. I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this no one can accuse me of not living by my principles. (Laughter.) A middle class that’s back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that’s ascendant in the world — that’s more important than winning an election. Our future shouldn’t be shaped by what’s best for our politics; our politics should be shaped by what’s best for our future.

But no matter what’s happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together. We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree, because as successful as we’ve been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging. Some of that’s predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator, but that’s no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now. And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we’ve got to do everything we can to accelerate it.

So, today, in line with what I stated at the State of the Union, I’ve proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here’s how it would work. Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They’d get a tax break for increases in wages, as well. So, if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we’d refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It’s a simple concept. It’s easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.

So I hope you join me. Let’s get this done. I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment, and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and use it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again. So join me. I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there’s nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is: What’s going to keep us from getting this done?

I’ve proposed a modest fee on the nation’s largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover for taxpayers’ money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it’s designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future. If you listen to the American people, John, they’ll tell you they want their money back. Let’s do this together, Republicans and Democrats.

I propose that we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, and instead give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here at home — right here at home. Surely, that’s something that we can do together, Republicans and Democrats.

We know that we’ve got a major fiscal challenge in reining in deficits that have been growing for a decade, and threaten our future. That’s why I’ve proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending other than what we need for national security. That’s something we should do together that’s consistent with a lot of the talk both in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses. We can’t blink when it’s time to actually do the job.

At this point, we know that the budget surpluses of the ’90s occurred in part because of the pay-as-you-go law, which said that, well, you should pay as you go and live within our means, just like families do every day. Twenty-four of you voted for that, and I appreciate it. And we were able to pass it in the Senate yesterday.

But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day. So I’m going to establish such a commission by executive order and I hope that you participate, fully and genuinely, in that effort, because if we’re going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we’re going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat. No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It’s going to require all of us doing what’s right for the American people.

And as I said in the State of the Union speech, there’s not just a deficit of dollars in Washington, there is a deficit of trust. So I hope you’ll support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. And let’s require lobbyists who exercise such influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether they are contacts with my administration or contacts with Congress. Let’s do the people’s business in the bright light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats.

I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become. And I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front. If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don’t agree. And neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can’t get coverage today or find out that they lose their insurance just as they’re getting seriously ill. That’s exactly when you need insurance. And for too many people, they’re not getting it. I don’t think a system is working when small businesses are gouged and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day; when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they’re poised to do so again.

I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it’s not working for the American people. It’s not working for our federal budget. It needs to change.

This is a big problem, and all of us are called on to solve it. And that’s why, from the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I’d be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn’t get a lot of nibbles.

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions, that wasn’t my idea, it was Senator McCain’s. And I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach. Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers — that’s an idea that some of you I suspect included in this better solutions; that’s an idea that was incorporated into our package. And I support it, provided that we do it hand in hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents’ insurance until they’re 25 or 26. I supported that. That’s part of our package. I supported a number of other ideas, from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I’m sure from some of you as well. So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let’s be clear: I have.

Bipartisanship — not for its own sake but to solve problems — that’s what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us then have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we’re going to be politicians first or partners for progress; whether we’re going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America. Just think about it for a while. We don’t have to put it up for a vote today.

Let me close by saying this. I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That’s especially true because the fastest growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something. I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in a spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can’t break free from partisan gridlock, if we can’t move past a politics of “no,” if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as President. I’ve got to act for the greater good — because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that’s — that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do.

So I am optimistic. I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it’s represented. But we’ve gotten caught up in the political game in a way that’s just not healthy. It’s dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century. I’m hopeful that the conversation we have today can help reverse that.

So thank you very much. Thank you, John. (Applause.) Now I’d like to open it up for questions.

(more…)

US GDP Jumps 5.7% in 4Q09 on an Inventory Bounce

The Bureau of Economic Analysis at the Commerce Department reported this morning that United States economy grew at its fastest pace in over six years in the 4Q09. Gross domestic product (GDP) expanded at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, exceeding analysts’ expectations by some 90 basis points. Still US GDP received a lift from an inventory bounce, reflecting an acceleration in private inventory investment. The change in inventories added 3.39 percentage points to the uptick in the fourth-quarter.

From the New York Times:

The United States economy grew at its fastest pace in over six years at the end of 2009, but a sluggish job market is still souring economists on the sustainability of the recovery.

Gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, well above analysts’ expectations. It had grown at an annualized rate of 2.2 percent in the previous quarter. Analysts had forecast annualized growth of 4.8 percent in the quarter.

The biggest lift to economic activity came because businesses ran down their stockrooms at a much slower rate than they had earlier in the year. The change in inventories added 3.39 percentage points to the fourth-quarter change.

Businesses decreased inventories by $33.5 billion in the fourth quarter, after decreases of $139.2 billion in the third quarter and $160.2 billion in the second. Slower inventory depletion is not the most promising way to guarantee growth going forward, but economists are hoping that once companies become more confident about the recovery, they may ramp up production to refill their stockroom shelves.

Here’s a short description of an Inventory Bounce from Paul Krugman:

Imagine a company that produces widgets (companies in these examples always produce widgets), normally selling 100 each month. The company tries to keep one month’s sales, 100 widgets, in inventory. But for some reason sales drop off, to 90 per month. And it takes a month before the company realizes what has happened.

At the end of that month the company, having produced 100 widgets but sold only 90, finds itself with 110 in inventory, but wants to hold only 90. To eliminate the excess inventory quickly, it might slash production to 70 for the next month, then bump production back up to 90. But unless sales increase again, that’s where it ends: production never recovers to its original level.

As go the widget-makers, so goeth the economy. When demand drops, inventories build up, then production drops sharply as businesses work off the overhang. Finally, there’s an “inventory bounce” when the overhang is gone. But the bounce doesn’t necessarily presage a true recovery. To get that, you need increased sales to final buyers.

Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research and the former economist at Deutsche Bank, noted that even if there were no change in final sales of goods, the GDP figures would show a 4 percent increase simply because businesses that were emptying their warehouses a year ago are now buying enough goods to keep stockpiles steady.

“A lot of it is the arithmetic of inventories,” said Yardeni, who had been expecting a 6.5 percent jump in the GDP number. “Even if there is a very strong number for the fourth quarter, if it’s [all because of] inventories, it will raise real questions about the strength of the economy in 2010.”

Back in September in an address to the San Francisco Society of Certified Financial Analysts, San Francisco Federal Reserve President Janet Yellen had predicted the impact of inventory changes in driving US GDP and issued this important caveat:

I regret to say that I expect the recovery to be tepid. What’s more, the gradual expansion gathering steam will remain vulnerable to shocks. The financial system has improved but is not yet back to normal. It still holds hazards that could derail a fragile recovery. Even if the economy grows as I expect, things won’t feel very good for some time to come. In particular, the unemployment rate will remain elevated for a few more years, meaning hardship for millions of workers. Moreover, the slack in the economy, demonstrated by high unemployment and low utilization of industrial capacity, threatens to push inflation lower at a time when it is already below the level that, in the view of most members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) best promotes the Fed’s dual mandate for full employment and price stability. As a result, monetary policy makers will continue to face a difficult task in the years ahead.

A particularly hopeful sign is that inventories, which have been shrinking rapidly, now seem to be in better alignment with sales. That’s occurred because firms slashed production rapidly and dramatically in the face of slumping sales. Recent data suggest that this correction may be near an end and firms are now poised to step up production to match sales. In fact, I expect the biggest source of expansion in the second half of this year to come from a diminished pace of inventory liquidation by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Such a pattern is typical of business cycles. Inventory investment often is the catalyst for economic recoveries. True, the boost is usually fairly short-lived, but it can be quite important in getting things going.

Separately, the Commerce Department on Thursday reported that factory orders for manufactured goods rose 0.3 percent in December, far less than the 2 percent advance economists had expected. For all of 2009, durable goods orders plunged 20.2 percent, the largest drop since 1992.

The economy is not out of the woods by any stretch. The recovery is certainly not V-shaped but more U-shaped with the dangers of a double dip still extant.

Return to Main

Davos 2010 World Economic Forum — Will India Meet Global Expectations?

Multilateral trade, climate change, Millennium Development Goals and nuclear non-proliferation are just some of the items on the global agenda in which the world expects India to play an active and constructive role.

What does the world expect from India and what does India expect from the international community?

In partnership with the World Economic Forum, India’s NDTV hosts this debate focusing on the global expectations for and from India.

Panelists
Robert D. Hormats, US Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs
Anand G. Mahindra, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra, India
Zakir Mahmood, President and Chief Executive Officer, Habib Bank, Pakistan
Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry of India
Rajat Gupta, former managing director of McKinsey & Company in the United States and a current special advisor on management reforms to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The panel is moderated by Vikram Chandra, Chief Presenter and Editor, NDTV, India

Return to Main

Is a Bailout of Greece Looming?

Greece’s budget deficit stands at 12.7 percent of GDP or more than four times the Eurozone limit.

Earlier this week, Greece had planned to sell €5 billion (£4.4 billion) of new five-year bonds to investors, but, after about €25 billion of demand emerged, it decided to issue €8 billion. The auction had been seen as a key test of investors’ appetite for Greek government debt and was heralded as a triumph by the Greek authorities in Athens. But others are not so sure noting that Greece paid a hefty 6.22 percent rate to borrow money in the bond market.

More from the New York Times:

European leaders are quietly considering whether to come to the aid of their troubled neighbor Greece amid fears that the nation might default on its debts and unleash another round of financial crisis.

Only a month after Dubai was rescued by its neighboring emirate Abu Dhabi, Germany, France and other European powers are discussing whether Greece might need a bailout too.

After a decade of debt-fueled profligacy, Greece is confronting what amounts to a run on the bank. And, despite repeated assurances from Athens, the nation’s strained finances have put already jittery financial markets on edge. On Thursday, the worries stretched all the way to Wall Street, where the stock market sank 1.1 percent.

Some economists worry that Greece’s troubles could have deep and lasting repercussions for Europe. The crisis poses complex challenges for the euro, which Greece adopted in 2001. The currency sank to a six-month low against the dollar and yen on Thursday.

“Greece failing is not an option, and lots of people think that we will have to intervene at some stage,” said one European finance official, who was not permitted to speak publicly on the matter. “It doesn’t have to happen, and we hope it won’t, but it would be better than seeing a default.”

The shape and scale of a bailout package, if any, has yet to be determined, according to officials in several European capitals. Whether the International Monetary Fund might become involved is uncertain. Some European leaders want Europe to fix this problem itself, while others are open to working with the I.M.F.

(more…)