adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

India’s economy risks swapping stagnation for stagflation – The Economist

Published

 on


MUMBAI’S CHEFS were quick to spot the latest threat facing India’s economy. As they foraged for ingredients in Crawford market, where hawkers sell fruit, vegetables and other kitchen staples, they began hearing prices quoted not per kilogram, but per quarter-kilo—a forlorn attempt to mask price increases. Returning from a recent shopping spree, one prominent chef checked off the items rising sharply in price: tomatoes, cabbages, aubergines, fish, spices—almost every ingredient, in fact, in the Indian cookbook.

The hawkers had some plausible excuses. The weather has been erratic, and delivery systems unreliable. But although an increase in inflation was widely foreseen, the severity of it was not. Consumer prices rose by over 7.3% in December, compared with a year earlier, the biggest jump since July 2014. Onion prices, up by 328%, contributed 2.1 percentage points to the headline figure all by themselves.

But India’s inflation is not only or everywhere an onion phenomenon. A Mumbai tea-vendors’ association recently recommended a price rise because of the increased cost of sugar and tea leaves, as well as the gas that fuels vendors’ stoves. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority allowed sharply higher charges for 21 drugs, including treatments for leprosy, malaria and tuberculosis, which were in short supply because prices had failed to cover rising costs.

300x250x1

Indian Railways, a government entity, announced an increase in ticket prices in December. Its eroding finances apparently left it no choice. Complaints about rising air fares have been circulating since the collapse of Jet Airways last April. India’s mobile-phone operators have raised tariffs sharply after losing a court battle with the government over licence fees and spectrum charges. Despite a collapse in sales, vehicle prices are rising, a result of costly new regulations. Rajiv Bajaj, managing director of Bajaj Auto, a motorcycle-maker, has complained that the government “is killing the industry”.

This miscellany of misery will complicate the government’s efforts to fight an economic slowdown. India’s GDP grew by only 4.5% in the third quarter compared with a year earlier. That figure would have been as low as 3.1% were it not for a hurried government-spending spree. Yet another splurge is expected in the budget on February 1st. But any increase in demand could prompt an offsetting response from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the central bank. It may choose to prolong stagnation so as to avoid the uglier scenario of stagflation.

Stagflation usually begins with a setback to supply, such as India’s unseasonal rains. These misfortunes both lower output (the “stag” part of the phenomenon) and lift costs (the “flation” part). But once prices have increased sufficiently to reflect the scarcer supply, they should in principle stop rising. Some economists expect inflation to begin falling as soon as February. After all, core inflation, which excludes food and fuel prices, remains below 4%.

The problem is that before inflation disappears, Indians may start believing it will stay, making it more likely to persist. In most rich countries that have adopted inflation-targeting, headline inflation usually falls back into line with core measures, which reflect the strength of demand better. But in India the opposite is true. Core inflation usually converges towards the headline number, which reflects more accurately the drain on people’s pockets.

The RBI’s inflation-targeting framework, which it adopted in 2015, was supposed to fight this tendency. It was meant to convince people that the central bank’s inflation target of 4% was a better guide to future inflation than the prices quoted at Crawford market and other emporiums across the country. But the framework has “yet to be fully tested”, according to a recent lecture by Raghuram Rajan, the former RBI governor who introduced it. Mumbai’s chefs will hope it passes the thorough examination it will now undergo.

This article appeared in the Finance and economics section of the print edition under the headline “India’s economy risks swapping stagnation for stagflation”

Reuse this contentThe Trust Project

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

John Ivison: Canada's economy desperately needs shock treatment after this Liberal government – National Post

Published

 on


Lack of business investment is the main culprit. Canadians are digging holes with shovels while our competitors are buying excavators

Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox

Article content

It speaks to the seriousness of the situation that the Bank of Canada is not so much taking the gloves off as slipping lead into them.

Senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers, came as close to wading into the political arena as any senior deputy governor of the central bank probably should in her speech in Halifax this week.

Article content

But she was right to sound the alarm about a subject — Canada’s waning productivity — on which the federal government’s performance has been lacklustre at best.

Advertisement 2

Article content

Productivity has fallen in six consecutive quarters and is now on a par with where it was seven years ago.

Lack of business investment is the main culprit.

In essence, Canadians are digging holes with shovels while many of our competitors are buying excavators.

“You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘in emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” Rogers said.

She was explicit that government policy is partly to blame, pointing out that businesses need more certainty to invest with confidence. Government incentives and regulatory approaches that change year to year do not inspire confidence, she said.

Recommended from Editorial

  1. Carolyn Rogers, Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, holds a press conference at the Bank of Canada in Ottawa on Wednesday, March 6, 2024.

    Canada’s lagging productivity at crisis level, BoC official says

  2. Homes for sale at the Juniper condo development in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2022.

    Expected BoC rate cuts luring buyers back into housing market

The government’s most recent contribution to the competitiveness file — Bill C-56, which made a number of competition-related changes — is a case in point. It was aimed at cracking down on “abusive practices” in the grocery industry that no one, including the bank in its own study, has been able to substantiate. Rather than encouraging investment, it added a political actor — the minister of industry — to the market review process. The Business Council of Canada called the move “capricious,” which was Rogers’s point.

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

While blatant price-fixing is rare, the lack of investment is a product of the paucity of competition in many sectors, where Canadian companies protected from foreign competition are sitting on fat profit margins and don’t feel compelled to invest to make their operations more efficient. “Competition can make the whole economy more productive,” said Rogers.

The Conservatives now look set to make this an election issue. Ontario MP Ryan Williams has just released a slick 13-minute video that makes clear his party intends to act in this area.

Using the Monopoly board game as a prop, Williams, the party’s critic for pan-Canadian trade and competition, claims that in every sector, monopolies and oligopolies reign supreme, resulting in lower investment, lower productivity, higher prices, worse service, lower wages and more wealth inequality.

(As an aside, it was a marked improvement on last year’s “Justinflation” rap video.)

Williams said that Canadians pay among the highest cell phone prices in the world and that Rogers, Telus and Bell are the priciest carriers, bar none. The claim has some foundation: in a recent Cable.co.uk global league table that compared the average price of one gigabyte, Canada was ranked 216th of 237 countries at US$5.37 (noticeably, the U.S. was ranked even more expensive at US$6).

Advertisement 4

Article content

Williams noted that two airlines control 80 per cent of the market, even though Air Canada was ranked dead last of all North American airlines for timeliness.

He pointed out that six banks control 87 per cent of Canada’s mortgage market, while five grocery stores — Sobeys, Metro, Loblaw, Walmart and Costco — command a similar dominance of the grocery market.

“Competition is dying in Canada,” Williams said. “The federal government has made things worse by over-regulating airlines, banks and telecoms to actually protect monopolies and keep new players out.”

So far, so good.

The Conservatives will “bring back home a capitalist economy” — a market that does not protect monopolies and creates more competition, in the form of Canadian companies that will provide new supply and better prices.

That sounds great. But at the same time, the Conservative formula for fixing things appears to involve more government intervention, not less.

Williams pointed out the Conservatives opposed RBC buying HSBC’s Canadian operations, WestJet buying Sunwing and Rogers buying Shaw. The party would oppose monopolies from buying up the competition, he said.

Advertisement 5

Article content

The real solution is to let the market do its work to bring prices down. But that is a more complicated process than Williams lets on.

Back in 2007, when Research in Motion was Canada’s most valuable company, the Harper government appointed a panel of experts, led by former Nortel chair Lynton “Red” Wilson, to address concerns that the corporate sector was being “hollowed out” by foreign takeovers, following the sale of giants Alcan, Dofasco and Inco.

The “Compete to Win” report that came out in June 2008 found that the number of foreign-owned firms had remained relatively unchanged, but recommended 65 changes to make Canada more competitive.

The Harper government acted on the least-contentious suggestions: lowering corporate taxes, harmonizing sales taxes with a number of provinces and making immigration more responsive to labour markets.

But it did not end up liberalizing the banking, broadcasting, aviation or telecom markets, as the report suggested (ironically, it was a Liberal transport minister, Marc Garneau, who raised foreign ownership levels of air carriers to 49 per cent from 25 per cent in 2018).

Advertisement 6

Article content

The point is, Canada has a competition problem but solving it requires taking on vested interests. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has indicated he is willing to do that, calling corporate lobbyists “utterly useless” and saying he will focus on Canadian workers, not corporate interests.

“My daily obsession will be about what is good for the working-class people in this country,” he said in Vancouver earlier this month.

Even opening up sectors to foreign competition is no guarantee that investors will come. There are no foreign ownership restrictions in the grocery market (in addition to the five supermarkets listed above, there is Amazon-owned Whole Foods). When the Competition Bureau concluded last year that there was a “modest but meaningful” increase in food prices, it recommended Ottawa encourage a foreign-owned player to enter the Canadian market. It was a recommendation adopted by Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, to no avail thus far.

But it is clear from the Bank’s warning that the Canadian economy requires some shock treatment.

Robert Scrivener, the chairman of Bell and Northern Telecom in the 1970s, called Canada a nation of overprotected underachievers. That is even more true now than it was back then.

It’s time to break the glass.

jivison@criffel.ca

Get even more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

Article content

Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox

Comments

Join the Conversation

This Week in Flyers

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Beijing At A Loss On What To Do About Its Economic Challenges? – Forbes

Published

 on


China’s annual “Two Sessions” conference has for decades revealed the party agenda to the faithful. This year’s meeting offered them little, a startling development given China’s huge economic and financial challenges – a property crisis, export shortfalls, demographic decline, a loss of confidence among consumers and private business owners, and growing hostility in foreign capitals. More than ever, China needs Beijing to act, to point the way to future action. The failure to address this need at the Two Sessions suggests that China’s leadership has run out of ideas.

Most telling was the absence of the traditional press conference. Every Two Sessions meeting has included a space for China’s leadership to interact with both domestic and foreign media. The senior men in government were not always forthcoming at these exchanges, but their evasive answers at least pointed out publicly what matters they considered touchy or awkward. When this year’s press conference was cancelled, one can only conclude that the good and the great in the Forbidden City worry about being embarrassed.

The authorities did announce a real growth target for 2024. They set it at “around 5 percent.” In one respect, this information can only be described as bland. It was expected and is very close to last year’s pace. In another respect, however, it confesses failure of a sort. It is, after all, barely over half the real growth rate China averaged up until 2019. And with all the problems, it is not clear that China can even make that rate. Last year the economy had a tailwind from pandemic recovery. None of that is in play in 2024. Meanwhile, the authorities never explained how they intended to achieve the growth.

300x250x1

Infrastructure spending was mentioned, one trillion yuan ($132.9 billion) worth of it. Infrastructure is China’s default form of economic stimulus. But little was said about how China would finance such spending. Local governments, the usual source of infrastructure financing, face huge debt overhangs, some so severe that they cannot even meet the public service needs of their populations. True, Beijing said it was ready to take the unusual step of issuing central government debt to finance the spending. But even that raises questions. The government already faces record high budget deficits. The emphasis on “ultra-long bonds” may hint at how difficult financial matters have become. Long maturities will delay the need to repay the debt and show that Beijing does not expect an immediate return from its spending.

Little was said about the property crisis with all its adverse economic and financial ramifications. Despite the need for bold action on this front, all Beijing has mustered so far are the “white lists” in which local governments compile a list of failing real estate projects for financing that the state-owned banks would review before advancing the funds. The amounts discussed so far, however, are tiny compared with the need, barely over 5 percent of Evergrande’s initial failure two and half years ago. Some weeks back, talk emerged about a plan for the government to take over some 30 percent of the housing market. Although such an action would have brought China other severe problems, it would have been big enough to disguise the property crisis. Nothing as bold or substantive as that got a hearing at the Two Sessions.

On China’s deflation problem, the authorities did indicate a target of 3 percent inflation for the year but said nothing about how they planned to achieve it. To be sure, deflation is more a symptom than a cause of the country’s challenges, which in part lie with inadequate demand for consumption and capital spending by private business, but neither did China’s leadership say much about these problems either. The only concrete suggestion was a promise by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) to cut interest rates more than the bank already has. Given the lack of an economic response to past rate cuts, this promise hardly seems an adequate answer. In any case, as soon as the conference ended, the PBOC at its own meeting decided against another interest rate cut.

Talk did center on new growth engines for the economy, what the conference referred to as “new productive sources.” There was little new here. Renewable energy, advanced technology, and electric vehicles led the list. Like so much else offered at the Two Sessions, the talk was all aspirational. No one suggested how China planned to promote these areas beyond what is already being done. Given the sorry state of China’s economy, that is not enough.

!function(n) if(!window.cnxps) window.cnxps=,window.cnxps.cmd=[]; var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’); t.display=’none’,t.onload=function() var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’); c.src=’//cd.connatix.com/connatix.playspace.js’,c.setAttribute(‘defer’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c) ,n.head.appendChild(t) (document);
(function() function createUniqueId() return ‘xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx’.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) 0x8); return v.toString(16); ); const randId = createUniqueId(); document.getElementsByClassName(‘fbs-cnx’)[0].setAttribute(‘id’, randId); document.getElementById(randId).removeAttribute(‘class’); (new Image()).src = ‘https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=2f8ffe6b-3135-4f5d-92bc-d6a427cad63a’; cnxps.cmd.push(function () cnxps( playerId: ‘2f8ffe6b-3135-4f5d-92bc-d6a427cad63a’).render(randId); ); )();

If the Two Sessions is supposed to announce a guide to China’s future, this year’s meeting missed its mission, especially in the face of China’s many economic and financial problems. Perhaps more complete and substantive guidance will emerge at next month’s politburo meeting, but given how the Two Sessions went, that seems unlikely. China’s leadership seems to have run out of ideas.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

U.S. economic growth for last quarter revised up slightly to healthy 3.4% annual rate

Published

 on

The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3.4 per cent annual pace from October through December, the government said Thursday in an upgrade from its previous estimate. The government had previously estimated that the economy expanded at a 3.2 per cent rate last quarter.

The Commerce Department’s revised measure of the nation’s gross domestic product – the total output of goods and services – confirmed that the economy decelerated from its sizzling 4.9 per cent rate of expansion in the July-September quarter.

But last quarter’s growth was still a solid performance, coming in the face of higher interest rates and powered by growing consumer spending, exports and business investment in buildings and software. It marked the sixth straight quarter in which the economy has grown at an annual rate above 2 per cent.

For all of 2023, the U.S. economy – the world’s biggest – grew 2.5 per cent, up from 1.9 per cent in 2022. In the current January-March quarter, the economy is believed to be growing at a slower but still decent 2.1 per cent annual rate, according to a forecasting model issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

300x250x1

Thursday’s GDP report also suggested that inflation pressures were continuing to ease. The Federal Reserve’s favoured measure of prices – called the personal consumption expenditures price index – rose at a 1.8 per cent annual rate in the fourth quarter. That was down from 2.6 per cent in the third quarter, and it was the smallest rise since 2020, when COVID-19 triggered a recession and sent prices falling.

Stripping out volatile food and energy prices, so-called core inflation amounted to 2 per cent from October through December, unchanged from the third quarter.

The economy’s resilience over the past two years has repeatedly defied predictions that the ever-higher borrowing rates the Fed engineered to fight inflation would lead to waves of layoffs and probably a recession. Beginning in March 2022, the Fed jacked up its benchmark rate 11 times, to a 23-year high, making borrowing much more expensive for businesses and households.

Yet the economy has kept growing, and employers have kept hiring – at a robust average of 251,000 added jobs a month last year and 265,000 a month from December through February.

At the same time, inflation has steadily cooled: After peaking at 9.1 per cent in June 2022, it has dropped to 3.2 per cent, though it remains above the Fed’s 2 per cent target. The combination of sturdy growth and easing inflation has raised hopes that the Fed can manage to achieve a “soft landing” by fully conquering inflation without triggering a recession.

Thursday’s report was the Commerce Department’s third and final estimate of fourth-quarter GDP growth. It will release its first estimate of January-March growth on April 25.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending