Connect with us

Economy

Japan economy at critical juncture as virus risks growth, Olympics – The Mainichi

Published

on



People are reflected on the electronic board of a securities firm in Tokyo, Wednesday, March 18, 2020. (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)

TOKYO (Kyodo) — Hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak, Japan’s economy faces its biggest challenge in more than a decade, with analysts warning of a technical recession and even the worse if this summer’s Tokyo Olympics is cancelled.

The epidemic has also hurt the credibility of Abenomics, a policy mix adopted by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe after he took office in 2012, which the government says has helped, together with a robust stock market, expand the economy.

But as the Bank of Japan is widely seen as running short of policy tools to further boost the economy after years of massive monetary easing, Abe is now forced to turn to state coffers for budgetary stimulus as large as the one offered in the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, even though it could deteriorate the country’s fiscal health.

“It’s possible Japan will slip into its worst recession since the 2008 crisis,” said Toshihiro Nagahama, chief economist at the Dai-ichi Life Research Institute.

Nagahama is one of those calling on the government to reduce consumption tax from 10 percent back to 8 percent on all products — not just food and daily items — as a provisional measure until the economy returns to normal.

Ahead of the tax hike, Abe and other ruling party lawmakers repeatedly said the increase would be nixed if the economy faced a situation as serious as the financial turmoil.

The Japanese economy shrank an annualized real 7.1 percent in the October-December period as the higher tax dented consumer spending. And it could further contract in the current quarter through this month, entering a technical recession, defined as at least two consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product.

First-quarter GDP is expected to contract 2.9 percent, according to the average estimate of 34 economists surveyed by the Japan Center for Economic Research, as the viral outbreak has disrupted production and exports and cast a shadow over the global economic outlook.

The government’s policy of restricting public events to prevent infections “is causing great damage” to the economy, Yoshimasa Maruyama, chief market economist at SMBC Nikko Securities Inc., said.

The worldwide spread of the virus has also threatened the Tokyo Olympics, slated to begin on July 24. Abe still hopes the games will help sustain a tourism boom in Japan and support growth.

Amid growing speculation that the event could be postponed for a year or two, or even be cancelled, analysts have started simulating tremendous losses to the economy.

“If it’s cancelled, the damage would be unmeasurable. This could also deteriorate public sentiment significantly,” said Nagahama.

The focus is on how large the next fiscal stimulus by the government will be.

Following the financial crisis, the government unleashed an emergency policy package worth 57 trillion yen ($513 billion) in April 2009 to shield the economy from negative fallouts under then Prime Minister Taro Aso, who is now finance minister.

The upcoming package, which Abe aims to put together early next month, could match the 2009 stimulus in size, some analysts said.

To buoy household spending, the emergency steps are likely to include cash handouts, extension of a government reward points program for cashless payments, as well as lowering the just-hiked consumption tax rate, sources close to the matter said.

Austerity is also in focus, however.

Abe has already introduced policy packages worth more than 1 trillion yen to fight the coronavirus, in addition to the 26 trillion yen stimulus launched in December to address shocks from the Oct. 1 tax hike.

The latest measures will likely be financed under a supplementary budget for fiscal 2020 with the government issuing new debt, adding to pressure on Japan’s fiscal health, the worst among major developed countries.

But Maruyama said, “Now is the time to temporarily shelve the viewpoint of fiscal discipline, and to give priority to putting the economy back on a growth path.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

We're at war and need wartime institutions to keep our economy producing what's necessary | TheHill – The Hill

Published

on


There can be no question about the nation’s current predicament. We are at war. We are faced with a public health crisis, yes, but the virus now ravaging our communities is a lethal invader taking American lives, threatening our way of life and destroying our productive capacity and economic health. 

We’re waging battle on the public health front with thousands of the most heroic and able health professionals on the planet, yet at the same time, it appears that despite Congress’ record $2 trillion relief bill we have no wartime strategy to get needed equipment where it is needed or to save our economy. We have no coordinated plan to mobilize workers, produce needed medical supplies, and distribute these to the facilities that need them.

We’ve faced down war on our people on our own shores before, so why not look to those occasions for clues as to how it is done? Many of the answers we’re looking for to respond to our current crisis and associated production shortfalls can be found in the measures taken by wartime presidents Franklin Roosevelt and, before him, Woodrow Wilson.

ADVERTISEMENT

The key to keeping wartime production humming has always been public collaboration, with the public firmly in the driver’s seat, with private producers.

The U.S. took such measures when Pearl Harbor was bombed. President Roosevelt established a War Production Board (WPB) to coordinate the repurposing and expansion of factories; the re-routing of existing and opening of new distribution channels, and countless other tasks entailed by the productive and distributive ramp-up necessitated by the war. Before that, President Wilson established a War Industries Board (WIB) to achieve the same ends during the First World War mobilization. 

Roosevelt’s WPB worked in tandem with Herbert Hoover’s and his Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), the already-existent financing arm of the New Deal. The RFC had been patterned after Wilson’s War Finance Corporation (WFC) of the preceding era, established to work with the WIB in overseeing and funding U.S. mobilization for the First World War. 

The WFC and the RFC directly financed mobilization, using a broad array of financing tools. They made direct grants, provided inexpensive credit or loan guarantees, and in many cases took equity stakes in individual businesses, thereby both recapitalizing them and taking internal governance rights to help guide production flexibly from the inside. 

Given the success of this model in our most “existentially” threatening earlier wars, why not update it now as we grapple with another lethal invader? 

ADVERTISEMENT

I have been advocating, in some cases on my own and in some cases with others, a number of possible models for a contemporary RFC for some years now. The idea must be not just to address crises ad hoc after they have emerged, but to treat healthy and ongoing ‘reconstruction’ and national development proactively as an always-necessary, continuous process in need of an effective and democratically accountable coordinator. Think of it as a smart industrial policy tool for managing a permanent policy need in any world, such as ours, in which technical needs and technologies themselves constantly evolving. 

A National Investment Authority (NIA), for example, which I first floated with my colleague Professor Omarova early in 2015, would develop, coordinate, and oversee the financing and execution of a coherent strategy of perpetual, across-the-board national development, in collaboration with private sector agents whose industries are implicated by particular projects. 

My National Investment Council (NIC), introduced more recently, would collaborate more with already-existing federal agencies whose mandates are implicated by specific industrial and infrastructural projects, bringing them together as the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) does our multiple financial regulators. It would accordingly resemble not only the RFC but also the Board for National Investments (BNI) advocated by J.M. Keynes in the 1920s. 

Either model would include a direct investment arm, which would act both in primary and in secondary to ensure both public and private sector provision of critical public goods. What makes these models especially relevant today is that they are designed to be platforms of precisely the kind that we need to survive our pandemic. 

Right now, they would mobilize a coherent productive response to the COVID crisis. They would inject capital into businesses that need it, take direct equity stakes in them as necessary, and direct resources coherently toward the production of what must be produced both to keep our people healthy and our economy humming. 

In recent weeks, my friends James Galbraith and Michael Lind have proposed an ad hoc Health Finance Corporation (HFC) to address the COVID crisis. Like the NIA and NIC, it is inspired by and patterned in part after the RFC. I find much to admire in this proposal, as does presidential candidate Bernie SandersBernie SandersOvernight Energy: Oil giants meet with Trump at White House | Interior extends tenure of controversial land management chief | Oil prices tick up on hopes of Russia-Saudi deal Oil giants meet at White House amid talk of buying strategic reserves The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden struggles to stay in the spotlight MORE (I-Vt.), who has proposed his own variant of it. I think we’ll do even better, however, to institute something more permanent.

Unless we’re all killed by the present pandemic, there will be others. And just as importantly, reconstruction and development — national self-renewal — are forever. 

Robert Hockett is the Edward Cornell professor of law at Cornell University, Visiting Professor of finance at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business, and consulting counsel at Westwood Capital in New York City. Formerly with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the International Monetary Fund, he is a frequent advisor to legislators and regulators in Washington and New York.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Opinion: Reality check: The economic crash is significant but it's not the apocalypse – Calgary Herald

Published

on


Stock markets have entered bear market territory meaning that they have lost 20 per cent of their value and in short order. Is the stock market’s reaction overstated? From an economic perspective, coronavirus is big. It started with an interruption in China’s output and if that wasn’t mainstream enough, now global travel is being interrupted, events are being cancelled and large social events are being prohibited. Meetings are being moved to virtual ones and extended breaks are being imposed on schools. This is disrupting our lives.

When the sub-prime mortgage fiasco resulted in the global financial crisis, the U.S. stock market collapsed as the Dow Jones Industrial Average index fell from a high of over 14,000 to a low of around 7,000 over a period of 18 months. There was a fear that the globe was entering a period of a global depression much like what had happened in the 1930s. That fear proved unwarranted as the global economy rebounded and the stock market resumed its upward trend. There are many reasons that the global economy was more resilient this century versus in the 1930s and the banking rules have been largely pointed to. I would posit that the degree of globalization, trade, availability of food, preservatives and energy, along with the portion of the population that is not living in abject poverty are all in the mix as to why the 2008 recession did not become a depression.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

"Sledgehammer" policies will destroy us; we need open economy says Johns Hopkins professor | – Kitco NEWS

Published

on


[embedded content]

Government-mandated policies of self-isolation will cripple the American economy, and the draconian measures taken to contain the pandemic are not necessary, this according to Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University.

“With the economy shutting down, the cost is going to be absolutely phenomenal,” Hanke told Kitco News.

Hanke likened the response to the virus from the U.S. and many Western European nations to a “sledgehammer.”

“The sledgehammer approach being used in most European countries and the United States is turning out into a very costly mistake. And what I mean by sledgehammer is they haven’t planned anything, they just have a blanket program where we’re all locked in our condos or houses and can’t move, and the economy shuts down,” he said.

Instead, governments should take the model that Sweden has set, Hanke said.

“If you look at some place like Sweden, Sweden has a very laissez-faire, very targeted approach, and they’re doing very well. The kindergartens are still open, the grade schools are still open, most factories are still open in Sweden. They are not imposing this sledgehammer and essentially wiping out the economy,” he said.

“The places that have done well in controlling and counting properly the victims of this pandemic are countries that have small, efficient governments, and free market economies. You look at Singapore, Hong Kong, they’re right up there,” he said.

Additionally, these nations have all practiced the “five P’s”: prior preparation prevents poor performance, Hanke said.

The U.S. is now the country with the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world, and the majority of the country has not yet been tested.

“Wherever the five P’s have not been applied, you have a disaster,” he said.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending