April 26, 2024

Economix Blog: Ask David Barboza About China’s Economy

David Barboza

David Barboza has been a correspondent for The New York Times based in Shanghai, China, since November 2004. In a series of recent articles, he has examined China’s system of government-managed capitalism in depth. He will be answering questions from readers in connection with these articles. Submit your question via the comments section below. Mr. Barboza will respond to a selection of questions in the days ahead.

In the most recent article in the series, he looks at a pattern of conflicts between China’s emerging private sector and its powerful state-run enterprises:

Some prominent Chinese economists are warning that the potentially corrosive effects of an approach that favors government companies at the expense of the private sector could eventually stifle innovation, saying it could stunt China’s long-term growth and quash the rising aspirations of the nation’s 1.3 billion people.

Earlier, Mr. Barboza examined how the Chinese economy relied on enormous infrastructure projects, financed with government debt that can be concealed from auditors.

Another article looked closely at a missing element in China’s boom: the Chinese consumer.

Read the full Endangered Dragon series.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e12327258dcbc5860c5e0fc23d064e3b

Stocks and Bonds: Stocks Rally After Report Europe Might Recapitalize Banks

The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index spent most of the day in bear market territory, defined as a 20 percent drop from the recent peak. Less than an hour before the close, the index was down 1.9 percent. But in the final 49 minutes of trading it rose 4 percent after a report said European officials were discussing plans to recapitalize the Continent’s banks.

The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index closed at 1,123.95, up 24.72 points, or 2.25 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 153.41 points, or 1.44 percent, to 10,808.71, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 68.99 points, or 2.95 percent, to 2,404.82.

Analysts said that while the news from Europe might have been the immediate cause of the rally, the bigger story for the markets was their sustained volatility.

Investors remain jittery as they try to make sense of the debt crisis in Europe, an uncertain economic picture in the United States and a market that has fallen significantly, pushing stocks to levels that seem like bargain prices. In seven of the last 10 trading sessions, the Standard Poor’s index has moved more than 2 percent.

“It’s almost a schizophrenic view from investors. Have we fallen off a cliff, or have we hit the bottom?” said Richard J. Peterson of Standard Poor’s Capital IQ.

The rough ride will end only when some resolution is reached in Europe, Mr. Peterson said. But that day does not seem to be approaching very quickly. There are increasing signs that the economic situation in Europe is set to worsen.

The economy in the 17 countries that use the euro has already slowed to a standstill, and economists say they believe it could stay in a slump at least through the spring. There is widespread worry that austerity measures intended to reduce government debt will further choke Europe’s economies.

The price that European governments pay for credit-default swaps, which serve as insurance against default for their sovereign debt, rose sharply across Europe. After the markets closed in New York, Moody’s downgraded its outlook on Italian government bonds.

Interest rates rose slightly on Tuesday. The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note fell 20/32, to 102 25/32, and the yield rose to 1.82 percent, from 1.75 percent late Monday.

Earlier in Europe, stocks declined sharply. In London, the FTSE 100 index fell 2.58 percent, the DAX in Frankfurt was 2.98 percent lower and the CAC 40 in Paris was down 2.61 percent.

Finance ministers from the 17 European Union nations that use the euro postponed moves to release the next installment of aid to Greece, which means that Greece will probably not receive the 8 billion euros ($10.6 billion) before November.

European banking shares fell sharply, led by Dexia, a financial concern based in Brussels whose value has plunged this week because of its exposure to Greek debt.

Traders pinned the late surge in United States stocks to a report on The Financial Times Web site that European Union finance ministers were looking at ways to reinforce the capital reserves of Europe’s banks as part of a broader move to contain the crisis.

Earlier, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, voiced concern about the American economy when he addressed a Congressional committee. Mr. Bernanke called on Congress to take action on jobs, but also said that the Fed was prepared to make further moves to stimulate the economy. He said the turmoil in the markets was acting as a drag on the American economy.

Analysts noted the negative tone of his remarks.

“We’re no longer comparing it to what you would be expecting in a recovery — it’s that we’re not as bad as we were in 2008. He talks about the limits of what he can do,” said Eric Green, chief economist at TD Securities.

In economic data, new factory orders were down slightly in August, but not as bad as most analysts had predicted, according to figures from the Commerce Department.

Andrew Wilkinson, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak Company, said that the numbers were the latest in a series of economic indicators showing that the American economy was not slipping into recession. “It’s moving in the right direction, but it’s moving at a very slow pace,” he said.

Still, economists see the slowing economy in Europe as a troublesome sign for the United States. After the 2008 financial crisis, the American economy was fueled in part by exports. Interruptions in worldwide demand could cut off that road to recovery. A strengthening dollar could also be a concern, because it makes American exports more expensive.

The dollar rose to a fresh nine-month high against the euro, which fell as low as $1.3144, before recovering to $1.332.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b02472c93d5267a8027ea415e7e9bbe2

News Analysis: In European Crisis, Little Hope for a Quick Fix

What is going on?

The problem, say close watchers of both the subprime financial crisis in 2008 and the European government debt crisis today, is that many investors think there is a quick and easy fix, if only government officials can agree and act decisively.

In reality, one might not exist. A best case in Europe is a bailout of troubled governments and their banks that keeps the financial system from experiencing a major shock and sending economies worldwide into recession.

The latest rescue package for Europe gained approval from Germany on Thursday, after Chancellor Angela Merkel won a vote in Parliament, throwing the financial weight of the Continent’s biggest economy behind a new deal.

But a bailout doesn’t wipe out the huge debts that have taken years to accumulate — just as bailing out American banks in 2008 didn’t wipe out the huge amount of subprime debt that homeowners had borrowed but couldn’t repay.

The problem — too much debt and not enough growth to ease the burden — could take many years to resolve.

“Everybody has been living beyond their means for nearly the last decade, so it is an adjustment that will be painful and long, and it will test the resilience of societies socially and politically,” said Nicolas Véron, a fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels research group.

This is not to say that the discussions in Europe are moot. If governments can’t agree on how to rescue Greece from its debilitating government debt, some fear the worst could happen — a collapse of the financial system akin to 2008 that would ricochet around the world, dooming Europe but also the United States and emerging countries to a prolonged downturn, or worse.

Just like the United States, Europe built up trillions in debts in past decades. What is different is that more of the United States borrowing was done by consumers and businesses, while in Europe it was mainly governments that piled on the debt, facilitated by banks that lent them money by buying up sovereign bonds.

Now, just as the United States economy is held back by households whose mortgages are still underwater and who won’t begin to spend again until they have run down their debts, Europe can’t begin to grow again until its countries learn to live within their means.

In short, it means years of painful adjustment.

“We have to adjust to lower growth,” said Thomas Mirow, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, referring to both Europe and America. “It is of course going to be very painful. But leaders have to speak frankly to their populations.”

The uncertainty about Europe’s future has been driving the gyrations of financial markets since the summer. Earlier this week, stocks rallied on euphoria that a new, more powerful bailout was near, but the rally fizzled Wednesday when cracks began to appear among European nations over the terms of money being given to Greece.

On Thursday, markets were mostly up again after the German approval of the 440 billion euro ($600 billion) bailout fund, intended to keep the crisis from spreading beyond Greece and Portugal to other European countries. Several other nations still have to ratify the agreement, but it now looks likely to be in place by the end of October.

Even this fund, however, is already seen as inadequate. Some worry that it still fails to fully address one of Europe’s most pressing needs: fully recapitalizing its banks.

Now there is talk of enhancing the fund’s firepower by allowing the European Central Bank to leverage its assets to buy up troubled government debt from the financial system. That would serve mostly to shift the debt from European banks to taxpayers.

 “Clearly something is cooking, but the markets will eventually choke on the taste,” said George Magnus, an economist at UBS in London. “It is about getting banks off the hook, but the darker side is it’s not doing anything real.”

Not everybody shares this view. Some argue that Europe is actually in better shape than the United States. Debt levels are painfully high in European countries like Italy, Ireland and Greece, but overall euro zone debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is 85 percent, less than the 93 percent level in the United States.

Also, European consumers did not go on the same borrowing binge, so their retrenchment need not be so severe.

Joshua Brustein contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 29, 2011

An earlier version of this article used an incorrect unit in converting Europe’s 440 billion euro bailout fund to dollars. It is $600 billion, not $600 million.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=fa35bf29a38b59a2af68ec6b0b2cee32

Lagarde, New I.M.F. Chief, Rocks the Boat

EARLIER this month a phalanx of limousines and black vans lined up near the Palais du Pharo, an imposing Napoleonic-era chateau here whose chandeliered halls had been temporarily transformed into a bunker.

Chauffeurs had just dropped off precious cargo — the dark-suited finance ministers of Germany, France, the United States and the four other wealthy nations that form the Group of 7. The officials were gathering for a working dinner to talk about the swirling European debt crisis, which, despite their concerted efforts, seems to worsen by the day.

Their eyes soon turned toward Christine Lagarde, the new managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Not so long ago, she was one of them. But almost as soon as she crossed the Atlantic to take up her post in Washington, she had morphed into someone who now slightly bewildered them.

Ms. Lagarde had gone independent.

In the few short months since becoming the first woman to lead the monetary fund, Ms. Lagarde, 55, had taken her former European colleagues to task for not talking with a single voice to save the euro. In speech after speech, she had warned that the austerity that Europe was pressing on Greece and its debt-weakened neighbors was choking economic growth and needed to be tamed.

Worse, as far as the men seated in the room were concerned, Ms. Lagarde was partly responsible for the collapse of confidence bedeviling the financial markets. She had dared to state what few of them would admit publicly: European banks were not as sheltered from this storm as they might seem.

Was this the International Monetary Fund talking? It was now, under Ms. Lagarde. As the future of the euro hangs in the balance, she is emerging as a European who is willing to speak openly about Europe’s problems.

If Greece defaults on its government debt, as many predict, and Europe’s banks stumble, as some fear, the reverberations would be felt around the world. The next domino would be Italy, itself a member of the Group of 7. The Obama administration, alarmed by the possible spillover effects, is pressing European leaders to act decisively.

The monetary fund is already overseeing multibillion-euro bailouts in Greece, Ireland and Portugal — a situation that would have been unthinkable just three years ago. So, as much as anyone, Ms. Lagarde will help determine whether the union that has bound 17 European nations together, in the biggest postwar effort to ensure peace through economic stability, survives.

“Her first couple of months have been reassuring for those who feared the appointment of a European from a euro zone economy at a time of crisis,” says Simon Tilford, the chief economist of the Center for European Reform, a London research group that supports European integration. “She recognizes that the I.M.F. has to distance itself from the euro zone policy elite and its strategy for the crisis, which is clearly not working.”

At the annual meetings of the monetary fund and the World Bank continuing in Washington, Europe has dominated the discussion. In an announcement that added to the gloom in world markets last week, the fund cut its forecast for global growth and warned of worldwide economic repercussions if Europe couldn’t solve its debt problem soon. Ms. Lagarde’s lieutenant, the monetary fund’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, said the Continent needed to “get its act together.”

WHETHER MS. LAGARDE can do much to contain this crisis is uncertain. Sometimes her blunt talk has made a bad situation worse, and she has backpedaled after overstepping her bounds. In August, the share prices of Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and many other big European banks tumbled after she proclaimed that European banks were in “urgent” need of capital.

Irritated European officials and an even angrier banking establishment scrambled to control the damage. Christian Noyer, the governor of the French central bank and a friend of Ms. Lagarde, declared: “Quite frankly, I don’t understand what she said.”

Now, on this sweltering September evening in Marseille, finance officials pressed Ms. Lagarde to ease up. A senior American official let it be known that the monetary fund was starting to retreat on estimates that Europe’s banks might need at least 200 billion euros of capital. The next day, Ms. Lagarde appeared before reporters to say that that figure was “tentative,” and that the monetary fund was now discussing the final numbers with its European partners.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/business/economy/christine-lagarde-new-imf-chief-rocks-the-boat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Off the Charts: Debt Numbers Alone Tell Little About Fiscal Stability

But looking only at government debt totals can provide a misleading picture of a country’s fiscal situation, as can be seen from the accompanying tables showing both government and private sector debt as a percentage of gross domestic product for eight members of the euro zone. The eight include the largest countries and those that have run into severe problems.

In 2007, before the credit crisis hit, an analysis of government debt would have shown that Ireland was by far the most fiscally conservative of the countries. Its net government debt — a figure that deducts government financial assets like gold and foreign exchange reserves from the money owed by the government — stood at just 11 percent of G.D.P.

By contrast, Germany appeared to be in the middle of the pack and Italy was among the most indebted of the group.

Yet Ireland was slated to become one of the first casualties of the credit crisis, and is now among the most heavily indebted. Germany is doing just fine. Italian debt has risen only slowly. The I.M.F. forecasts that Ireland’s debt-to-G.D.P. ratio will be greater than that of Italy by 2013.

It turned out that what mattered most in Ireland was private sector debt. As the charts show, debts of households and nonfinancial corporations then amounted to 241 percent of G.D.P., the highest of any country in the group.

“In Ireland, as in Spain, the government paid down debt while private sector grew,” said Rebecca Wilder, an economist and money manager whose blog at the Roubini Global Economics Web site highlighted the figures this week. She was referring to trends in the early 2000s, before the crisis hit.

Much of the Irish debt had been run up in connection with a real estate boom that turned to bust, destroying the balance sheets of banks. The government rescued the banks, and wound up broke. Spain has done better, but it, too, has been badly hurt by the results of a real estate bust.

The story was completely different in the Netherlands, which in 2007 ranked just behind Ireland in apparent fiscal responsibility. It also had high private sector debt, but most of those debts have not gone bad.

The differences highlight the fact that debt numbers alone tell little. For a country, the ability of the economy to generate growth and profit, and thus tax revenue, is more important. For the private sector, it matters greatly what the debt was used to finance. If it created valuable assets that will bring in future income, it may be good. Even if the borrowed money went to support consumption, it may still be fine if the borrowers have ample income to repay the debt.

That is one reason many euro zone countries are struggling even with harsh programs to slash government spending. With unemployment high and growth low — or nonexistent — it is not easy to find the money to reduce debts. And debt-to-G.D.P. ratios will rise when economies shrink, even if the government is not borrowing more money.

Floyd Norris comments on finance and the economy at nytimes.com/economix.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=76ed74e70982a1839c709bd608bf8328

Economix Blog: What to Expect From the Fed

There are three kinds of announcements the Federal Reserve may make Wednesday at 2:15 p.m., when it discloses the much-anticipated results of the latest meeting of its policy-making committee:

Full speed ahead. Growth is lethargic at best. Twenty-five million Americans cannot find full-time jobs. The Fed is responsible for addressing unemployment, it has undertaken a series of novel efforts to stimulate growth, and the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, has not discouraged speculation that he is ready to try again.

Investors are expecting a new effort to reduce long-term interest rates modeled on a 1960s program dubbed Operation Twist. The central bank has made borrowing cheaper for businesses and consumers by purchasing more than $2 trillion of government debt and mortgage-backed securities. By reducing the supply of securities available to other investors, it forced them to pay higher prices — that is, to accept lower interest rates — and to shift money into riskier investments with much the same effect.

The Fed could seek to amplify that impact by reorienting its portfolio toward longer-term securities, essentially taking on more risk without investing more money. That could force other investors, in turn, to take larger risks in the face of lower returns. And the hope is that the resulting drop in interest rates will nudge companies to build new factories, and consumers to buy new dishwashers.

Morgan Stanley, which expects the Fed to announce such a program Wednesday, said in a note to clients that it is “no silver bullet,” but could lower yields on 10-year Treasuries by up to 0.35 percentage points, similar to the drop from the Fed’s most recent purchases of $600 billion in Treasuries.

Check back in November. Some close watchers of the central bank expect that the Fed will defer any decision to “Twist” — or take any other major steps — until the board next meets in November, but that the board will make a smaller gesture Wednesday to signal its commitment to help.

Only a month has passed since the Fed announced that it intended to hold short-term interest rates near zero for at least two more years, and the board may want to wait before announcing further measures. The economy, after all, is growing at a modest pace and the options that remain available carry less power to lift growth and greater risk of consequences than those already deployed.

Moreover, investors already have driven down long-term interest rates in anticipation of action by the central bank. So long as investors remain convinced that the Fed will act eventually, there is little to be gained by unveiling such a program. Laurence H. Meyer, a former Fed governor who now leads the forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers, suggests the Fed could announce that it will invest the proceeds of maturing securities — about $20 billion each month — in longer-term debt.

“Together with a strongly worded statement, this decision could help avoid a significant market sell-off,” MacroAdvisers wrote in a note to clients predicting the Fed would announce such a gesture Wednesday, and then announce a revival of Operation Twist after the board’s November meeting.

We’re not doing anything new. Republicans have been increasingly vocal in their insistence that the Fed should stop trying to increase growth. They argue that the central bank’s existing efforts are not helping, and that new efforts could have negative consequences. Republican presidential candidates have made criticism of the Fed a central theme of the early campaign, and Republican leaders in the House and Senate sent a letter Tuesday to Mr. Bernanke warning against new measures.

“We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy,” said the letter, signed by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader; Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate Republican whip; the House speaker, John Boehner of Ohio; and the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia.

A vocal minority of the Fed’s policy-making board shares this reluctance to take further action. Three of the board’s 10 members dissented from the board’s most recent effort to foster growth in August.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=10a98f0204c6971125e5cef1c8eb53e3

Resignation at European Central Bank Reveals Split

Stock markets swooned in Europe and the euro fell against the dollar after the bank announced the resignation of Jürgen Stark, a German who is the central bank’s de facto chief economist and also a member of its policy-setting governing council, and the sell-off continued in the United States, with the major indexes all falling more than 2 percent.

Although the central bank said that Mr. Stark was leaving for personal reasons, the impression was that Mr. Stark’s departure was connected to his well-known opposition to the bank’s buying of government bonds to ease pressure on countries like Greece, Italy and Spain.

Mr. Stark’s resignation, nearly three years before his term was up, is widely viewed as another fissure in the edifice of European unity, which has suffered as wealthier countries like Germany have been asked to underwrite poor performers like Greece.

“It’s a very bad sign,” said Daniel Gros, director of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels. “It means that the split within the E.C.B. that we thought was far down the road is here now.

“It puts a shadow over the E.C.B. and risks financial markets asking, ‘How long can they go on buying these Italian bonds?’ This indicates that the answer is, ‘Not as long as I had thought.’ ”

The government debt crisis among the 17-nation euro union’s weaker members continues to weigh on markets, and any sign of a deepening in the rift between rich and poor countries could further spook investors.

There is a chance that Mr. Stark’s departure could give the central bank a freer hand. Mr. Stark was an inflation hard-liner very much in the German tradition, and his dissent created an impression that the bank suffered internal divisions. Mr. Stark declined a request for comment.

But if, as expected, a German replaces him, that new member of the bank board is very likely to be as mindful as Mr. Stark of the fierce opposition that the bank’s policy has generated in Germany.

Germany’s finance minister declined to comment on reports that his country would recommend Jörg Asmussen, a deputy finance minister, to replace Mr. Stark, who was the only German on the six-member executive board. Mr. Asmussen has been a central figure in negotiations with other euro zone countries on how to deal with the sovereign debt crisis.

While Mr. Asmussen’s views on monetary policy are not well known, he comes from the same tradition of German economics as Mr. Stark — one that puts an emphasis on price stability and is skeptical of efforts to help countries that run up too much debt. So it is not clear if he would be any more receptive to the central bank’s bond buying than Mr. Stark has been.

When the Bundesbank, the German central bank, was Europe’s most powerful monetary authority before the advent of the euro union in 1999, it made controlling prices its mission. There are mounting concerns in Germany and elsewhere that the European Central Bank has overstepped its bounds in trying to fight the current crisis by acting as the buyer of last resort for Italian and Spanish bonds to prevent those countries from slipping closer to insolvency.

In a statement Friday, Kurt Lauk, president of the economic council for the Christian Democrats — the party of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — called the resignation “a dramatic alarm bell for the fact that the E.C.B. must be led back to the right path.”

As the debt crisis continues, the future of the euro union has become increasingly uncertain. Lawmakers and citizens in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, which are known for fiscal responsibility, are watching events in Athens and Rome with growing skepticism and even alarm.

Mr. Stark had warned of rising danger from public spending in a column to be published Monday in the Handelsblatt newspaper, Reuters reported. “We are in a situation in which the massive sustainability risks in public sector budgets are undermining financial stability,” he wrote.

Jack Ewing reported from Frankfurt and Nicholas Kulish from Berlin. David Jolly contributed reporting from Paris.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d53b6a5ec2a2a6f6fe97adc22410cfca

Pledge for Euro Unity May Not Be Enough to Satisfy Markets

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany called for each nation in the euro zone to enshrine a “golden rule” into their national constitutions to work toward balanced budgets and debt reduction, a level of discipline well beyond the current, oft-broken commitment.

They also pledged to push for a new tax on financial transactions, and for regular summit meetings of the zone’s members under the leadership of Herman Van Rompuy, who heads the council of all 27 European nations.

“We are certainly heading for greater economic integration of the euro zone,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

The much-anticipated meeting at the Élysée Palace here produced little that would seem to quell the nerves of bond traders, who are becoming increasingly worried that the economic slowdown in both Germany and France will make it harder to overcome Europe’s debt crisis.

Both leaders ruled out issuing collective bonds, known as eurobonds, to share responsibility for government debt across member states, and they opposed a further increase in a bailout fund that will not be put into place until late September at the earliest.

Mrs. Merkel repeated that there was “no magic wand” to solve all the problems of the euro, arguing that they must be met over time with improved fiscal discipline, competitiveness and economic growth among weaker states.

Even the stronger members of the euro zone have stalled. Official figures released on Tuesday showed that growth in the zone fell to its lowest rate in two years during the second quarter, and that Germany — considered the Continent’s locomotive — came almost to a standstill, growing 0.1 percent.

The German figures followed data showing that the French economy was flat in the second quarter, leaving Europe’s two largest economies stagnant. That means the two pillars of the European economy may be less willing and able to prop up their weaker counterparts, analysts warned.

Across the euro zone, gross domestic product rose only 0.2 percent in the second quarter from the first, when growth had advanced by 0.8 percent, according to Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics agency.

The joint French-German proposals were as modest as German officials had forecast. And the most ambitious idea — that all euro zone states legally bind themselves to working toward balanced budgets and reduced sovereign debt — is unlikely to be accepted by all member states. It may not even get through the French constitutional process, since Mr. Sarkozy does not have a constitutional majority in Parliament.

The proposal calling for twice-yearly meetings and increased integration could formalize the “two-speed Europe” — of those in the euro zone and those outside it — that many warned of when the European Union expanded so rapidly after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Both leaders said that France and Germany must set an example, citing their agreement to propose jointly a financial-transaction tax by 2013 as “an example of convergence” needed in the entire euro zone. But such a tax is unlikely in the larger European Union, especially if Britain, which is outside the euro zone and contains Europe’s biggest financial center, continues to resist the idea.

They also said they would work to harmonize French and German economic assessments and, in the future, corporate tax rates.

“France and Germany are committed to strengthen the euro,” Mrs. Merkel said. “To that end we need to better integrate our economies” and “to see that the stability pact will be acted on.”

The stability pact, a central element of the treaty that established the euro zone, commits members to keep fiscal deficits to 3 percent of gross domestic product a year and total sovereign debt under 60 percent of G.D.P. Both benchmarks are regularly missed.

The Sarkozy-Merkel meeting came after a dizzying week in the markets and a general gloom about the lack of European leadership on the euro. Economists said the weak data could simply reflect a pause after two years of brisk expansion. But the numbers could also signal that the sovereign debt crisis is undercutting growth outside the countries like Spain that are most directly affected.

“The longer the sovereign debt market remains stressed, the greater will be the damage to the wider economy,” Lloyd Barton, an economist, said in a note Tuesday.

If there was any silver lining, it was the hope that slower growth would lead to less inflation, giving the European Central Bank more leeway to keep interest rates low and intervene in bond markets. Since last week, the bank has been buying Italian and Spanish debt on the open market to hold down yields so the two countries do not face ruinous borrowing costs.

What impetus remains in the European economy came from countries like Austria and Finland. Even Italy, with growth of 0.3 percent compared with the previous quarter, outperformed Germany. A whiff of hope came from Portugal, one of the countries at the heart of the debt crisis, as the economy stopped shrinking for the first time since October 2010.

Given the problems in the euro zone — sovereign debt, undercapitalized banks, aging populations, imbalances in trade, growth and competitiveness between northern and southern countries — many analysts and some officials have been pushing for the introduction of eurobonds, which would combine the credibility and collateral of all the members of the currency union.

But that could lead to a rise in borrowing costs for Germany and France, and a considerable rise in risk, too, something that neither country is currently prepared to accept, beyond a July 21 agreement to expand a bailout fund to 440 billion euros.

Mrs. Merkel in particular, cautious by nature, rules in a coalition with a weakened partner, the liberal Free Democrats. Her own Christian Democrats are largely against writing blank checks for Europe, and the German constitutional court may not find eurobonds legal. Mrs. Merkel could probably find support among the opposition Social Democrats and Greens, but that would divide her party and undermine her government.

Mrs. Merkel is going to have enough trouble getting the July 21 agreement through Parliament.

As the chancellor’s European-minded finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, told the newsmagazine Der Spiegel over the weekend, “I rule out eurobonds as long as member states conduct their own financial policies.”

Steven Erlanger reported from Paris, and Jack Ewing from Frankfurt.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/world/europe/17europe.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix: Fiscal Forecasting at S.&P.

In cutting the rating of the United States government, Standard Poor’s complained that “the predictability” of American government actions is not what it used to be.

FLOYD NORRIS

FLOYD NORRIS

Notions on high and low finance.

It based its decision in part on a forecast of how much the federal government would owe 10 years from now.

Excerpts from Standard Poor’s report, “United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative,” Aug. 5, 2011:

The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges. …

We have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon. …

Under our revised base case fiscal scenario … we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021.

Oh, for the good old days when a Republican House and a Democratic president were united in working toward a common goal. Then there was predictability.

Excerpts from Standard Poor’s report, “U.S. Federal Debt Reduction Plans,” Feb. 28, 2000:

U.S. debt has been paid down significantly over the past two years, and it is estimated that U.S. publicly held debt will have been reduced by about $300 billion by the end of 2000. Additional debt reduction initiatives are planned at the federal level before the end of the year. …

On a broader scale, the president and the speaker of the House of Representatives have both called for the elimination of federal public debt by 2013 and 2015, respectively. Both plans would eliminate publicly held debt over about the same time frame, but through different means. …

Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert has called on the House Budget Committee to develop a budget that would accommodate eliminating the federal debt by the year 2015. Speaker Hastert believes this can be accomplished through maintaining the Social Security Trust Fund, weeding out wasteful government spending, and prudently spending surplus tax dollars to pay down outstanding debt and invest in other national priorities (such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare).

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=761346cf3bc599ed8cc5c4efdb1ebaf4

S.& P. Cuts U.S. Debt Rating for First Time

The company, one of three major agencies that offer advice to investors in debt securities, said it was cutting its rating of long-term federal debt to AA+, one notch below the top grade of AAA. It described the decision as a judgment about the nation’s leaders, writing that “the gulf between the political parties” had reduced its confidence in the government’s ability to manage its finances.

“The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenge,” the company said in a statement.

The Obama administration reacted with indignation, noting that the company had made a significant mathematical mistake in a document that it provided to the Treasury Department on Friday afternoon, overstating the federal debt by about $2 trillion.

“A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself,” a Treasury spokeswoman said.

The downgrade could lead investors to demand higher interest rates from the federal government and other borrowers, raising costs for governments, businesses and home buyers. But many analysts say the impact could be modest, in part because the other ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, have decided not to downgrade the government at this time.

The announcement came after markets closed for the weekend, but there was no evidence of any immediate disruption. A spokesman for the Federal Reserve said the decision would not affect the ability of banks to borrow money by pledging government debt as collateral, a statement that could set the tone for the reaction of the broader market.

S. P. had prepared investors for the downgrade announcement with a series of warnings earlier this year that it would act if Congress did not agree to increase the government’s borrowing limit and adopt a long-term plan for reducing its debts by at least $4 trillion over the next decade.

Earlier this week, President Obama signed into law a Congressional compromise that raised the debt ceiling but reduced the debt by at least $2.1 trillion.

On Friday, the company notified the Treasury that it planned to issue a downgrade after the markets closed, and sent the department a copy of the announcement, which is a standard procedure.

A Treasury staff member noticed the $2 trillion mistake within the hour, according to a department official. The Treasury called the company and explained the problem. About an hour later, the company conceded the problem but did not indicate how it planned to proceed, the official said. Hours later, S. P. issued a revised release with new numbers but the same conclusion.

In a statement early Saturday morning, Standard Poor’s said the difference could be attributed to a “change in assumptions” in its methodology but that it had “no impact on the rating decision.”

In a release on Friday announcing the downgrade, it warned that the government still needed to make progress in paying its debts to avoid further downgrades.

“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” it said.

The credit rating agencies have been trying to restore their credibility after missteps leading to the financial crisis. A Congressional panel called them “essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction” after their wildly optimistic models led them to give top-flight reviews to complex mortgage securities that later collapsed. A downgrade of federal debt is the kind of controversial decision that critics have sometimes said the agencies are unwilling to make.

Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/business/us-debt-downgraded-by-sp.html?partner=rss&emc=rss