I don't think anybody has any idea what the economic impact of Brexit will be. Steve Eisman
Total Pageviews
Monday, 20 February 2012
Unit 4: Trade Deficit in Japan
Japan's trade deficit hits record high on fuel imports
Japanese carmakers have been among the worst hit by a strengthening yen and natural disasters
Continue reading the main story Related StoriesJapan's cabinet approves tax riseJapan economy worse than forecastJapan PM Noda in tax reform call
Japan's trade deficit surged to a record high in January as a strong yen hurt exports and its nuclear crisis resulted in increased fuel imports.
The deficit stood at 1.5tn yen ($19bn; 12bn) as exports dipped 9.3% from a year earlier, while imports rose 9.8%.
Fuel imports went up because most of its 54 nuclear reactors were shut after the earthquake and tsunami last March.
Japan has also been hurt by a slowdown in its key export markets such as the US and the eurozone.
"Special factors such as the earthquake last year, the nuclear problem and a temporary slowdown in the global economy as well as Japan's new year holiday came together and pushed down the trade balance," said Takeshi Minami of Norinchukin Research Institute.
Nuclear impact
Continue reading the main story “Start QuoteImports are likely to remain high due to solid demand for imports of fuel for electricity and brisk imports of parts”
The earthquake and tsunami on 11 March last year caused substantial damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, resulting in radiation leaks at the facility.
Some 80,000 people had to be evacuated from the surrounding areas. The leaks have raised concerns about the safety of nuclear energy in the country.
As a result the majority of Japan's nuclear plants have been shut and utility providers have had to turn to traditional thermal power stations to generate electricity.
These power plants need natural gas and coal to operate, resulting in a surge in imports of these commodities.
Imports of natural gas surged by 74% in January from a year earlier, while coal imports rose more the 26%, Japan's Ministry of Finance said.
Double whammy?
Japan's exports have been hurt by a strong yen, which has risen more than 7% against the US dollar since April last year.
A strong currency makes Japanese goods less attractive to foreign buyers as they have to pay more for them.
Analysts also say that a strong yen had resulted in Japanese firms sourcing more parts from outside Japan, which had resulted in increased imports and impacted the trade deficit.
They said this trend was likely to continue in the short term.
"Imports are likely to remain high due to solid demand for imports of fuel for electricity and brisk imports of parts," said Yoshimasa Maruyama of Itochu Economic Research Institute.
"Taking these factors together, a trade deficit will persist at least through the first half of this year, and how it narrows will largely depend on the recovery of overseas economies such as those in emerging markets in Asia."
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Unit 4: Essay Question
Homework question for Tuesday 21st
The value of the pound fell from £1 = €1.47 in May 2007 to £1 = €1.18 in November 2008. Examine the factors which might explain this depreciation of sterling against the euro. (20 Marks)
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Unit 3: Abu Dhabi hotels in price wars!
Hotel price wars 'bad for business' in Abu Dhabi
The company that manages Abu Dhabi's biggest hotel has warned against five-star properties cutting their rates in the face of increased competition, amid fears that price wars in the capital could deepen.
Six luxury hotels have opened in the capital over the past few months and more will launch in the coming months, fuelling concerns that profitability, which has already fallen sharply, could decline further.
"The price war exists," said Ali Hamad Lakhraim, the president and chief executive of Millennium & Copthorne Hotels for the Middle East and Africa, which operates the Grand Millennium Al Wahda in the capital. "In some cases you have five-star hotels competing with three-star prices. This is mainly created by general managers trying to fill hotels." Profitability has already fallen by 50 per cent from peaks in 2008 for many UAE hotels because of the global economic downturn and new supply, Mr Lakhraim said.
"General managers need to be well controlled, either by their companies or by their owners," he said.
"If a hotel which is 10 years old has to compete with a brand-new, newly opened hotel at the same level, the competition is not there really because the guest will probably choose the new hotel."
But Mr Lakhraim admits his company is also likely to be guilty of being dragged into the price war.
"In some cases I will have to cut prices as well, if I have to survive … For others who are opening new - they don't have clients, they don't have the loyalty or the people who are used to the hotel, and their depreciation and costs are very high. They can go and start harming the market, but then they wake up and realise that this is wrong, because it doesn't cover their expenses."
Hotels that have opened recently in Abu Dhabi include the Jumeirah at Etihad Towers and a Westin resort at Abu Dhabi Golf Club. Properties slated to open this year include the brand names Ritz-Carlton, Sofitel and the Anantara Eastern Mangroves hotel.
Philippe Anric, the general manager of the Centro Al Manhalin Abu Dhabi, a three-star hotel that opened in November, says that hotels in the city are having to compete much harder for business.
"It can be a challenge if some hoteliers start to panic," he said. "I'm afraid about the domino effect, where everybody is going to start to reduce the price - the five-star starting to chase the market of the fours and the fours starting to chase the threes. I hope it's not going to happen."
Analysts said the new supply would prompt many hotels to review various options to compete.
"It's a real conundrum," said Gavin Samson, the director for the hospitality property advisory firm Christie + Co, Mena. "The fear of both owners and operators is that obviously when new supply comes to the market in Abu Dhabi and Dubai's case - but particularly Abu Dhabi at the moment - these properties are driven by the need to generate revenue and to get market share and drive occupancy so they are going to reduce rates.
"The dilemma for the older properties is how do you compete with the brand-new boys on the block? Reduce room rates … or you have to consider the question of do I refurbish, do I reposition, do I take on another brand?"
Questions for discussion:
Is this price war good for consumers?
The company that manages Abu Dhabi's biggest hotel has warned against five-star properties cutting their rates in the face of increased competition, amid fears that price wars in the capital could deepen.
Six luxury hotels have opened in the capital over the past few months and more will launch in the coming months, fuelling concerns that profitability, which has already fallen sharply, could decline further.
"The price war exists," said Ali Hamad Lakhraim, the president and chief executive of Millennium & Copthorne Hotels for the Middle East and Africa, which operates the Grand Millennium Al Wahda in the capital. "In some cases you have five-star hotels competing with three-star prices. This is mainly created by general managers trying to fill hotels." Profitability has already fallen by 50 per cent from peaks in 2008 for many UAE hotels because of the global economic downturn and new supply, Mr Lakhraim said.
"General managers need to be well controlled, either by their companies or by their owners," he said.
"If a hotel which is 10 years old has to compete with a brand-new, newly opened hotel at the same level, the competition is not there really because the guest will probably choose the new hotel."
But Mr Lakhraim admits his company is also likely to be guilty of being dragged into the price war.
"In some cases I will have to cut prices as well, if I have to survive … For others who are opening new - they don't have clients, they don't have the loyalty or the people who are used to the hotel, and their depreciation and costs are very high. They can go and start harming the market, but then they wake up and realise that this is wrong, because it doesn't cover their expenses."
Hotels that have opened recently in Abu Dhabi include the Jumeirah at Etihad Towers and a Westin resort at Abu Dhabi Golf Club. Properties slated to open this year include the brand names Ritz-Carlton, Sofitel and the Anantara Eastern Mangroves hotel.
Philippe Anric, the general manager of the Centro Al Manhalin Abu Dhabi, a three-star hotel that opened in November, says that hotels in the city are having to compete much harder for business.
"It can be a challenge if some hoteliers start to panic," he said. "I'm afraid about the domino effect, where everybody is going to start to reduce the price - the five-star starting to chase the market of the fours and the fours starting to chase the threes. I hope it's not going to happen."
Analysts said the new supply would prompt many hotels to review various options to compete.
"It's a real conundrum," said Gavin Samson, the director for the hospitality property advisory firm Christie + Co, Mena. "The fear of both owners and operators is that obviously when new supply comes to the market in Abu Dhabi and Dubai's case - but particularly Abu Dhabi at the moment - these properties are driven by the need to generate revenue and to get market share and drive occupancy so they are going to reduce rates.
"The dilemma for the older properties is how do you compete with the brand-new boys on the block? Reduce room rates … or you have to consider the question of do I refurbish, do I reposition, do I take on another brand?"
Questions for discussion:
Is this price war good for consumers?
Labels:
kinked demand curve,
oligopoly,
price wars,
prisoners dilemma,
Unit 3
Unit 4: Economics Development - Africa and infrastructure funding
An ancient bus crawls along a dirt track, luggage piled dangerously high on its roof. The sight is so typical of Africa that tourists have come to expect it. But for Africans, poor roads are yet another poverty trap.
Highway networkThrough African Union countries. Cost unknown. A 100,000-kilometre expansion of the continent’s highway system is planned by the African Union. It is to comprise nine motorways, pass through 41 cities and connect about 500 million people. It is still at the concept stage.
Ethiopia-Kenya road linkCost US$326 million. The finishing touches are being put on plans for a road to link Ethiopia and Kenya, with the Kenya leg terminating at the port of Mombasa. It is projected to boost annual trade between the countries from $35m to $175m and help to make Kenya a medium-income nation within 20 years.
South Africa and Swaziland railroadCost 16 billion rand (Dh7.66bn). South Africa is to build a railway corridor passing through tiny Swaziland and linking coalfields in the interior with Richards Bay. The link would allow annual coal exports to India and China to increase by 20 million tons.
Democratic Republic of Congo road-rail linkCost $5bn. China has agreed to lend the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) the money to build nearly 2,000km of roads and railways. The system is to link the DRC’s interior with the coast as well as neighbouring countries.
With few cross-continent railroads or waterways, most goods must move by land. But getting a container from one country to another means surviving potholed roads, flooded bridges and even landmines. Along the way, there are officials, policemen and soldiers demanding bribes to allow the goods to continue on their way.
A study by the US department of commerce shows that transporting a tonne of wheat over the 1,000 kilometres from Mombasa in Kenya to Kampala in Uganda costs more than to ship it from Mombasa to Chicago - ten times the distance.
Questions for discussion:
How can Africa fund the improvements in infrastructure?
What are the advantages & disadvantages of external funding/internal funding?
Highway networkThrough African Union countries. Cost unknown. A 100,000-kilometre expansion of the continent’s highway system is planned by the African Union. It is to comprise nine motorways, pass through 41 cities and connect about 500 million people. It is still at the concept stage.
Ethiopia-Kenya road linkCost US$326 million. The finishing touches are being put on plans for a road to link Ethiopia and Kenya, with the Kenya leg terminating at the port of Mombasa. It is projected to boost annual trade between the countries from $35m to $175m and help to make Kenya a medium-income nation within 20 years.
South Africa and Swaziland railroadCost 16 billion rand (Dh7.66bn). South Africa is to build a railway corridor passing through tiny Swaziland and linking coalfields in the interior with Richards Bay. The link would allow annual coal exports to India and China to increase by 20 million tons.
Democratic Republic of Congo road-rail linkCost $5bn. China has agreed to lend the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) the money to build nearly 2,000km of roads and railways. The system is to link the DRC’s interior with the coast as well as neighbouring countries.
With few cross-continent railroads or waterways, most goods must move by land. But getting a container from one country to another means surviving potholed roads, flooded bridges and even landmines. Along the way, there are officials, policemen and soldiers demanding bribes to allow the goods to continue on their way.
A study by the US department of commerce shows that transporting a tonne of wheat over the 1,000 kilometres from Mombasa in Kenya to Kampala in Uganda costs more than to ship it from Mombasa to Chicago - ten times the distance.
Questions for discussion:
How can Africa fund the improvements in infrastructure?
What are the advantages & disadvantages of external funding/internal funding?
Labels:
Africa,
economic development,
infrastructure,
Unit 4
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Happy Valentines Day - 14 ways an economist says I love you!
How better to say “I love you” than with an economic model? There is something for every economist here with PPC’s, diminishing (or lack thereof) returns, game theory, natural monopoly, elasticity and more.
I have put my favourite two below, and the rest of them can be seen at this website. just click on this link - Happy Valentine’s day!
I have put my favourite two below, and the rest of them can be seen at this website. just click on this link - Happy Valentine’s day!
Monday, 13 February 2012
Unit 4: Is a trade deficit such a bad thing?
If the total spending by a nation’s residents on goods and services imported from the rest of the world exceeds the revenues earned by the nation’s producers from the sale of exports to the rest of the world, the nation is likely experiencing a current account deficit. The situation is not at all uncommon among many of the world’s trading nations. The map belowmap represents nations by their cumulative current account balances over the years 1980-2008. The red countries all accumulated current account deficits over the three decades, with the largest by far being the United States with a cumulative deficit of $7.3 trillion. The green countries are ones which have had a cumulative surplus in their current accounts, the largest surplus belonging to Japan at $2.7 trillion, followed by China at $1.5 trillion.
The top ten current account deficit nations are represented below. It is obvious from this chart that the United States alone accounts for a larger current account deficit then the next nine countries combined. At $7.3 trillion dollars in deficits over 28 years, the US deficit surpasses Spain’s (at number 2) by 1,000 percent.
The consequences of a nation having a current account deficit are not immediately clear. It should be pointed out that it is debatable whether a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing, in fact. Below we will examine some of the facts about current account deficits, and we will conclude by evaluating the pros and cons for countries that run deficits in the short-run and in the long-run.
Implications of persistent current account deficits: When a country like like those above experience deficits in the current account for year after year, there are some predictable consequences that may have adverse effects on the nation’s macroeconomy. These include currency depreciation, foreign ownership of domestic assets, higher interest rates and foreign indebtedness.
The effect of a current account deficit on the exchange rate: In the previous chapter you learned about the determinants of the exchange rate of a nation’s currency relative to another currency. One of the primary determinants of a currency’s exchange rate is the demand for the nation’s exports relative to the demand for imports from other countries. With this in mind, we can examine the likely effects of a current account deficit on a nation’s currency’s exchange rate. Additionally, we will see that under a floating exchange rate system, deficits in the current account should be automatically corrected due to adjustments in exchange rates.
When households and firms in one nation demand more of other countries’ output than the rest of the world demands of theirs, there is upward pressure on the value of trading partners’ currencies and downward pressure on the importing nation’s currency. In this way, a movement towards a current account deficit should cause the deficit country’s currency to weaken.
As an illustration, say that New Zealand’s imports from Japan begin to rise due to rising incomes in New Zealand and the corresponding increase in demand for imports. Assuming Japan’s demand for New Zealand’s output does not change, New Zealand will move towards a deficit in its current account and Japan towards a surplus. In the foreign exchange market, demand for Japanese yen will rise while the supply of NZ$ in Japan increases, as seen above, depreciating the NZ$.
The downward pressure on exchange rates resulting from an increase in a nation’s current account deficit should have a self-correcting effect on the trade imbalance. As the NZ$ weakens relative to its trading partners’ currencies, consumers in New Zealand will start to find imports more and more expensive, while consumers abroad will, over time, begin to find products from New Zealand cheaper. In this way, a flexible exchange rate system should, in the long-run, eliminate surpluses and deficits between nations in the current account. The persistence of global trade imbalances illustrated in the map above is evidence that in reality, the ability of flexible exchange rates to maintain balance in nations’ current accounts is quite limited.
Foreign ownership of domestic assets: By definition, the balance of payments must always equal zero. For this reason, a deficit in the current account must be offset by a surplus in the capital and financial accounts. If the money spent by a deficit country on goods from abroad ends up in the does not end up returning to the deficit country for the purchase of goods and services, it will be re-invested into the county through foreign acquisition of domestic real and financial assets, or held in reserve by surplus nations’ central banks.
Essentially, a country with a large current account deficit, since it cannot export enough goods and services to make up for its spending on imports, instead ends up “exporting ownership” of its financial and real assets. This could take the form of foreign direct investment in domestic firms, increased portfolio investment by foreigners in the domestic economy, and foreign ownership of domestic government debt, or the build up of foreign reserves of the deficit nation’s currency.
The effect on interest rates: A persistent deficit in the current account can have adverse effects on the interest rates and investment in the deficit country. As explained above, a current account deficit can put downward pressure on a nation’s exchange rate, which causes inflation in the deficit country as imported goods, services and raw materials become more expensive. In order to prevent massive currency depreciation, the country’s central bank may be forced to tighten the money supply and raise domestic interest rates to attract foreign investors and keep demand for the currency and the exchange rate stable. Additionally, since a current account deficit must be offset by a financial account surplus, the deficit country’s government may need to offer higher interest rates on government bonds to attract foreign investors. Higher borrowing rates for the government and the private sector can slow domestic investment and economic growth in the deficit nation.
Side note: While the interest rate effect of a large current account deficit should be negative (i.e. causing interest rates to rise in the deficit country), in recent years the country with the largest trade deficit, the United States, has actually experienced record low interest rates even while maintaining persistent current account deficits. This can be understood by examining by the macroeconomic conditions of the US and global economies, in which deflation posed a greater threat than inflation over the years 2008-2010. The fear of deflation combined with low confidence in the private sector among international investors has kept demand for US government bonds high even as the US trade deficit has grown, allowing the US government and central bank to keep interest rates low and continue to attract foreign investors.
Whereas under “normal” macroeconomic conditions a build up of US dollars among America’s trading partners would require the US to raise interest rates to create an incentive for foreign investors to re-invest that money into the US economy, in the environment of uncertainty and low confidence in the private sector that has prevailed over the last several years, America’s trading partners have been willing to finance its current account deficit at record low interest rates.
The effect on indebtedness: A large current account deficit is synonymous with a large financial account surplus. One source of credits in the financial account is foreign ownership of domestic government bonds (i.e. debt). When a central bank from another nation buys government bonds from a nation with which it has a large current account surplus, the deficit nation is essentially going into debt to the surplus nation. For instance, as of August 2010, the Chinese central bank held $868 billion of United States Treasury Securities (government bonds) on its balance sheet. In total, the amount of US debt owned by foreign nations in 2010 was $4.2 trillion, or around 50% of the country’s total national debt and 30% of its GDP.source:
On the one hand, foreign lending to a deficit nation is beneficial because it keeps demand for government bonds high and interest rates low, which allows the deficit country’s government to finance its budget without raising taxes on domestic households and firms. On the other hand, every dollar borrowed from a foreigner has to be repaid with interest. Interest payments on the national debt cost US taxpayers over $400 billion in 2010, making up around 10% of the federal budget. Nearly half of this went to foreign holders of US debt, meaning almost $200 billion of US taxpayer money was handed over to foreign interests, without adding a single dollar to aggregate demand in the US.
The opportunity cost of foreign owned national debt is the public goods and services that could have been provided with the money that instead is owed in interest to foreign creditors. If the US current account were more balanced, foreign countries like China would not have the massive reserves of US dollars to invest in government debt in the first place, and the taxpayer money going to pay interest on this debt could instead be invested in the domestic economy to promote economic growth and development.
Discussion Questions:
1. Why would a large current account deficit cause a nation’s currency to depreciate? How could a weaker currency automatically reduce a nation’s current account deficit?
2. Why should governments be concerned about a large trade deficit?
3. What is one policy a government could implement to reduce a deficit in the current account?
4. Would a nation with a large trade deficit be better off without trade at all? Why or why not?
The top ten current account deficit nations are represented below. It is obvious from this chart that the United States alone accounts for a larger current account deficit then the next nine countries combined. At $7.3 trillion dollars in deficits over 28 years, the US deficit surpasses Spain’s (at number 2) by 1,000 percent.
The consequences of a nation having a current account deficit are not immediately clear. It should be pointed out that it is debatable whether a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing, in fact. Below we will examine some of the facts about current account deficits, and we will conclude by evaluating the pros and cons for countries that run deficits in the short-run and in the long-run.
Implications of persistent current account deficits: When a country like like those above experience deficits in the current account for year after year, there are some predictable consequences that may have adverse effects on the nation’s macroeconomy. These include currency depreciation, foreign ownership of domestic assets, higher interest rates and foreign indebtedness.
The effect of a current account deficit on the exchange rate: In the previous chapter you learned about the determinants of the exchange rate of a nation’s currency relative to another currency. One of the primary determinants of a currency’s exchange rate is the demand for the nation’s exports relative to the demand for imports from other countries. With this in mind, we can examine the likely effects of a current account deficit on a nation’s currency’s exchange rate. Additionally, we will see that under a floating exchange rate system, deficits in the current account should be automatically corrected due to adjustments in exchange rates.
When households and firms in one nation demand more of other countries’ output than the rest of the world demands of theirs, there is upward pressure on the value of trading partners’ currencies and downward pressure on the importing nation’s currency. In this way, a movement towards a current account deficit should cause the deficit country’s currency to weaken.
As an illustration, say that New Zealand’s imports from Japan begin to rise due to rising incomes in New Zealand and the corresponding increase in demand for imports. Assuming Japan’s demand for New Zealand’s output does not change, New Zealand will move towards a deficit in its current account and Japan towards a surplus. In the foreign exchange market, demand for Japanese yen will rise while the supply of NZ$ in Japan increases, as seen above, depreciating the NZ$.
The downward pressure on exchange rates resulting from an increase in a nation’s current account deficit should have a self-correcting effect on the trade imbalance. As the NZ$ weakens relative to its trading partners’ currencies, consumers in New Zealand will start to find imports more and more expensive, while consumers abroad will, over time, begin to find products from New Zealand cheaper. In this way, a flexible exchange rate system should, in the long-run, eliminate surpluses and deficits between nations in the current account. The persistence of global trade imbalances illustrated in the map above is evidence that in reality, the ability of flexible exchange rates to maintain balance in nations’ current accounts is quite limited.
Foreign ownership of domestic assets: By definition, the balance of payments must always equal zero. For this reason, a deficit in the current account must be offset by a surplus in the capital and financial accounts. If the money spent by a deficit country on goods from abroad ends up in the does not end up returning to the deficit country for the purchase of goods and services, it will be re-invested into the county through foreign acquisition of domestic real and financial assets, or held in reserve by surplus nations’ central banks.
Essentially, a country with a large current account deficit, since it cannot export enough goods and services to make up for its spending on imports, instead ends up “exporting ownership” of its financial and real assets. This could take the form of foreign direct investment in domestic firms, increased portfolio investment by foreigners in the domestic economy, and foreign ownership of domestic government debt, or the build up of foreign reserves of the deficit nation’s currency.
The effect on interest rates: A persistent deficit in the current account can have adverse effects on the interest rates and investment in the deficit country. As explained above, a current account deficit can put downward pressure on a nation’s exchange rate, which causes inflation in the deficit country as imported goods, services and raw materials become more expensive. In order to prevent massive currency depreciation, the country’s central bank may be forced to tighten the money supply and raise domestic interest rates to attract foreign investors and keep demand for the currency and the exchange rate stable. Additionally, since a current account deficit must be offset by a financial account surplus, the deficit country’s government may need to offer higher interest rates on government bonds to attract foreign investors. Higher borrowing rates for the government and the private sector can slow domestic investment and economic growth in the deficit nation.
Side note: While the interest rate effect of a large current account deficit should be negative (i.e. causing interest rates to rise in the deficit country), in recent years the country with the largest trade deficit, the United States, has actually experienced record low interest rates even while maintaining persistent current account deficits. This can be understood by examining by the macroeconomic conditions of the US and global economies, in which deflation posed a greater threat than inflation over the years 2008-2010. The fear of deflation combined with low confidence in the private sector among international investors has kept demand for US government bonds high even as the US trade deficit has grown, allowing the US government and central bank to keep interest rates low and continue to attract foreign investors.
Whereas under “normal” macroeconomic conditions a build up of US dollars among America’s trading partners would require the US to raise interest rates to create an incentive for foreign investors to re-invest that money into the US economy, in the environment of uncertainty and low confidence in the private sector that has prevailed over the last several years, America’s trading partners have been willing to finance its current account deficit at record low interest rates.
The effect on indebtedness: A large current account deficit is synonymous with a large financial account surplus. One source of credits in the financial account is foreign ownership of domestic government bonds (i.e. debt). When a central bank from another nation buys government bonds from a nation with which it has a large current account surplus, the deficit nation is essentially going into debt to the surplus nation. For instance, as of August 2010, the Chinese central bank held $868 billion of United States Treasury Securities (government bonds) on its balance sheet. In total, the amount of US debt owned by foreign nations in 2010 was $4.2 trillion, or around 50% of the country’s total national debt and 30% of its GDP.source:
On the one hand, foreign lending to a deficit nation is beneficial because it keeps demand for government bonds high and interest rates low, which allows the deficit country’s government to finance its budget without raising taxes on domestic households and firms. On the other hand, every dollar borrowed from a foreigner has to be repaid with interest. Interest payments on the national debt cost US taxpayers over $400 billion in 2010, making up around 10% of the federal budget. Nearly half of this went to foreign holders of US debt, meaning almost $200 billion of US taxpayer money was handed over to foreign interests, without adding a single dollar to aggregate demand in the US.
The opportunity cost of foreign owned national debt is the public goods and services that could have been provided with the money that instead is owed in interest to foreign creditors. If the US current account were more balanced, foreign countries like China would not have the massive reserves of US dollars to invest in government debt in the first place, and the taxpayer money going to pay interest on this debt could instead be invested in the domestic economy to promote economic growth and development.
Discussion Questions:
1. Why would a large current account deficit cause a nation’s currency to depreciate? How could a weaker currency automatically reduce a nation’s current account deficit?
2. Why should governments be concerned about a large trade deficit?
3. What is one policy a government could implement to reduce a deficit in the current account?
4. Would a nation with a large trade deficit be better off without trade at all? Why or why not?
Friday, 10 February 2012
Unit 4: International Trade & Globalisation - the problem of interdependance!
Two articles from the BBC which highlight the issue of globalisation and interdpendance, one from China and the other India....
China's exports and imports dip raising growth concerns
China's exports fell in January, the first decline in more than two years, raising fresh concerns about the impact of a global slowdown on its economy.
Exports fell 0.5% from a year earlier amid sluggish global demand. Shipments were also hurt as factories were shut during the Lunar New Year.
Meanwhile, imports dipped 15.3% raising fears about slowing domestic demand.
China has been trying to boost domestic consumption in a bid to offset slowing exports and rebalance its economy.
They said that the bigger-than-expected drop, especially in imports, was worrying as it gave an indication of slowing growth.
"The collapse of imports begs particular attention," said Ren Xianfeng of IHS Global in Beijing.
"A fall of over 15% in January cannot be entirely explained by the lunar calendar, and adds weight to the view that economic output is slower than headline indicators might suggest."
Earlier this month, the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing reported that the import index for January fell to 46.9 from 49.3 in the previous month, showing slowing demand at home.
Despite these numbers, analysts said the dip was likely to be short-lived and imports may start to rise in the coming months.
'Biggest risk'
The export sector has been key to China's economic growth in the past few years as global firms have turned to Beijing to take advantage of its low-cost manufacturing.
However, a slowdown in the US and the eurozone, which are two of the biggest markets for Chinese goods, has seen the pace of growth of shipments slow in recent months.
The debt crisis in the eurozone and high rate of unemployment in the US have hurt consumer confidence and dented demand for Chinese goods.
Official figures on Friday showed that bilateral trade between China and the European Union fell more than 7% in January.
Analysts said the ongoing debt issues in the eurozone were the biggest threat to China's growth.
"We believe the major drag and biggest risk to China's growth in 2012 is weaker external demand caused by the ongoing eurozone debt crisis," said Ting Lu of Bank of America Merrill Lynch in Hong Kong.
"Our European economists expect a moderate eurozone recession at -0.6% in 2012, while nobody knows the exact probability and severity of a collapse of the eurozone."
Below are three other similar stories, click on link to see more;
Tata Steel is the world's tenth largest steelmaker and the biggest in India
The company saw a net loss of 6.03bn rupees ($122m; £77m) in the third quarter, Tata Steel said in a statement.
That compares with a net profit of 10bn rupees a year earlier.
Higher prices for raw materials as well as falling demand and prices in Europe contributed to the decline, Tata said.
Analysts were expecting a 3.4bn rupee net profit, according to Reuters news agency.
The company operates two thirds of its capacity in Europe, where the debt crisis is hitting demand.
The head of Tata's European operations said he did not expect demand to pick up this year.
"We are accelerating cash conservation in expectation of muted but stable demand in our core markets in 2012," he said in a statement.
Analysts said Tata Steel was being squeezed from both sides.
"There hasn't been a demand uptick that was expected, so prices have come down," said Ravindra Deshpande from Elara Securities in Mumbai.
"At the same time, none of their production costs are lower, so margins are under pressure."
Mr Deshpande added that he did not expect much better results in the next few quarters.
Related Stories
China's exports and imports dip raising growth concerns
China's exports fell in January, the first decline in more than two years, raising fresh concerns about the impact of a global slowdown on its economy.
Exports fell 0.5% from a year earlier amid sluggish global demand. Shipments were also hurt as factories were shut during the Lunar New Year.
Meanwhile, imports dipped 15.3% raising fears about slowing domestic demand.
China has been trying to boost domestic consumption in a bid to offset slowing exports and rebalance its economy.
'We believe the major drag and biggest risk to China's growth in 2012 is weaker external demand caused by the ongoing eurozone debt crisis'
Analysts said while the closure of establishments during the Chinese New Year affected the numbers, the decline could not be attributed to the festival alone.
They said that the bigger-than-expected drop, especially in imports, was worrying as it gave an indication of slowing growth.
"The collapse of imports begs particular attention," said Ren Xianfeng of IHS Global in Beijing.
"A fall of over 15% in January cannot be entirely explained by the lunar calendar, and adds weight to the view that economic output is slower than headline indicators might suggest."
Earlier this month, the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing reported that the import index for January fell to 46.9 from 49.3 in the previous month, showing slowing demand at home.
Despite these numbers, analysts said the dip was likely to be short-lived and imports may start to rise in the coming months.
'Biggest risk'
The export sector has been key to China's economic growth in the past few years as global firms have turned to Beijing to take advantage of its low-cost manufacturing.
However, a slowdown in the US and the eurozone, which are two of the biggest markets for Chinese goods, has seen the pace of growth of shipments slow in recent months.
The debt crisis in the eurozone and high rate of unemployment in the US have hurt consumer confidence and dented demand for Chinese goods.
Official figures on Friday showed that bilateral trade between China and the European Union fell more than 7% in January.
Analysts said the ongoing debt issues in the eurozone were the biggest threat to China's growth.
"We believe the major drag and biggest risk to China's growth in 2012 is weaker external demand caused by the ongoing eurozone debt crisis," said Ting Lu of Bank of America Merrill Lynch in Hong Kong.
"Our European economists expect a moderate eurozone recession at -0.6% in 2012, while nobody knows the exact probability and severity of a collapse of the eurozone."
Below are three other similar stories, click on link to see more;
Unexpected loss for India's Tata Steel
Tata Steel, the largest producer in India, unexpectedly reported a loss for the last three months of 2011, hit by weak demand.
The company saw a net loss of 6.03bn rupees ($122m; £77m) in the third quarter, Tata Steel said in a statement.
That compares with a net profit of 10bn rupees a year earlier.
Higher prices for raw materials as well as falling demand and prices in Europe contributed to the decline, Tata said.
Analysts were expecting a 3.4bn rupee net profit, according to Reuters news agency.
The company operates two thirds of its capacity in Europe, where the debt crisis is hitting demand.
The head of Tata's European operations said he did not expect demand to pick up this year.
"We are accelerating cash conservation in expectation of muted but stable demand in our core markets in 2012," he said in a statement.
Analysts said Tata Steel was being squeezed from both sides.
"There hasn't been a demand uptick that was expected, so prices have come down," said Ravindra Deshpande from Elara Securities in Mumbai.
"At the same time, none of their production costs are lower, so margins are under pressure."
Mr Deshpande added that he did not expect much better results in the next few quarters.
Related Stories
Labels:
China,
globalisation,
international trade,
Unit 4; India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








