A coalition of labor and trade activists joined Democratic lawmakers from industrial states Tuesday to push the Obama administration to take action against the growing imports of auto parts from China.
The push to limit Chinese auto imports comes a week after President Obama announced in his State of the Union address that he was creating a trade enforcement unit to bring cases against countries, mentioning China by name.
It also comes two weeks ahead of a Washington visit by Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, seen as likely to become president of China when Hu Jintao’s term ends next winter.
Criticism of China’s currency valuation and other trade practices are likely to be a point of contention between the two major trading partners at the Obama-Xi meeting, especially as the U.S. election season heats up.
Those who participated in the Capitol Hill news conference had praise for the Obama administration’s rescue of General Motors (, Fortune 500) and Chrysler Group in 2009, as well as its past trade cases against China. (GM back on top in global sales race)
But they argued that unless there were new cases brought against Chinese parts imports that even more jobs were at risk, since 75% of those employed in the auto industry work for parts suppliers rather than the automakers themselves.
"We’re very proud of the turnaround in the Big Three, but we can’t sit back and celebrate their comeback as long as China unabashedly steals jobs from small businesses who make up the majority of the American automobile industry," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan.
The Democratic lawmakers who spoke Tuesday came from Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all expected to be key battleground states in this November’s general election.
Experts who spoke Tuesday argued that when China targets an industry, it can quickly come to dominate sales.
"If these policies are not stopped, by the end of this decade, China could seize 50% of more of our auto parts market, costing additional hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs" said Terrence Stewart, an attorney who has won trade cases against China in the past. "The last 15 years of watching other industries will tell you that’s not (just) a possibility but a high likelihood if there is not something done."
The critics say China’s improper support comes in the form of direct subsidies, as well as restrictions on U.S. operations in its market. China has become the largest market for auto sales in the world, and U.S. suppliers’ limited access gives Chinese parts manufacturers an unfair advantage, the critics argued.
Among those joining the presentation Tuesday were the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a trade group supported by small manufacturers and the United Steelworkers union, as well as the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, and the United Auto Workers.
But missing from the presentation were officials from GM, Ford Motor (, Fortune 500), Chrysler or their suppliers, many of whom have their own plants in China and don’t want to risk alienating Chinese officials by calling for tough trade actions.
"At this point, all the major auto parts producers are invested in China," said Robert Scott, international economist with the Economic Policy Institute. "Not only do they want these subsidies, they’re afraid to complain that they will lose share in China."
China has recently imposed its own tariffs on U.S. vehicle exports to China that would significantly raise the price of any vehicles exported there. It alleges that the U.S. industry is itself benefiting from unfair subsidies.
But even though GM now sells more cars in China than it does in the United States, the Chinese duties will have little impact on its sales there, since less than 0.5% of its Chinese sales are cars built in the United States.
Asked about the move at the Detroit auto show earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson refused to criticize the Chinese action against U.S. exports, saying "All countries, including the United States, have tariffs."
Looking for health insurance? Find a variety of affordable medical insurance plans.
Europe is getting tougher on government debt. After more than two years struggling to rescue financially shaky governments, leaders of the 17 countries that use the euro are ready to agree on a treaty that will force member countries to put deficit limits into their national laws.
At first glance, it seems logical _ after all, the crisis erupted after too many governments spent and borrowed too much for too long.
But a number of economists _ and some politicians _ say the focus on cutting deficits is misplaced and that more fundamental problems are being left unaddressed.
It’s how the euro was set up in the first place, they say _ one currency, but multiple government budgets, economies moving at different speeds and no central treasury or borrowing authority to back them up.
Until those institutional flaws are tackled, the economists say, the euro will remain vulnerable. So far, Greece, Ireland and Portugal have turned to other eurozone governments and the International Monetary Fund for emergency funds to avoid defaulting on their debts.
Nonetheless, Europe’s leading countries are pushing a new Europe-wide treaty that would as the leading edge of their effort to reassure markets. European Union leaders hope to agree on the treaty’s text at a meeting starting Monday, and sign it by March.
The proposed treaty pushes countries to limit “structural” deficits _ shortfalls not caused by ups and downs of the business cycle _ to a tight 0.5 percent of gross domestic product or face a fine. That comes on top of other recent EU legislation intended to tighten observance of the eurozone’s limits: overall deficits of 3 percent of GDP and national debt of 60 percent of GDP.
European leaders are also urging countries to improve growth by reducing regulation and other barriers to business.
Yet economists like Jean Pisani-Ferry, director of the Brueghel think tank in Brussels, says it’s striking that governments are focusing on budget rules, given Europe’s earlier experience with them. An earlier set of rules were largely ignored at the behest of France and Germany in the first years after the euro’s 1999 launch.
And some of the countries that now are in the deepest trouble _ such as Spain and bailed-out Ireland _ stayed well within the debt limit for years.
“This suggests that the simplistic view _ that a thorough enforcement of the rules would have prevented the crisis _ should be treated with caution,” Pisani-Ferry wrote in a recent article for Brueghel.
Some European politicians are also voicing doubts about focusing primarily on deficits. They include new Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, who has warned that growth is the real answer to shrinking debt in the long term. International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde has urged a broader approach. She calls for a willingness to share the burden of supporting banks and other financial risks so troubles in one country don’t become a crisis for the entire currency bloc.
Here are four reasons for concern cited by economists _ but not yet on the summit agendas of the eurozone’s leaders.
NO COMMON BORROWING: Without a central, pan-European treasury, there’s no steady central source of support for eurozone countries that run into economic or financial trouble. Many economists say issuing jointly guaranteed “eurobonds” would make sure no one country would ever default and governments would always be able to borrow. Governments would give up some of their sovereignty, allowing review of their spending and borrowing plans, to get the money.
Pisani-Ferry argues that this would protect governments from the kind of self-fulfilling bond market panic fueled by fears of default, that pushed Greece, Ireland and Portugal over the edge.
Yet the idea of more collective responsibility remains unpopular in prosperous EU countries such as Germany, Finland and the Netherlands. They can borrow cheaply due to their strong finances and would likely pay more to borrow at the rate that includes the shaky ones.
Eurobonds would also likely require a time-consuming change to the European Union’s basic treaty _ which currently bans members from assuming each other’s debts. There would also have to be a mechanisms in place to stop countries with shoddy finances from borrowing too much.
Opponents say that’s unrealistic. “If you have mutual debt responsibility, and freedom of each country to borrow, then each country can drive the eurozone into bankruptcy,” said Kai Konrad, managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance in Munich.
BANK BAILOUTS: Europe currently has no safety mechanism that would stop a country from sinking under the weight of having to bail out banks based in that country.
At the moment, each country bears the brunt of rescuing its own banks. This can create serious problems in a crisis.
For example Ireland’s loosely regulated banks borrowed heavily and loaned out money freely for speculative real estate projects. When the real estate market collapsed and the loans were not paid back, the Irish government had to step in to guarantee the bank’s bonds _ and quickly went broke. Ireland had a very low debt level of only 25 percent of annual economic output in 2007. As bank losses moved to the government’s balance sheet, by 2011 debt hit 106 percent of annual GDP. The country remains on EU-IMF life support.
Simon Tilford of the Centre for European Reform in London draws an analogy with U.S. insurer AIG, which was bailed out by the U.S. federal government in 2008. AIG was incorporated in the U.S. state of Delaware, yet Delaware did not go bankrupt handling the rescue. The central government stepped in.
TRADE IMBALANCES: Economists point out that gaps in how well countries compete and trade with one another have steadily widened since the euro was created.
Greece’s current account deficit _ the broadest measure of trade _ is even worse than its budget deficit. It buys and borrows far more than it sells and earns abroad.
Normally trade imbalances are evened out by fluctuating exchange rates _ but that can’t happen within the euro. Countries can improve their competitiveness by doing what Germany did in the 2000s _ cut labor costs to business by cutting general unemployment benefits. They can cut red tape and taxes. But that takes years.
Meanwhile, the region is also hampered by an inflexible pan-euro interest rate. Low interest rates _ set by the European Central Bank to see Germany and France through stagnation in the early 2000s _ were too low to control wage inflation and reckless borrowing in places like Greece and Ireland. Wage costs and debt levels rose. Competitiveness and exports declined, weakening the economy and undermining government finances.
CENTRAL BANK POWERS: Yet another structural issue is the limited power of the European Central Bank to support governments.
The bank resisted calls to buy larger amounts of government bonds. That resistance observes the spirit of the EU basic treaty, which forbids the central bank from financing governments.
But it’s a constraint that central banks such as the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England don’t have. They can buy up their country’s debt, a move that can push down government borrowing costs and reassure markets the state will always pay its debts.
The ECB remains “a limited-purpose central bank,” says Tilford.
He notes that Britain has more debt than Spain, 81 percent of GDP versus 67 percent, yet borrows at just over 2 percent annual interest for its 10-year bonds, while Spanish debt for the same period has a 5 percent-plus interest rate. One difference: markets know the Bank of England has the ability to support the government in a crisis by buying bonds and driving down interest rates.
Many of these issue were raised before the currency was launched in 1999, then got less attention.
Tilford says that “the tendency has been to say the currency union needs all these things but in practice it’s not necessarily the case” so long as countries obey budget rules and manage their finances well.
“It’s become harder to maintain that kind of argumentation now, given how bad things have got.”
Save up to $500 on your auto insurance! Compare car insurance rates, or get an insurance quote online.
New Zealand central bank Governor Alan Bollard signaled interest rates may stay at a record low for longer than he intended a month ago, citing inflation that
Greece’s finance minister believes his country will be able to reach a deal with private bondholders to cut its debt, despite tougher terms set by its eurozone partners.
Evangelos Venizelos said Tuesday “We have the green light from the Eurogroup to close the deal with the private sector in the next few days.”
Greece is in talks with private creditors to swap their existing bonds with news ones of a lower value and interest rates.
On Monday night, eurozone ministers decided to cap interest rates on the new bonds below 4 percent, less than the private creditors would like.
The bond swap will cut the face value of Greek bonds in half, thereby slicing some euro100 billion off its debt, and push repayments far into the future.
South Africa
Iran said Saturday it has evidence that the United States was behind the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist this week in Tehran, state media reported.
Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed in a brazen daylight assassination Wednesday when two assailants on a motorcycle attached a magnetic bomb to his car in the Iranian capital. The killing bore a strong resemblance to earlier killings of scientists working on the Iranian nuclear program, and has prompted calls in Iran for retaliation against those deemed responsible.
The IRNA state news agency said Saturday that Iran’s Foreign Ministry has sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. saying that it has “evidence and reliable information” that the CIA provided “guidance, support and planning” to assassins “directly involved” in Roshan’s killing.
The U.S. has denied any role in the assassination.
Iran delivered the letter to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which looks after U.S. interests in the country. Iran and the U.S. have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
IRNA also reported that Iran delivered a letter to Britain accusing London of having an “obvious role” in the killing. It said that a series of assassinations began after British intelligence chief John Sawers hinted in 2010 at intelligence operations against the Islamic Republic.
British media have quoted Sawers as saying that intelligence-led operations were needed to make it more difficult for countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Britain’s Foreign Office has condemned the killing of civilians. Israeli officials, in contrast, have hinted at covert campaigns against Iran without directly admitting involvement payday loans for bad credit.
The killing has sparked outrage in Iran, and state TV broadcast footage Saturday of hundreds of students marching in Tehran to condemn Roshan’s death and calling for the continuation of the country’s disputed nuclear program.
The U.S. and its allies fear Iran’s program aims to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges, and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
In the clearest sign yet that Iran is preparing to strike back for Roshan’s killing, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, the spokesman for Iran’s Joint Armed Forces Staff, was quoted by the semiofficial ISNA news agency Saturday as saying that Tehran was “reviewing the punishment” of “behind-the-scene elements” involved in the assassination.
“Iran’s response will be a tormenting one for supporters of state terrorism,” he said, without elaborating. “The enemies of the Iranian nation, especially the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime, or Israel, have to be held responsible for their activities.”
Jazayeri also accused the International Atomic Energy Agency of being partially to blame, saying that the U.N. nuclear watchdog made public a list of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials that “has provided the possibility of their identification and targeting by spy networks.”
Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin said the central bank should fine mortgage servicing companies that broke the law and are partly to blame for the current
U.K. banks expect to toughen the criteria on loans to companies and households in the first quarter because of strains in wholesale funding markets and the weaker economic outlook.
Stocks indexes were little changed Wednesday following a big gain the day before. Gains by retailers offset a decline in banking and financial stocks. Most other sectors were flat.
The Dow Jones industrial average inched up 3 points to 12,400 as of 12:30 p.m. Trading was relatively subdued following a surge of nearly 180 points the day before, which brought the Dow to its highest level since July. The Dow started the day lower, losing as many as 60 points in mid-morning trading, then went back to breakeven shortly after noon.
The Standard & Poors 500 index was down less than a point at 1,276, while the Nasdaq fell 2 points to 2,646.
Phone equipment maker Acme Packet Inc. plunged almost 20 percent after saying its quarterly profit and revenue would be well below analyst expectations.
Yahoo Inc. fell 2 percent after it named Scott Thompson, president of eBay Inc.’s PayPal division, as its new CEO. Yahoo has been without a permanent CEO since firing Carol Bartz in September. The company’s board lost patience with her attempts to turn around the struggling Internet company during her 2 1/2 years on the job.
European markets fell after the euro weakened to $1.29 versus the dollar from $1.30 the day before. Another increase in Italy’s long-term borrowing rates renewed worries about Europe’s flailing efforts to restore investors’ confidence in the region’s governments.
Germany’s DAX fell 0.8 percent, while the CAC-40 in France fell 1.5 percent. The FTSE 100 index of leading British stocks was down 0 on line pay day loans.6 percent.
Retailers were among the few industries to rise after a trade group for malls said sales rose 5.3 percent in the last week of December because of strong after-Christmas shopping. Lowe’s Cos. rose 1.5 percent and Ross Stores Inc. rose 2.3 percent. However, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. fell 1.3 percent, making it the biggest decliner among the Dow’s 30 stocks. Analysts have been concerned that some retailers boosted holiday sales with deep discounts that will hurt profits.
Ford Motor Co. rose 2.4 percent after the auto maker said last year’s sales jumped 11 percent because of strong demand for trucks and SUVs. December sales rose 10 percent. Chrysler, owned by Italy’s Fiat, said sales rose 26 percent for the year and 37 percent in January. General Motors Co. said U.S. sales rose 13 percent last year. Analysts have been expecting December to be a strong sales month for the U.S. auto business as confidence in the economy unlocks pent-up demand.
Fallen photography pioneer Eastman Kodak Co. lost 2 cents to 64 cents after the company said its stock could be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange if it doesn’t rise above $1 in the next six months.
U.S. stocks opened the year with a bang on Tuesday. The Dow and S&P 500 each rose 1.5 percent after a measure of U.S. manufacturing expanded at the fastest rate in six months.
Kim Jong Un may relax state controls over North Korea
Powered by WordPress -- XHTML 1.0