Credit and Debt

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Your Tuesday Briefing: Putin Addresses Russia

      by

      Also, Pakistan’s military fired three top commanders.President Vladimir Putin during a televised speech yesterday. Sergei Ilnitsky/EPA, via ShutterstockPutin addressed the revoltPresident Vladimir Putin addressed the rebellion over the weekend by the Wagner mercenary group, led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, in a short televised speech yesterday. In his first public comments since Saturday, Putin tried to project unity and stability as questions swirled about the strength of his grip on power.Putin appeared visibly angry as he denounced the rebellion as “blackmail” and claimed that “the entire Russian society united and rallied everyone.” He did not mention Prigozhin by name.“They wanted Russians to fight each other,” he said. “They rubbed their hands, dreaming of taking revenge for their failures at the front and during the so-called counteroffensive.”Earlier in the day, Prigozhin also spoke publicly for the first time since Saturday. He said that he wasn’t seeking to oust Putin and denied that he had any intention of seizing power. He said that he was only protesting the new law that he said would have effectively halted Wagner’s operations in Ukraine.“We went to demonstrate our protest, and not to overthrow the government in the country,” Prigozhin said. Now, the future of the Wagner group remains unclear and Prigozhin could still face charges.Analysis: The short-lived rebellion — the most dramatic challenge to Putin’s authority in his 23-year reign — could undermine his power in the long-term.The war: Ukraine’s leaders are hoping to capitalize on the chaos in Russia to make gains on the front lines. The counteroffensive is off to a halting start, but leaders are urging patience and say the main push is yet to come.Imran Khan has accused the military of orchestrating his removal, an allegation that officials deny.K.M. Chaudary/Associated PressA crackdown in Pakistan’s militaryPakistan’s military fired three senior army commanders and disciplined 15 top officers over their conduct during recent protests that supported Imran Khan, the former prime minister. Analysts said it was the strongest action the military has taken against its own in decades.The crackdown sent a message that support for Khan would not be tolerated in the ranks. The punishments also underscored that the military would use an increasingly strong hand to quash support for Khan, who was ousted from power last year but has made a comeback in the months since.Details: Violent demonstrations erupted last month after Khan was briefly arrested on corruption charges, accusations that he denied. A military spokesman said that the members of the military who had been disciplined had failed to secure military installations against attacks by protesters.Arrests: Since the protests, at least 5,000 of Khan’s supporters have been arrested. A military spokesman said at least 102 will be tried in military courts, which has drawn widespread criticism from human rights groups.Inflation in Suriname is near 60 percent, and people are protesting.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesU.S.-China relations complicate lendingMiddle- and lower-income countries are grappling with untenable debts after years of low interest rates encouraged borrowing. The rivalry between China and the U.S. is now complicating their ability to get relief on time.For decades, the I.M.F. has regularly prescribed austerity as a condition for financial aid. But in recent years, China has emerged as a major lender for developing countries across the world, and its loans are accompanied by fewer demands.Now, the I.M.F. and the U.S., its most influential participant, have balked at providing some relief to debt-stressed countries until Chinese financial institutions participate. Otherwise, they say, Chinese lenders are free-riding on debt forgiveness extended by others. But as Beijing grows increasingly assertive, it has refused to bow to the West.As a result, countries such as Ghana, Ethiopia and Pakistan — each facing escalating debts, much of it to state-owned Chinese lenders — are caught in the crossfire.Case in point: Suriname was offered low-interest loans from the I.M.F., but the agency was adamant that Chinese creditors restructure $545 million in debt — loans Suriname had used to build roads and housing. The impasse delayed relief as inflation soared and children went hungry.THE LATEST NEWSAround the WorldKyriakos Mitsotakis has pledged to keep the country on the road of economic and political stability.Louisa Gouliamaki/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesKyriakos Mitsotakis, the leader of a conservative Greek party, was sworn in for a second term after a landslide victory. It’s another win for the right in Europe.An anticorruption candidate stunned Guatemala’s establishment by advancing to a runoff in the presidential race against a former first lady.Sierra Leone’s main opposition party accused the military of attacking their headquarters after weekend elections.A study found that loan officers in Uganda were more likely to offer credit to heavier-looking people. In a place where food can be scarce, obesity can signal financial security.U.S. NewsClimate change is intensifying flood risks in some of the country’s most populous areas.A shortage of cancer drugs is forcing doctors to give priority to patients who have the best chance of survival.Yasufumi Nakamori, a senior curator at the Tate Modern in London, will become director of the Asia Society in New York.A Morning ReadJes Aznar for The New York TimesIn the Philippines, an annual rodeo on the island province of Masbate is both a competition and a celebration of the country’s unique cowboy culture, with roots in the Spanish and American colonial eras.“Where there’s cattle, there’s rodeo,” said a livestock farmer who directs the festival’s rodeo events. “It is not necessarily American.”ARTS AND IDEASTony Cenicola/The New York TimesInside Barbie’s dream houseIn 1962, American women were denied mortgage applications because of their sex or marital status. But that year, Barbie bought her first home. It had a record player and a television set, but no kitchen. She was there to have fun, not to be a housewife.In the years since, Barbie’s Dreamhouse has been a mirror for social, political and economic changes across the U.S. It responded to the sexual revolution, to the environmental movement and even to pandemic remote work.Throughout that time, Barbie’s house has given little girls a subliminal, maybe even subversive, blueprint for economic liberation. Notably, the Dreamhouse was all her own — Ken wasn’t on the deed.Barbiecore: Hot pink and magenta are surging in popularity in home décor. The forthcoming “Barbie” movie is serving as a catalyst.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDavid Malosh for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Simon Andrews.This shish kebab is marinated in spiced yogurt.What to ReadThe novel “Banyan Moon” traces a family from 1960s Vietnam to present-day Florida.What to Listen toHere are nine new songs from our playlist.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Bit of fire (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you tomorrow. — AmeliaP.S. Take our photo-based geography quiz.“The Daily” is about the rebellion in Russia.You can reach us at briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Independent Voters Feel About Biden

      by

      More from our inbox:Grading Biden on the EconomyIf Only Republicans Were as Bold as the BritsSanctions Against Russia if It Invades UkraineYes, They Deserve a Lawyer  Illustration by Cristiana Couceiro, photographs by Chris Jackson/Getty Images and Pool photo by Steve ParsonsTo the Editor:“14 Independent Voters Share Their Fears” (Sunday Review, Jan. 23) reflects attitudes that may cause the downfall of the Biden presidency and result in even greater negative consequences.In response to a request for “a word or phrase that describes President Biden,” the answers were weakly moderate (e.g., “reasonable”) to completely negative (e.g., “incoherent,” “pathetic,” “clueless,” “complete disaster,” “spaced out”).Consider the issues and opposition that Mr. Biden faces: Vladimir Putin and Ukraine, Chinese economic and territorial expansionism, Covid, a divided Congress, Iran negotiations, Build Back Better, inflation, Supreme Court rulings, voting rights, economic and social justice, and last, but definitely not least, climate change. Consider also that the Afghanistan pullout and infrastructure bill are done.I do not believe that any president since World War II has confronted and tried to address so many major, even existential, issues at one time. I was not initially a Biden supporter. I do not necessarily agree with him on everything. My solutions may differ on the issues. But if I were to be asked for a word to describe President Biden, it would be “courageous.”Dean R. EdstromEden Prairie, Minn.To the Editor:As I read through the transcript of the focus group with “independent” voters, I couldn’t help but think: I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and worked on Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. Where’s my focus group?The media’s obsession with using Obama-Trump voters as a representation of independent voters has never made sense to me. While these voters may represent a segment of independent voters, they seem more drawn to strong personalities than good policies. Many in the group seemed susceptible to misinformation, a trait that I imagine led them to Donald Trump.There are other independents in this country who can provide much more interesting (and dare I say nuanced) takes on how the administration is doing. Those voters can have just as much of an impact on the elections in 2022 and 2024, if not more. I hope The Times will consider highlighting those voices as well in the future.Eric HinkleArlington, Va.Grading Biden on the Economy  Illustration by Rebecca Chew/The New York Times; photographs by Doug Mills/The New York Times, and Lauri Patterson, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “President Biden’s Economy Is Failing the Big Mac Test” (editorial, Jan. 23):Your editorial succinctly summarizes the economic policies of the Biden administration, the current state of the economy and its likely future trajectory. With all that in mind, it concludes that President Biden made the right choice in firing up the economy to avoid a sluggish recovery that would have caused considerable pain for many, even though this approach has caused near-term pain for a segment of the population.Were one, however, to read the headline, or even its first few paragraphs, one would come away with the incorrect notion that Mr. Biden — who the editors acknowledge has less ability to affect the economy than popularly conceived — has engaged in failed policies that have left people worse off than they ought to be.The Times can and should do better.Seth GinsbergEnglewood, N.J.To the Editor:The Times’s failing grade for President Biden’s economic performance needs to be re-examined. The editorial tells us your main measure is real weekly wages — the average worker’s wages adjusted for inflation. The editorial determined that Mr. Biden has failed, since the average real weekly wage fell by 2.3 percent over the last year.There are two major problems with this measure. The first is a composition effect. In 2020, many low-paid workers were laid off. This raises the average, in the same way the average height in a room rises when the shortest person leaves. The composition effect went the opposite way in 2021, as low-paid workers were rehired.The other is a pandemic price effect. Many prices, most notably gasoline, were depressed when the world economy shut down because of the pandemic. Predictably, these price declines were reversed when the economy reopened.If we want a more honest measure, we would look at real wage growth over the last two years, which is a very respectable 2.9 percent.Dean BakerKanab, UtahThe writer is senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.To the Editor:The problem is, nobody really understands the economy.Different economists will give different reasons for why the economy is doing what it’s doing. Some will get it right, many won’t. Some might be only partly right.When it comes down to it, there are often multiple reasons why the economy does what it does. And, no matter what the president does, the economy will go its own way because of multiple factors. So is President Biden at fault? A little bit yes and a little bit no.We have an economy being manipulated by Covid, oil-producing nations, supply chains, businesses inflating prices, etc. The president is the most prominent individual to aim at, but he’s only a small part of the problem. Do you know anyone who’d be more effective?Marshall CossmanGrand Blanc, Mich.To the Editor:Rather than blaming “Democrats, unable to agree on the terms of a permanent expansion” for the expiration of the child tax credit, the blame should be placed on one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin, and the 50 Republicans who are united in opposition.Michael CaplowSeattleIf Only Republicans Were as Bold as the BritsPrime Minister Boris Johnson in Parliament on Tuesday.Jessica Taylor/Uk Parliament, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “How Partying Could Be Boris Johnson’s Undoing” (The Daily podcast, Jan. 25):As I watch the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, tumble into a conflagration of his own lies and hubris as he flagrantly flouted Covid restrictions while the rest of Britain abided by the rules, I am struck by the members of his own Tory Party who are openly stating their disgust at his behavior.Certainly they are motivated by self-interest and the preservation of the Tory majority, but one can only wonder where we would be in this country if Mitch McConnell and other Republicans had confronted Donald Trump and openly declared their actual personal opinions about his mendacity and malignancy as David Davies, a senior member of the Conservative Party, did in Parliament. He quoted the words spoken to Neville Chamberlain: “You have sat there too long for all the good you have done. In the name of God, go!”The Republican leadership simply did not have the morality and courage of David Davies. We are all paying the price for their lack of character.Robert GrossmarkNew YorkTo the Editor:I have been struck throughout the pandemic by the resonances with Edgar Allan Poe’s story “The Masque of the Red Death,” in which a prince, attempting to escape a deadly plague, holes himself inside a palace and throws a masquerade ball. Spoiler alert: The plague gets in, disguised as a flamboyantly dressed guest.It does not surprise me that Boris Johnson’s demise may be thanks to a party of his own.Alice WalkerBrooklynSanctions Against Russia if It Invades Ukraine Mikhail Metzel/SputnikTo the Editor:If Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine, then the United States, Britain and the European Union should close their borders to Russian citizens and deny them visas.Let the oligarchs find new places to buy their mansions and launder their money. The West should not be a refuge for Russian money and rich Russians.Michael R. SlaterSan Luis Obispo, Calif.Yes, They Deserve a LawyerThe Rev. John Udo-Okon, pastor of the Word of Life International Church in the South Bronx, hopes to be trained to help his congregants defend themselves against debt-collection suits.Thalia Juarez for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Do Debtors Really Need a Lawyer When Sued?” (news article, Jan. 26):Yes, they do! Hundreds of thousands of overwhelmingly Black and brown low-income people face debt collection in New York State — from pending cases and cases in which creditors secured court judgments against them. Why should they have to settle for nonprofessional counsel in legal proceedings that can determine if they have food on the table and a roof over their heads for themselves and their families?If you have the means, you would never settle for a nonprofessional, and they should not have to either. New York State should expand civil legal services in this grossly underfunded area, particularly at this critical time.Dora GalacatosNew YorkThe writer is executive director of the Feerick Center for Social Justice, Fordham University School of Law. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      10 Challenges Biden Faces in Righting the Economy

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential InaugurationliveLatest UpdatesQuestions, AnsweredWho’s PerformingHeightened SecurityPast Inaugural FirstsJoseph R. Biden Jr.Credit…Ryan Pfluger for The New York TimesSkip to contentSkip to site index10 Challenges Biden Faces in Righting the EconomyThe pandemic has damaged the economy and cost millions of people their livelihoods. These are some of the areas that demand Joe Biden’s attention.Joseph R. Biden Jr.Credit…Ryan Pfluger for The New York TimesSupported byContinue reading the main storyJan. 19, 2021Updated 2:59 p.m. ETAll presidents come into office vowing to rapidly put into effect an ambitious agenda. But for Joseph R. Biden Jr., the raging coronavirus pandemic and the economic pain it is causing mean many things must get done quickly if he wants to get the economy going. In a speech Thursday on his $1.9 trillion spending proposal, Mr. Biden repeatedly stressed the need to act “now.”But piecing together a majority in Congress could take time: Compromises and concessions will be needed to get the votes he will need to advance legislation.The new president is expected to reverse many of Donald J. Trump’s policies that undid those of the Obama administration, in which Mr. Biden was vice president. But in some areas crucial to business — like trade relations with China and the European Union — he probably will not return the United States to the pre-Trump order. Nor is he likely to back off from the Trump administration’s efforts to curb the power of large technology firms.Here are some policy areas that will demand Mr. Biden’s attention, and determine the success of his presidency. — More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      What Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus Talks

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhat Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus TalksThe Fed’s emergency lending authorities are a key part of its job. Republicans want to curb them. Democrats are pushing back.Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that emergency programs backed by the Federal Reserve cannot be restarted after they expire on December 31.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesDec. 18, 2020Updated 7:49 p.m. ETAs markets melted down in March, the Federal Reserve unveiled novel programs meant to keep credit flowing to states, medium-sized businesses and big companies — and Congress handed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin $454 billion to back up the effort.Nine months later, Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that those same programs cannot be restarted after Mr. Mnuchin lets them end on Dec. 31. Beyond preventing their reincarnation under the Biden administration, Republicans are seeking to insert language into a pandemic stimulus package that would limit the Fed’s powers going forward, potentially keeping it from lending to businesses and municipalities in future crises.The last-minute move has drawn Democratic ire, and it has imperiled the fate of relief legislation that economists say is sorely needed as households and businesses stare down a dark pandemic winter. Here is a rundown of how the Fed’s lending powers work and how Republicans are seeking to change them.The Fed can keep credit flowing when conditions are really bad.The Fed’s main and best-known job is setting interest rates to guide the economy. But the central bank was set up in 1913 in large part to stave off bank problems and financial panics — when people become nervous about the future and rush to withdraw their money from bank accounts and sell off stocks, bonds and other investments. Congress dramatically expanded the Fed’s powers to fight panics during the Great Depression, adding Section 13-3 to the Federal Reserve Act.The section allows the Fed to act as a lender of last resort during “unusual and exigent” circumstances — in short, when markets are not working normally because investors are exceptionally worried. The central bank used those powers extensively during the 2008 crisis, including to support politically unpopular bailouts of financial firms. Congress subsequently amended the Fed’s powers so that it would need Treasury’s blessing to roll out new emergency loan programs or to materially change existing ones.The programs provide confidence as much as credit.During the 2008 crisis, the Fed served primarily as a true lender of last resort — it mostly backed up the various financial markets by offering to step in if conditions got really bad. The 2020 emergency loan programs have been way more expansive. Last time, the Fed concentrated on parts of Wall Street most Americans know little about like the commercial paper market and primary dealers. This time, it reintroduced those measures, but it also unveiled new programs that have kept credit available in virtually every part of the economy. It has offered to buy municipal bonds, supported bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses, and bought up corporate debt.The sweeping package was a response to a real problem: Many markets were crashing in March. And the new programs generally worked. While the terms weren’t super generous and relatively few companies and state and local borrowers have taken advantage of these new programs, their existence gave investors confidence that the central bank would prevent a financial collapse.But things started getting messy in mid-November.Most lawmakers agreed that the Fed and Treasury had done a good job reopening credit markets and protecting the economy. But Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, started to ask questions this summer about when the programs would end. He said he was worried that the Fed might overstep its boundaries and replace private lenders.After the election, other Republicans joined Mr. Toomey’s push to end the programs. Mr. Mnuchin announced on Nov. 19 that he believed Congress had intended for the five programs backed by the $454 billion Congress authorized to stop lending and buying bonds on Dec. 31. He closed them — while leaving a handful of mostly older programs open — and asked the Fed to return the money he had lent to the central bank.Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 18, 2020, 12:25 p.m. ETLee Raymond, a former Exxon chief, will step down from JPMorgan Chase’s board.U.S. adds chip maker S.M.I.C. and drone maker DJI to its entity list.Volkswagen says semiconductor shortages will cause production delays.The Fed issued a statement saying it was dissatisfied with his choice, but agreed to give the money back.Democrats criticized the move as designed to limit the incoming Biden administration’s options. They began to discuss whether they could reclaim the funds and restart the programs once Mr. Biden took office and his Treasury secretary was confirmed, since Mr. Mnuchin’s decision to close them and claw back the funds rested on dubious legal ground.The new Republican move would cut off that option. Legislative language circulating early Friday suggested that it would prevent “any program or facility that is similar to any program or facility established” using the 2020 appropriation. While that would still allow the Fed to provide liquidity to Wall Street during a crisis, it could seriously limit the central bank’s freedom to lend to businesses, states and localities well into the future.In a statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, called it an attempt to “to sabotage President Biden and our nation’s economy.”Mr. Toomey has defended his proposal as an effort to protect the Fed from politicization. For example, he said Democrats might try to make the Fed’s programs much more generous to states and local governments.The Treasury secretary would need to have the Fed’s approval to improve the terms to help favored borrowers. But the central bank might not readily agree, as it has generally approached its powers cautiously to avoid attracting political scrutiny and to maintain its status as a nonpartisan institution.Fed officials have avoided weighing in on the congressional showdown underway.“I won’t have anything to say on that beyond what we have already said — that Secretary Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, would like for the programs to end as of Dec. 31” and that the Fed will give back the money as asked, Richard H. Clarida, the vice chairman of the Fed, said Friday on CNBC.More generally, he added that “we do believe that the 13-3 facilities” have been “very valuable.”Emily Cochrane More