Monday, March 16, 2020

THE SNAG IS REPUBLICANS

House coronavirus package hits snag

Some Republicans are already expressing doubt that the Senate will approve the House package without changes. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) predicted Monday on "Fox & Friends" that the House coronavirus bill as written will not pass the Senate, raising questions about its paid sick leave provisions.
"It doesn't go far enough and it doesn't go fast enough," Cotton said. "Most of the measures in this bill are something that the senators will support, I believe. ... But we worry that the bill setting up a new and complicated system relying on businesses giving paid sick leave and then getting a refundable tax credit that won't move quickly enough and could put pressure on those businesses to lay workers off."
AH BE STILL MY BLEEDING HEART, THE GOP IS WORRIED ABOUT WORKERS
NOT THEY WANT THAT TAX CREDIT PASSED FAST
Aaron MacLean, Cotton's legislative director, sent an email to his fellow legislative directors Monday, saying the Arkansas Republican "feels strongly that the Senate should not accept the Pelosi-Mnuchin plan as a given for 'Phase II.'” He is urging the Senate to "adopt its own plan for economic assistance" with tax rebates, changes to the qualifications for unemployment insurance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and a more expansive program for low-interest loans to businesses. He has made his view clear to the White House.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-coronavirus-package-hits-snag/ar-BB11fRm7
Congress' coronavirus relief bill still doesn't actually guarantee paid sick leave for most American workers

IF BIDEN IS ELECTED PRESIDENT THIS WILL BE THE DEMOCRATS STANDARD PRACTICE 
LIKE IT WAS WITH OBAMA WHO TOOK A REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PROGRAM AND CALLED IT OBAMACARE.  

THEY NEEDED TO INCLUDE MORTGAGE AND RENT FORGIVENESS FOR THREE MONTHS.

Joseph Zeballos-Roig Mar. 16, 2020
Associated Press

House Democrats touted paid sick leave as a centerpiece of their emergency legislation last week, but it doesn't actually cover most American workers.

Up to 20 million people may not be covered by the sick leave policy.

Large companies employing 500 or more workers are exempt from complying, and small companies with fewer than 50 workers can lobby for an exemption.

"Any carve-out for employers puts workers at risk, and it becomes a public health concern," economist Elise Gould said.

House Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi touted a big win over the weekend when they passed emergency relief legislation for Americans hardest hit by the coronavirus crisis. They pointed in particular to the creation of a paid sick leave policy that would encourage employees to stay home and still get paid if they fall ill.

But the finer details of the bill reveal it doesn't actually cover everyone and it could leave out millions of workers.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act — which will likely be passed in the Senate later this week — exempts companies employing over 500 workers from the provision extending 14 days of paid sick leave equal to 100% of a person's salary to anyone seeking medical care or needing to quarantine.


The legislation also extends paid family and medical leave for workers at two-thirds of their pay up to three months. The benefits expire after a year, and the federal government is footing the bill through tax credits.

But only smaller and mid-sized businesses must comply. And businesses with fewer than 50 employees can also lobby for an exemption through the Labor Department if they believe granting the benefit would bankrupt them. It's not immediately clear what that process would look like.

Pelosi's office did not immediately return a request for comment. But she said on Sunday she didn't back using federal funds to enact a policy that should already be in place among large corporations.

"I don't support U.S. taxpayer money subsidizing corporations to provide benefits to workers that they should already be providing," she wrote on Twitter. "House Democrats will continue to prioritize strong emergency leave policies as we fight to put #FamiliesFirst."
How the bill leaves out a substantial chunk of American workers from getting sick pay

Large employers (500 or more workers) make up over 54% of the labor force, per data from the Census Bureau. Among these companies, around 89% have some paid sick leave policies in place, though it averages out to eight days, according to data from the Labor Department.

That means large businesses usually offer fewer days of sick leave than what would be mandated if they were required to comply with the Families First Act. Public health experts have urged anyone who may have been exposed to or who shows symptoms of coronavirus to self-quarantine for 14 days.

Even then, around 6.5 million workers don't have access to paid sick leave at these large companies, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Smaller businesses of 50 or fewer workers employ around 12.5 million workers who don't have sick pay, bringing the total number of workers who may not be impacted by the legislation at just over 20 million.

Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told Business Insider that providing pay to some workers who fall ill and must stay home was a positive first step.

But she said more needed to be done to keep people home without fear of losing a paycheck.

"It will expand coverage to millions of workers, but at the same time millions of them will fall through the cracks with the bill," Gould said. "The more people we send home, the more we flatten the curve," referring to efforts aimed at preventing the virus' spread to a point that's manageable for the nation's healthcare system.

Gould said she believed there wasn't a "good economic case" to exempt large businesses from the sick leave provisions.


"Any carve-out for employers puts workers at risk, and it becomes a public health concern," Gould said.

Studies have shown that cities and states that offer paid sick leave showed as much as 40% lower rates of influenza compared to those that didn't have a similar policy in place.
Some large companies are moving ahead to extend paid sick leave on their own. Target and Amazon are among them, The New York Times reported. Uber also said it would compensate drivers and delivery workers infected with coronavirus for up to 14 days.
UPDATED 
'Not for sale': Germany has reacted furiously to Trump's attempts to poach German scientists working on a coronavirus vaccine

Thomas Colson
Reuters


Germany is furious about reports that President Donald Trump offered German scientists "a billion dollars" for exclusive rights to a coronavirus vaccine to be used "only for the USA."

The German government said the reports were accurate.

The Trump administration, however, said claims the US would not share the vaccine had been "wildly overplayed."

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.


German government ministers have reacted furiously to reports the Trump administration has tried to buy exclusive rights to a coronavirus vaccine being developed by a German firm.

An explosive report in the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag cited German government sources as saying the Trump administration offered a "billion dollars" to secure exclusive rights to a coronavirus vaccine being developed by the firm CureVac, "but only for the USA."

The German health ministry told Reuters the report was accurate: "We confirm the report in the Welt am Sonntag," a representative said.

Following the report, Germany's foreign minister, Heiko Maas, insisted on Sunday that the government would not allow President Donald Trump to push ahead with such a plan.

"German researchers play a leading role in drug and vaccine development, and we cannot allow others to seek exclusive results," he told the media group Funke.

"Germany is not for sale," the country's economy minister, Peter Altmaier, told the broadcaster ARD on Sunday, according to AFP.

Karl Lauterbach, a senior German politician and professor of health economics and epidemiology, tweeted in response to the story: "The exclusive sale of a possible vaccine to the USA must be prevented by all means. Capitalism has limits."

A US official told AFP on Sunday that the report was "wildly overplayed" and denied any vaccine would be exclusive to the US.

"We will continue to talk to any company that claims to be able to help," the person said. "And any solution found would be shared with the world."

Florian von der Muelbe, CureVac's chief production officer and cofounder, told Reuters last week that the company hoped to have an experimental vaccine ready by June or July so it could seek permission to start testing on humans.

He said a low-dose vaccine that the company hoped to develop could make it suitable for mass production within CureVac's existing facilities.

In a statement last week, CureVac said its outgoing CEO, Daniel Menichella, had been invited to the White House for a meeting with Trump to discuss strategies and opportunities for the production of a coronavirus vaccine.

"We are very confident that we will be able to develop a potent vaccine candidate within a few months," Menichella said in a statement.

CureVac denied "rumors of an acquisition" in a Sunday statement. The firm said it had been in contact with many organizations and global authorities but "abstains from commenting on speculations and rejects allegations about offers for the acquisition of the company or its technology."

Trump 'offers large sums' for exclusive access to coronavirus vaccine

German government tries to fight off aggressive takeover bid by US, say reports


Philip Oltermann in Berlin@philipoltermann Mon 16 Mar 2020

A researcher at the German biopharmaceutical

company CureVac demonstrates work on a 
vaccine for the coronavirus at its laboratory in Tübingen.
Photograph: Andreas Gebert/Reuters

The Trump administration has offered a German medical company “large sums of money” for exclusive access to a Covid-19 vaccine, German media have reported.

The German government is trying to fight off what it sees as an aggressive takeover bid by the US, the broadsheet Die Welt reports, citing German government circles.

The US president had offered the Tübingen-based biopharmaceutical company CureVac “large sums of money” to gain exclusive access to their work, wrote Die Welt.Q&A
How can I protect myself from the coronavirus outbreak?Show

According to an anonymous source quoted in the newspaper, Trump was doing everything to secure a vaccine against the coronavirus for the US, “but for the US only”.

The German government was reportedly offering its own financial incentives for the vaccine to stay in the country.

The German health minister Jens Spahn said that a takeover of the CureVac company by the Trump administration was “off the table”. CureVac would only develop vaccine “for the whole world”, Spahn said, “not for individual countries”.

Earlier, when approached about the report by the Guardian, the German health ministry would only confirm the accuracy of the quotes attributed to one of its spokespersons in the article.

“The federal government is very interested in vaccines and antiviral agents against the novel coronavirus being developed in Germany and Europe,” the spokesperson quoted in the original article had said. “In this regard the government is in an intensive exchange with the company CureVac.”

The German health ministry spokesperson declined the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in Die Welt’s account.

With its headquarters in the south-western German city of Tübingen, CureVac also has sites in Frankfurt and Boston in the US. Linked with the German health ministry, it works closely with the Paul Ehrlich Institute, a research institution and medical regulatory body that is subordinate to the German health ministry.

On 11 March, CureVac released a statement that its CEO, the US citizen Daniel Menichella, was unexpectedly leaving the firm and would be replaced by the company’s founder, Ingmar Hoerr.

At the start of the month, Menichella was invited to the White House in Washington to discuss strategy for the rapid development and production of a coronavirus vaccine with Trump, the vice-president, Mike Pence, and members of the White House coronavirus task force.

The White House has been contacted for comment.


President Trump reportedly tried to poach German scientists working on a cure for coronavirus and offered cash so the vaccine would be exclusive to the US


Business Insider•March 15, 2020

Employee Philipp Hoffmann, of German biopharmaceutical company CureVac, demonstrates research workflow on a vaccine for the coronavirus (COVID-19) disease at a laboratory in Tuebingen, Germany, March 12, 2020. Picture taken on March 12, 2020. REUTERS/Andreas Gebert

President Donald Trump reportedly tried to poach German scientists working on a cure for the coronavirus so he could secure exclusive rights to a potential vaccine for the US only.

Newspaper WELT am Sonntag reported that Trump's administration had offered large sums of cash to Germany-based biotech company CureVac to secure rights for the vaccine work, "but only for the USA."

The German government is battling back, offering financial incentives to the company to remain in Germany.

Karl Lauterbach, a senior German politician and professor of epidemiology, said in response to the report: "The exclusive sale of a possible vaccine to the USA must be prevented by all means. Capitalism has limits."

CureVac said it has been in contact with many organizations and global authorities, but denied "rumors of an acquisition" in a statement Sunday to Business Insider.

President Trump reportedly tried to recruit German scientists working on a cure for the coronavirus and offered large sums of money to secure exclusive rights to their work for the US, according to a report which was confirmed by the German government.

Prominent German newspaper WELT am Sonntag reported that Trump had offered large sums of money to lure the Germany-based company CureVac to the United States and to secure exclusive rights to a vaccine.

The firm works with the federally-owned Paul Ehrlich Institute for Vaccines and Biomedical Medicines on a cure for the coronavirus.

CureVac denied "rumors of an acquisition" in a March 15 statement. The biotech company said it has been in contact with many organizations and global authorities, but "abstains from commenting on speculations and rejects allegations about offers for acquisition of the company or its technology."

A German government source said Trump was trying hard to find a coronavirus vaccine for the United States, "but only for the USA."

The newspaper said the German government is fighting back by offering financial incentives to the company if it remains in Germany.

A German health ministry spokesperson told WELT am Sonntag that the government was involved in "intensive" discussions with CureVac about keeping the company headquartered in the UK.

"The German government is very interested in ensuring that vaccines and active substances against the new coronavirus are also developed in Germany and Europe," the newspaper quoted a Health Ministry official as saying.

"In this regard, the government is in intensive exchange with the company CureVac."

In a separate statement, the health ministry told Reuters that the WELT am Sonntag report was accurate: "We confirm the report in the WELT am Sonntag," a spokesperson said.

Florian von der Muelbe, CureVac's chief production officer and co-founder, told Reuters last week that the company hoped to have an experimental vaccine ready by June or July so they could seek permission to start testing on humans.

He said a low-dose vaccine that the company hoped to develop could make it suitable for mass production within CureVac's existing facilities.

In a statement last week, CureVac said that outgoing chief executive Daniel Menichella had been invited to the White House for a meeting with President Trump to discuss strategies and opportunities for the production of a coronavirus vaccine.

"We are very confident that we will be able to develop a potent vaccine candidate within a few months," Menichella said in a statement.

Karl Lauterbach, a senior German politician and professor of health economics and epidemiology, tweeted in response to the story: "The exclusive sale of a possible vaccine to the USA must be prevented by all means. Capitalism has limits."



Germany tries to halt U.S. interest in firm working on coronavirus vaccine

Paul CarrelAndreas Rinke

BERLIN (Reuters) - Berlin is trying to stop Washington from persuading a German company seeking a coronavirus vaccine to move its research to the United States, prompting German politicians to insist no country should have a monopoly on any future vaccine.

German government sources told Reuters on Sunday that the U.S. administration was looking into how it could gain access to a potential vaccine being developed by a German firm, CureVac.

Earlier, the Welt am Sonntag German newspaper reported that U.S. President Donald Trump had offered funds to lure CureVac to the United States, and the German government was making counter-offers to tempt it to stay.

Responding to the report, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, wrote on Twitter: “The Welt story was wrong.”

A U.S. official said: “This story is wildly overplayed ... We will continue to talk to any company that claims to be able to help. And any solution found would be shared with the world.”

A German Health Ministry spokeswoman, confirming a quote in the newspaper, said: “The German government is very interested in ensuring that vaccines and active substances against the new coronavirus are also developed in Germany and Europe.”

“In this regard, the government is in intensive exchange with the company CureVac,” she added.

Welt am Sonntag quoted an unidentified German government source as saying Trump was trying to secure the scientists’ work exclusively, and would do anything to get a vaccine for the United States, “but only for the United States.”


German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer told a news conference that the government’s coronavirus crisis committee would discuss the CureVac case on Monday.

CureVac issued a statement on Sunday, in which it said: “The company rejects current rumors of an acquisition”.

CureVac’s main investor Dietmar Hopp said he was not selling and wanted CureVac to develop a coronavirus vaccine to “help people not just regionally but in solidarity across the world.”

“I would be glad if this could be achieved through my long-term investments out of Germany,” he added.

A German Economy Ministry spokeswoman said Berlin “has a great interest” in producing vaccines in Germany and Europe.

She cited Germany’s foreign trade law, under which Berlin can examine takeover bids from non-EU, so-called third countries “if national or European security interests are at stake”.


EXPERIMENTAL VACCINE

Florian von der Muelbe, CureVac’s chief production officer and co-founder, told Reuters last week the company had started with a multitude of coronavirus vaccine candidates and was now selecting the two best to go into clinical trials.

The privately-held company based in Tuebingen, Germany hopes to have an experimental vaccine ready by June or July to then seek the go-ahead from regulators for testing on humans.

On its website, CureVac said CEO Daniel Menichella early this month met Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force and senior representatives of pharmaceutical and biotech companies to discuss a vaccine.

CureVac in 2015 and 2018 secured financial backing for development projects from its investor the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, working on shots to prevent malaria and influenza.

In the field of so-called mRNA therapeutics, CureVac competes with U.S. biotech firm Moderna and German rival BioNTech, which Pfizer (PFE.N) has identified as a potential collaboration partner.

Drugs based on mRNA provide a type of genetic blueprint that can be injected into the body to instruct cells to produce the desired therapeutic proteins. That contrasts with the conventional approach of making these proteins in labs and bio-reactors.

In the case of vaccines, the mRNA prompts body cells to produce so-called antigens, the tell-tale molecules on the surface of viruses, that spur the immune system into action.

Companies working on other coronavirus-vaccine approaches include Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) and INOVIO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (INO.O).


US, Germany battle for virus vaccine surpremacy

AFP•March 14, 2020

US President Donald Trump (C, pictured with members of the Coronavirus Task Force at the White House) reportedly is trying to poach German scientists working on an experimental vaccine against the virus (AFP Photo/JIM WATSON)More

Berlin (AFP) - The United States and Germany are vying to produce an exclusive vaccine against the coronavirus which is being developed in a German laboratory, Die Welt daily reported Saturday

According to the paper, US President Donald Trump is trying to poach German scientists working on an experimental vaccine against a global health threat that has now killed some 5,500 people with a view to having an exclusive licence rolled out in the United States.

Such a vaccine would be "only for the United States," a source close to the German government told Die Welt, though Berlin would reportedly is looking to make offers of its own to biotech firm CureVac, based in the German state of Thuringia.

The company, founded in 2000, has other sites in Frankfurt and Boston.-

The firm markets itself as specialising in "development of treatments against cancer, antibody-based therapies, treatment of rare illnesses and prophylactic vaccines."

The lab is currently working in tandem with the Paul-Ehrlich Institute, linked to the German ministry of health.

It specialises in vaccine research.

"The German government is very interested in having the development of vaccines and active substances against the novel coronavirus undertaken in Germany and Europe," a health ministry spokesman told Die Welt, adding that the government was in "intensive" talks with CureVac.

As CureVac CEO, Daniel Menichella found himself invited on March 2 to the White House to meet with Trump, his vice-president Mike Pence and representatives of pharma companies working on how to respond to the pandemic, the company revealed on its website without indicating if financial offers had been put on the table.

"We are very confident that we will be able to develop a potent vaccine candidate within a few months," CureVac quoted Menichella -- who has since given way to founder and incoming CEO Ingmar Hoerr -- as saying following his Washington visit.

---30---
Amazon is hiring an additional 100,000 warehouse workers and raising pay as the coronavirus causes an 'unprecedented' increase in demand for this time of year
Mark Lennihan/AP


Amazon is adding 100,000 warehouse and delivery workers, according to a company blog post.

It's also raising their pay by $2 per hour through April.

The moves are meant to improve the working conditions of their warehouse and delivery workers as they are seeing a huge spike in workloads following the coronavirus outbreak that's causing more people to shop online.

Amazon will have roughly 900,000 total employees worldwide, following Monday's move.


Amazon said in a blog post Monday that it's hiring an additional 100,000 US warehouse and delivery workers and raising their pay by $2 per hour through April. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report it.

The increased hiring will bring Amazon's total workforce to nearly 900,000 worldwide. Amazon said it's investing roughly $350 million to increase the pay.

"We are seeing a significant increase in demand, which means our labor needs are unprecedented for this time of year," the blog post said.

The moves are designed to help its warehouse and delivery workers as they deal with increased workloads following the coronavirus outbreak that's causing more people to shop online.

Amazon said in a blog post over the weekend that, as the coronavirus spread across the world, it's seeing a sharp increase in online shoppers. That's caused some of its most popular brands and household staple products to run out of stock, while delaying its normal delivery cycle.


"We are working around the clock with our selling partners to ensure availability on all of our products, and bring on additional capacity to deliver all of your orders," Amazon said in a blog post.

Meanwhile, Amazon experienced a technical glitch on Sunday for its Whole Foods and Amazon Fresh services, as it dealt with a spike in online grocery orders, according to Bloomberg.

Other preventative measures by Amazon, in response to the coronavirus outbreak, include the launch of a $25 million fund to support partners, and offering unlimited unpaid time off for warehouse workers.
Coronavirus Could Cost the Global Economy $2.7 Trillion. Here’s How

By Tom Orlik, Jamie Rush, Maeva Cousin and Jinshan Hong March 6, 2020

The coronavirus is going global, and it could bring the world economy to a standstill.
An epidemic that began in the depths of China’s Hubei province is spreading rapidly. There are now significant outbreaks from South Korea to Italy and Iran, and the first deaths have been reported in America. 


The economic fallout could include recessions in the U.S., euro-area and Japan, the slowest growth on record in China, and a total of $2.7 trillion in lost output—equivalent to the entire GDP of the U.K.
That’s the most extreme of four scenarios developed by Bloomberg Economics, drawing on the experience in China, the distribution of cases in other countries, estimates of risks to global supply chains, and a large-scale model of the global economy.

With so many unknowns surrounding the trajectory of the epidemic, and the response from government and business, forecasters cannot aspire to precision. But these four scenarios offer a way of tracing the potential effects through countries and industries, and assessing their order of magnitude.


China Business Survey Shows Growth Plummet


Source: National Bureau of Statistics


The starting point for our analysis is what’s happening in China, where automobile sales have plunged 80%, passenger traffic is down 85% from normal levels, and business surveys are touching record lows. The economy, in other words, has practically ground to a halt.

Bloomberg Economics estimates that GDP growth in the first quarter of 2020 has slowed to 1.2% year on year—the weakest on record. If China doesn’t get quickly back on its feet in March, even that forecast could prove optimistic.


Scenario 1: Major blow to China, and spillover to rest of world


Values indicate the percentage point change in 2020 GDP growth relative to baseline of no virus outbreak


For the rest of the world, China matters as a source of demand, a source of supply, and a focus of concern for financial markets:


► In 2019, China imports came in at $2.1 trillion. From Starbucks lattes to Yum’s crispy fried chicken, sales in China are a major earner for multinationals. And Chinese tourists staying home hits everyone from South Asia’s beach resorts to the boutiques of Paris.


► China is the world’s biggest producer of manufactured components. When Chinese factories shut down, the widgets that go into everything from Apple’s iPhones to construction machinery become harder to find.


► The impact reaches small businesses too. In Hong Kong, a jewelry designer found that his automated, digitized Chinese suppliers have gone offline. They could churn out 1,000 rings in a day. His workers just spent a week hammering out a single one. “I’m back into, like, pre-historic jewelry making,” he lamented.


► China shocks have spread across global financial markets before, including the surprise yuan devaluation in 2015. The coronavirus is repeating the pattern, and on a larger scale, as equities plunge around the world and deliver knock-on blows to household wealth and business confidence.


If China can quickly get the outbreak under control, and the world’s factory rumbles back to life in the second quarter, then the impact on the rest of the global economy could be contained.


That’s a real possibility. A survey by Made-in-China.com—one of the main platforms connecting Chinese suppliers and global buyers—found that by late February, 80% of manufacturing firms had resumed operations. By late April, says general manager Li Lei, production capacity should be back to normal.


If that happens, a severe shock in the first half would be followed by recovery in the second. For the world as a whole, and major economies like the U.S., the impact would then be hard to see in the full-year GDP data.


A month ago, an epidemic confined largely to China, with other economies suffering from knock-on effects but not their own outbreaks, seemed like a plausible base case. In early March, with more than 6,000 cases in South Korea, closing in on 4,000 in Italy, hundreds in Japan, Germany and France, and concerns mounting in the U.S., it’s starting to look optimistic.


It’s true that no other county has anywhere near China’s 80,000 reported cases—and that democratic countries might balk at the containment steps taken by China, which locked down a province of 60 million. While a less draconian approach could potentially increase the ultimate cost to public health, it could also result in a smaller short-term impact on the economy.


Still, a lighting company based in China’s Zhejiang province illustrates how the problem is changing shape. The firm has more or less overcome the domestic shock: All workers are now back at the factory. But now they’re preparing to face a different problem: Weaker orders from overseas.


Scenario 2: Outbreaks cause localized disruption


Values indicate the percentage point change in 2020 GDP growth relative to baseline of no virus outbreak


What happens if the problem gets worse? In scenario two, we assume that China takes longer to return to normal—a ‘U’-shaped recovery instead of a ‘V’.


“Even when factories are back to work, it’s not like all the problems are solved” said Mr. Li, the Made-in-China.com manager. “Many factories don’t have enough inventory… the supply chain obstacles cap production capacity.”


We also assume South Korea, Italy, Japan, France and Germany—the major economies other than China that have seen the most virus cases—take a hit. In our calculations, that takes global growth for 2020 down to 2.3%—some way below the pre-virus consensus forecast of 3.1%.


Scenario 3: Widespread contagion


Values indicate the percentage point change in 2020 GDP growth relative to baseline of no virus outbreak


Worse than that?


In scenario three, we layer on a more severe shock to South Korea, Italy, Japan, France and Germany. And we add a smaller shock to all the countries that had reported any cases as of the start of March. That includes the U.S., India, the U.K., Canada and Brazil—meaning that all of the world’s 10 biggest economies suffer a slowdown as they fight to contain the domestic spread of the virus.


In this scenario, global growth for 2020 slides to 1.2%. The euro-area and Japan go into recession, and U.S. growth drops to 0.5%—enough to see election-year unemployment moving higher.


Scenario 4: Global pandemic

Values indicate the percentage point change in 2020 GDP growth relative to baseline of no virus outbreak


Worse still?


To capture the economic impact of a global pandemic, we assume that all countries in our model face a severe shock—equivalent to the drop in growth China is suffering in the first quarter.


If that happens, global growth for the year goes to zero. The U.S. joins the euro-area and Japan in contraction—potentially changing the dynamic of the presidential election. China’s economy expands just 3.5%—the slowest in records back to 1980, when Deng Xiaoping’s reforms were just getting underway. Worldwide, lost output hits $2.7 trillion.


China GDP

Quarterly year-on-year forecasts

Other forecasters are also sounding the alarm.


The OECD cut its expectation for global growth to 2.4% from 2.9%, and warned that it could fall as low as 1.5%. Goldman Sachs expects a global contraction in the first half of the year. Recent forecasts for first-quarter GDP growth in China range from 5.8% all the way down to -0.5%, underscoring the high degree of uncertainty.


Policy research predating the coronavirus outbreak suggests there’s a downside risk to even the most pessimistic of these forecasts. A 2006 paper by the World Bank put the potential cost of a severe flu pandemic at 4.8% of global GDP—a tailspin that would rival that seen in 2009 after the financial crisis.


Fed Funds Futures

Implied fund rates have taken a nosedive since the outbreak


All of that makes the case for urgent rate cuts, extra public spending, or both. At an emergency meeting on March 3, the Federal Reserve lowered rates by 50 basis points, and markets expect more to come. That followed hard on the heels of a G-7 conference call in which finance chiefs of the major advanced economies vowed to “use all appropriate policy tools to achieve strong, sustainable growth and safeguard against downside risks”.


At the epicenter of the crisis, the People’s Bank of China has so far been more measured, cutting rates by just 10 basis points, and instructing lenders to go easy on stressed business borrowers rather than adding to the problem by calling in bad loans. In neighboring Korea, the central bank has been similarly cautious—calling an emergency meeting, but failing to deliver the rate cut the markets expected. Governor Lee Ju-yeol said he saw limits to what monetary policy can do to counter the virus.


That view might not win Lee many friends among investors. In the economics textbooks, it has a solid foundation.


The virus is at least in part a supply shock—closing factories, and forcing workers to stay at home. That’s not something policy makers can do much about. Rate cuts and higher spending will help put a floor under fragile financial markets, and revive demand once the crisis is over. In the heat of the outbreak, stimulus risks stoking inflation without accelerating growth—making the problem worse, not better.


Add on the world’s historically low level of interest rates, and high level of debt—which limit the room for maneuver—and it’s clear why economic policy makers, like everyone else in the world, will be hoping the outbreak can rapidly be brought under control. Their own toolkit is ill-suited for the task.




Sources: Bloomberg Economics, NiGEM, OECD

Graphics: Adrian Leung Hannah Dormido, Jeremy Scott Diamond and Sam Dodge
Editor: Ben Holland
Assists: Chang Shu and Qizi Su
Sources: Bloomberg Economics, NiGEM, OECD ICIO


Methodology: The starting point of our analysis is our forecast of the shock to China’s GDP in 1Q. Our central scenario is for China’s GDP growth to slow 4.7 ppt below our baseline forecast. We calibrate virus shocks to other countries in line with the estimate of the blow to China. In scenario two, we assume countries with reported >100 cases in early March suffer half of the shock to China. In scenario three we assume countries with current reported cases 100 suffer the same shock as China, and countries with any reported cases suffer half of the shock suffered by China. In scenario four, we assume all countries suffer a severe shock.

To model demand spillovers from affected countries we used NiGEM—a large scale model of the global economy. NiGEM maps from domestic demand to import demand and then estimates the spillovers (and splashbacks to countries that are the source of the shocks) as the demand shock ripples around the globe. Spillovers are substantial and shocks that are synchronized across countries are magnified as import demand evaporates. The shocks we input to the model are demand shocks, reflecting that the biggest driver of growth weakness during epidemics tends to stem from behavioral change—people spending less as a consequence of efforts to avoid the virus.


We have allowed monetary policy to respond to weaker growth in our simulations. That assumption appears to be born out by market perception—as Bloomberg’s WIRP model shows, rate cuts or delayed tightening have been priced in for a number of economies. Still, given the lags with which policy affects growth, the results we present for 2020 aren’t hugely sensitive to this assumption. What we have not assumed is a substantial fiscal response, which if delivered swiftly could limit some of the damage to demand.


To assess supply chain disruption we have taken a different approach. Gauging the impact of a missing Chinese component on the rest of the production process is impossible to do with precision. But we can derive some clues about the possible scale of the impact by looking at the concentration of exposure to Chinese exports by product. 


Think of it this way: if a U.S. carmaker gets 5% of its input from China, evenly distributed across all components used in the production process, not getting those supplies will lower the factory’s production by 5%. No big deal. But if, instead, supplies from China are concentrated on a single crucial component, then not getting them could prevent the factory from producing anything at all.

Each factory will be affected to the extent of its maximum exposure to a given component coming from China and the reduction in Chinese supply. The effect on total domestic production will be the sum of disruption across all factories in the country. 


As a proxy for each factory’s exposure for each component, we use disaggregated information from OECD Inter-Country Input-Output (ICIO) Tables to calculate how much each domestic industry is exposed to China for inputs from various supplier industries. Maximum exposure to one supplier industry is taken to be the limiting factor for the domestic industry (we only consider the impact of industries that account for 2.5% or more of total inputs, to reduce the risk of outliers skewing the estimates). The disruption risk for the whole economy is then calculated according to each industry’s weight in total production.
We have also allowed a degree of import substitution—IMF analysis suggests around 60% of components cannot readily be sourced from elsewhere when supplies get tight. By assuming 40% of components are sourced elsewhere, the impact is made smaller. We also do not allow supply chain impacts to propogate beyond the countries in which they are first felt—this is a static assessment and we do not feed the weakness caused into NiGEM to measure further spillovers. There are significant uncertainties about how supply chains are being disrupted by the coronavirus outbreak. Still, we think our approach offers a useful way to quantify the risks and gauge plausible magnitudes


SELF QUARANTINE 















Federal Reserve makes $2 trillion available to try and calm markets


AMERICAN PUNDITS LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE SAY A TRILLION DOLLARS FOR  MEDICARE FOR ALL IS NOT AFFORDABLE, A TRILLION FOR STUDENT LOAN DEBT IS NOT AFFORDABLE ,  SHOULD EXPLAIN THIS: 

Federal Reserve makes $2 trillion available to try and calm markets

Updated Mar 12, 2020; 


The Federal Reserve moved Thursday to try to ease disruptions in the financial markets stemming from the coronavirus by announcing that it will sharply increase its purchases of short-term Treasury bonds.


The Fed said it's making available at least $2 trillion in short-term lending as a way to ensure that the Treasury bond market can function smoothly. It's also broadening its ongoing $60 billion-a-month purchases of Treasurys to include longer-term bonds.

Thursday's central bank action, being led by the New York Fed, is intended to keep credit markets functioning and ensure that banks can continue to provide loans to businesses and other borrowers across the economy.

 And it's an uphill struggle. Even a surprise half-percentage point rate cut by the  Federal Reserve only halted the stock selloff for a few hours. The ability to shock and awe is clearly diminished.

Marcel Fratscher, head of the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin, told the dpa news agency that “unlike during the global financial crisis, the central banks will only be able to help a little in combating the economic damage from the coronavirus.”

 https://www.syracuse.com/business/2020/03/federal-reserve-makes-2-trillion-available-to-try-and-calm-markets.html


A TRILLION HERE A TRILLION THERE ITS NO MATTER IF ITS TO BAIL OUT CAPITALISM BUT TO PAY FOR MEDICARE 4 ALL, STUDENT LOANS, A LIVING WAGE AND A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME WELL OMG THE SKY IS FALLING
As central banks intervene to calm markets, few see solution
Christopher Rugaber / The Associated Press

MARCH 12, 2020 11:14 AM

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank moved Thursday to try to calm financial markets and restore some degree of confidence. It didn't quite work. The central banks are facing a crisis only partly responsive to the medicine they can provide.

The Fed sought to ensure that the U.S. Treasury bond market — the world's largest — can operate smoothly as demand for bonds spikes with investors desperately seek safe assets amid the carnage in stocks. The ECB sought to stimulate the European economy, which the coronavirus outbreak appears on the verge of sending into recession

Decidedly unimpressed, traders sent the stock market into its worst plunge Thursday in more than three decades.


The primary tools of central banks — lower interest rates and easier access to credit — aren't well-suited to address a crisis caused by a pandemic that
 has frightened consumers away from travelling, shopping or gathering in group settings. Economists are increasingly calling for governments to take the lead, through targeted loans to businesses, greater help for cash-strapped workers — particularly Americans without access to sick leave — and support for virus testing and other health measures.

On Thursday, the Fed unveiled a massive short-term lending program to try to help smooth trading in U.S. Treasurys. Through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, it will provide at least $1.5 trillion on Thursday and Friday for banks that are willing to swap short-term Treasury securities for cash. An additional $500 billion will be made available Monday.

The program will continue at about $1 trillion per week after that. The lending won't all be cumulative. The loans will be paid back after one and three months.


And not all the money will necessarily be lent. It depends how much banks decide to borrow against the available funds.

The Fed also said it will broaden its $60 billion Treasury purchase program, launched last fall, from just short-term bills to all maturities, including 30-year bonds.

Both moves were a response to signs that the bond market was buckling under the strain of skyrocketing demand for Treasuries, which are widely considered the safest assets in the world. The jump in demand appeared to be outpacing supply. That pressure boosted the yield on the 10-year Treasury to 0.79% by Thursday afternoon, up from 0.68% two days earlier. Normally when stock markets plunge, bond yields also fall as investors buy more of them. Yields move in the opposite direction of prices.

The market for the 10-year bond affects the broader economy because it influences borrowing rates for homes, credit cards, and other interest rates in the U.S. and overseas. Because investors are confident the U.S. government would never default on its debt, the bonds issued by the government are used to price every other asset. The U.S. government debt market is the largest single pool of investment assets in the world.
"When that has some disruptions, watch out, that's really worrisome," said Kathy Bostjancic, chief U.S. financial economist at Oxford Economics.

Given the scope of the Fed's action Thursday, many economists now expect the Fed to slash its benchmark interest rate by a full percentage point, to nearly zero, at its policy meeting next week. It may even launch a large bond-buying program intended to further lower interest rates. This would be similar to programs the Fed undertook during and after the financial crisis that were dubbed "quantitative easing."

Still, the reaction in the markets suggested little faith that the Fed's moves would do much to restore the confidence of investors and consumers in the face of travel disruptions, event cancellations and business closures. Some analysts said that governments in the U.S. and Europe needed to do more through tax and spending policies.


"What the Fed did today is not enough — it needs a partner," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton. "The Fed cannot do this alone."

Earlier in the day, the ECB deployed targeted new stimulus measures to cushion the shock to the economy from the virus outbreak. But Christine Lagarde, the ECB's president, said that monetary policy couldn't do it alone and called for a "decisive and determined" response from governments. Lagarde said the economy was facing a "major shock" and that the central bank measures unveiled Thursday were "almost surgically" aimed only at areas where monetary policy might help.

More than a decade ago, central banks around the world slashed rates and began pumping trillions of dollars into banks to combat a global financial crisis. The coronavirus is presenting them with a very different challenge. The central banks in the U.S., the eurozone, Canada and Britain have all deployed stimulus. The Bank of Japan is signalling it is ready to act and monetary authorities in Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia have cut rates.

Authorities are putting major economies, businesses and travel on lock down around the world, dimming prospects for the global economy. Consumers are starting to cut back on their spending in the U.S. and around the world.

Europe's top monetary authority didn't cut rates as investors had hoped — evidence that monetary policy is running low on ammunition with rates already very low. The ECB's key policy rate on bank deposits is already at a record-low minus 0.6%.

___

AP Business Writers David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany, and Ken Sweet in New York contributed to this report.