Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan Source: Google Images

Sovereign risk in Turkey was once talked about in the same breath as Brazil’s.  Not so anymore.  One is going hat in hand to the IMF, likely to get $45 billion in the coming weeks; the other is largely self-financing.  What went wrong in Turkey?  Always keep your eye on the current account deficit, folks, even when Wall St. analysts tell you its nothing to worry about because it’s financed by FDI, or some such Bernanke-esque bunk.  Current account deficits mean borrowing from abroad.  And that means vulnerability.  Turkey went into the global crisis with a 5-6% current account deficit, while Brazil went in with small surpluses.  Keep your eye on America as well and its sovereign credit risk — current account deficits there have been nearly halved to 2-3% from 5-7% a couple of years ago, largely due to the US recession.  But the U.S. still can’t kick its foreign borrowing habit, Obama’s protectionism notwithstanding.  Likewise, watch out for “twin deficits.”  That’s when government deficits move in tandem with current account deficits (the former often driving the latter).  The US has these, as does Turkey (where government deficits are in the range of 5-7% of GDP, versus Brazil’s 3-4%).  Turkey’s overall government debt burden remains modest at under 50%, versus Brazil’s near-70%; however, Brazil’s government debt burden is headed down, while Turkey’s is rising.  Hence, Fitch moved Brazil up to investment grade not long ago, while Turkey languishes at BB-.  They both were BB- only a few years ago.  Sometimes the rating agencies get it right, even though it often takes them some time to do so.

So, the Turkish prime minister shows up hat in hand at the IMF’s doorstep, while President Lula’s Brazil is considered a rising power.  Have a look below at the CreditSuisse report from today on Turkey’s negotiations with the IMF.  Deputy Prime Minister Babacan, whom I met with in the past and perceive as smart and wily, is thankfully in charge of these negotations.

From CreditSuisse:

Turkey
Berna Bayazitoglu
+44 20 7883 3431
berna.bayazitoglu@credit-suisse.com
Prime Minister Erdogan denounced yesterday the claims in the local media that the IMF has offered a sizable financing package to the Turkish government which it cannot turn down. As we reported in the Emerging Markets Economics Daily yesterday, Erdogan told the Wall Street Journal on Monday (5 October) that the Turkish government has resolved one of the sticking points with the IMF, namely the IMF’s request for an independent tax revenue administration, and added that “he would like to see a new IMF program for Turkey agreed soon.” This was the most upbeat assessment that Erdogan has offered on the subject in a long while. Looking for an explanation for the change in Erdogan’s tone about an IMF agreement, the Turkish media claimed yesterday morning that the IMF might have offered a large financing package to Turkey (amounting to $45bn) which Erdogan cannot turn down. However, at a reception later in the day, Erdogan denounced local media stories that the IMF has made a new offer to Turkey.

Nevertheless, Erdogan’s statements in the Wall Street Journal add strength to the possibility that the government might invite an IMF mission to Turkey soon. As we noted in the Emerging Markets Economics Daily yesterday, speaking at various conferences in the last few days at the IMF/World Bank annual meetings in Istanbul and somewhat in contradiction to Erdogan’s statements in the Wall Street Journal, Deputy Prime Minister Babacan (who is the senior policymaker in charge of policy discussions with the IMF) had said that the discussions on the tax revenue administration and local governments’ spending were still continuing and that the IMF was studying the government’s medium-term economic plan and fiscal program.

The Statistics Office will release the industrial production data for August tomorrow. We forecast that industrial production was down 4.7% yoy in August, slowing from a contraction of 9.1% yoy in July. Our forecast is more optimistic than the consensus forecast (according to Bloomberg) of a 5.2% yoy contraction.

Source: Google Images

An update on a post I did last week on the Obama administration’s swing toward trade protectionism with its action against Chinese tires:  enclosed is this nicely written NYTimes editorial…not an Op-ed, an editorial. 

The Times editorial board understands economics.  American workers in the tire industry, many represented by the United Steelworkers Union, may well lose their jobs with or without the new 35% tariff against Chinese tires.  The reality about trade, the Times points out, is that Americans will likely buy low-cost tires from other countries in any case, perhaps in Latin America, rather than from American factories.  These Latin tires will cost more than the Chinese variety, making American consumers worse off.

The Economist article I attached to the last post included a comment from an analyst suggesting that President Obama, by imposing these tariffs, is shoring up his left flank in order to achieve support for health care reform, that $900 billion budget-buster.  Maybe the linkage is far-fetched, but if true, putting at risk the global trading system in order to expand entitlements, is that what sound economies are built on? 

I hope the president deploys his considerable charm and intellect next week, talking things out with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh in order to avoid a nasty trade war.  That venue would likewise be a fine place for the president to tell the truth to Rust Belt workers, the truth John McCain started telling in Michigan last year:  that the economy is in transition, we cannot artificially protect manufacturing jobs, job training and outplacement will be required.  The higher value-added, knowledge-based economy beckons…

During the Great Depression, international trade contracted by a third, as countries around the world erected barriers to trade, aggravating a sharp decline in output already under way and throwing millions out of work.  Thus far, in the Great Recession of 2008-09, the end of which some observers may have called too soon, the major powers have avoided trade protection.  Enter the Obama administration.

Last year, I published a piece calling for those supporting Democrats in America’s national elections to make sure they keep the Dems honest on trade.  Concerns about Obama’s commitment to free trade, due to his campaign strategy in Midwestern states last year, were dismissed as mere election-year politics.  His commitment to satisfying his friends in America’s trade unions is now abundantly clear, not only because he parrots their unfair accusations about abuses by the Colombian government, but also in the latest action by the Obama administration to raise tariffs against Chinese tires (see NYT imes article).

Trade wars can spiral out of control, even if this is not the original intention of protectionists.   During the 19th century, Britain, the unrivaled power at the time, ensured global prosperity through its commitment to free trade.  The U.S. since 1945 has played this role, through both Democratic and Republican administrations.  Doubts about President Obama’s commitment to free trade, a key pillar of international cooperation and a key strategy for broad-based global prosperity, have re-emerged, a point quite ably discussed in this Economist article.

Photo:  Chinese workers loading tires for export.  Source:  www.financialpost.com

Are the Democrats hypocrites on Colombia and on Free Trade?  With Obama in tow, last year they killed the Colombia FTA legislation promoted by President George W. Bush (I know you don’t like him), who really got it right on hemispheric free trade and on U.S. ally Colombia.  The Dems whined about abuses by the government of Alvaro Uribe, who has in fact made great strides in ending Colombia’s nasty guerrilla war.  Read posts I wrote in the past on Colombia and on trade.

Now, President Obama, who has adopted many of the policies he savaged when they were Bush’s (e.g. targeted killings in Afghanistan to name one) is backing greater U.S.-Colombia military ties, which had already been deepened under Mr. Bush.  So, much so that Obama’s erstwhile buddy, Chavez, whom he shmoozed with earlier this year, refuses to normalize relations with his neighbor to the west.  Yet Obama cannot so easily backtrack on his wrong-headed kaybashing of Colombia FTA, based on the AFL-CIO’s trumped up charges of abuse against the Uribe government. 

Just keeping score…

Photo:  Remember this? Presidents George W. Bush and Alvaro Uribe take a drive together. Source: www.axisoflogic.com