The future member states, which previously had been among Europe’s most closed economies, were transformed in a few years to the most open economies in Europe - foreign trade corresponds to more than 130 per cent of GDP in Hungary and the Czech Republic, more than countries of an equivalent size in the EU, such as Austria and Sweden. The EU became completely dominant in trade, while Russia and the former Soviet republics shrank to become a relatively small trading partner. The countries’ share of the old EU countries’ trade rose quickly. For Sweden the eight new member states have been the trading partners that have always increased their share steadily from the beginning of the 1990s - through the Asian crisis and the bursting of the IT bubble - and that today comprise 5 per cent of Sweden’s foreign trade, i.e. on a par with France and more than double China’s share. All indications suggest that the trend will both continue and deepen. The proportion of intermediate goods (components) produced in the new member states on behalf of Western companies is becoming an increasingly large part of trade, as is the proportion of goods with higher technological content from the new member states. Mobility for goods has gone hand in hand with mobility for capital. Several studies of the balance of earnings and costs associated with enlargement (e.g. from the European Commission and the independent institution CEPR) have high-lighted increased investment as one of the most significant advantages of EU entry.
William C Dudley: The US economic outlook and implications for monetary policy Remarks by Mr William C Dudley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, at the Economic Leadership Forum, Somerset, New Jersey, 15 January 2016. *  *  *  It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to join you again at the Economic Leadership Forum. I would like to thank John McWeeney of the New Jersey Bankers Association and Rutgers University for the invitation to be here today. Northern New Jersey is a vital part of the New York Fed’s district, and I don’t just say that because I live here. My staff and I actively maintain ties with local community, business and banking leaders, and we always benefit from opportunities to hear about what is on your mind. I am particularly delighted to see that community banks are well represented here today. The Federal Reserve understands the importance of a vibrant community banking sector and the crucial role community banks play in supporting the activities of local businesses and households. While protecting the safety and soundness of the financial system is an important part of the Federal Reserve’s mandate, I believe that the regulation of community banks should be appropriately calibrated to reflect the lower degree of risk they pose to the financial system relative to larger banks. In other words, community banks should not be subject to the same set of regulations that are applied to the most systemically important banking organizations.