data_id
int64 1
1.12M
| id
stringlengths 32
138
| date
timestamp[s] | source
stringlengths 2
24
| title
stringlengths 12
203
| content
stringlengths 32
65.4k
⌀ | author
stringlengths 2
242
⌀ | url
stringlengths 27
244
| published
stringlengths 14
32
| published_utc
int64 1.55B
1.58B
| collection_utc
int64 1.57B
1.58B
| category_level_1
stringclasses 17
values | category_level_2
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5,315 | activistpost--2019-08-20--11 Reasons Why So Many Experts Believe That A US Economic Crisis Is Imminent | 2019-08-20T00:00:00 | activistpost | 11 Reasons Why So Many Experts Believe That A U.S. Economic Crisis Is Imminent | The numbers are telling us that we have never been closer to the next recession than we are right now. The storm clouds that were gathering on the horizon are now directly above us, and suddenly the mainstream media is filled with stories about when the next recession will begin and the effect that this may have on President Trump’s chances of winning in 2020. In fact, there has been so much chatter about this that even President Trump is talking about it. All over television, experts are breathlessly speculating about when the coming recession will begin, and they are dispensing lots of advice about how people should be preparing for it. So what evidence has led so many of these talking heads to come to such a conclusion? Well, the following are 11 reasons why so many experts now believe that a U.S. economic crisis is imminent… #1 Last week, the “spread between the U.S. 2-year and 10-year yields” turned negative for the very first time in 12 years. An inversion of the yield curve has occurred prior to every single U.S. recession since the 1950s, and this is one of the most important economic signals that we have seen yet. #2 U.S. consumer sentiment just fell to the lowest level that we have seen in all of 2019. #3 74 percent of the economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that a recession will begin in the United States by the end of 2021. #4 U.S. industrial production just slipped back into contraction territory. #5 The IHS Markit Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index just fell to the lowest level that we have seen since September 2009. #6 Just like we witnessed in 2008, fear and volatility have returned to Wall Street in a major way. In fact, so far this month we have already seen the 4th and 7th largest single day point declines in U.S. stock market history. #7 The total number of bankruptcy filings in the United States has been steadily shooting up, and it rose another 5 percent during the month of July. #8 Major U.S. retailers continue to shut down more stores, and we have continued to stay on a pace that would break the all-time record for store closings in a single year. #9 As I discussed yesterday, on a year over year basis U.S. freight shipment volume has now fallen for 8 months in a row. #10 According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the probability that a recession will happen within the next 12 months is now the highest that it has been since the last financial crisis. #11 President Trump is suggesting that the Federal Reserve should cut interest rates by 100 basis points and that the Fed should restart quantitative easing as soon as possible. Both of those moves would be considered to be “emergency measures” that should only happen if a major economic downturn was imminent. In that list, I didn’t even mention our rapidly escalating trade war with China. The two largest economies on the entire planet are engaged in an extremely bitter trade dispute, and that alone has the potential to plunge the entire global economy into a very deep downturn. On the surface, the Trump administration is trying to assure us that everything is going to be just fine, but behind the scenes they appear to be preparing for the worst. For example, we have just learned that the Trump administration is actually considering pushing for an emergency payroll tax cut… If the U.S. economy really was “booming”, an emergency payroll tax cut wouldn’t make any sense at all. But if we are on the verge of a very serious economic crisis, then such a move would make perfect sense. Of course the U.S. is definitely not the only major economy that is facing serious troubles. In fact, signs of economic trouble have been emerging all over the globe lately… | Activist Post | https://www.activistpost.com/2019/08/11-reasons-why-so-many-experts-believe-that-a-u-s-economic-crisis-is-imminent.html | 2019-08-20 02:29:10+00:00 | 1,566,282,550 | 1,567,533,924 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
5,829 | activistpost--2019-10-10--Geopolitical Signals Of Global Economic Crisis Abound | 2019-10-10T00:00:00 | activistpost | Geopolitical Signals Of Global Economic Crisis Abound | As I write this, news feeds are buzzing with questions and confusion over the October US/China trade talks. In September there was a massive propaganda campaign within the mainstream media to push the notion that a deal with China was imminent, which boosted markets otherwise on the verge of a plunge due to a hailstorm of bad financial news. This media campaign also indicated to me that there would be no deal in October – best case, there will be an announcement of “progress” and a temporary pause in tariffs, which will fall apart once again in a month’s time. Worst case scenario, the talks will falter before they ever really begin. Either way, the trade war will continue well into next year. As I predicted in my article ‘The Ugly Truth About The Trade War’ in September: The trade war is only one of many major distractions being implemented at this time. While Trump plays his role for the globalist establishment as a bumbling populist villain and a Herbert Hoover clone, the sheer scope of events is becoming quite epic. This crash must be treated slightly different from the crash of 2008, because if we are to predict the pace of the implosion, we have to measure the number of geopolitical signals rather than just the financial signals. That is to say, the globalists will trigger a Lehman Moment when there is enough geopolitical tension to keep the public mesmerized. In this way, they hope to conjure a “perfect storm”, one that can be blamed for the crisis they created. It would seem that as we close in on the end of 2019 we are very near to the avalanche… Here I would like to briefly cover a number of developments that have accelerated in the past couple of weeks and give my take on what they mean to the liberty movement and the economy at large. Some people might question the idea that these events have economic implications. I suggest they look at the bigger picture. Much of what is happening today is engineered by the establishment not only as cover for the financial downturn, but also as partial fuel for collapse. As I noted in my last article, Trump cannot be anti-globalist while working directly with global elites on a daily basis. The impeachment farce, like Russiagate, is carefully crafted 4th Generation warfare designed to keep leftists rabidly extreme while pushing conservatives fearful of a leftist takeover into the waiting arms of Trump, a puppet of the banking elites beholden to the Rothschild family for saving his fortune in the 1990s. The elites have no intention of getting rid of Trump at this time – he is too useful to them and their script, which requires an unstable conservative nationalist anti-globalist that eventually destroys the American economy. The impeachment proceedings are far more likely to blow back on Joe Biden and remove him from the Democratic primaries, opening the door to an alternative candidate (probably Elizabeth Warren). With Bernie Sanders much too old and heart attack prone, Warren makes the most sense as the establishment choice for the 2020 Dem candidate. Talk of Hillary Clinton entering the race as a kind of Cracker Jack candidate seems like Kabuki theater to me. Warren’s scandals are rather minor compared to Clinton’s, and really, the leftists don’t care anyway. Her lying about being fired from a job in the 1970s for a pregnancy will be forgotten well before November, especially in the event that we are in the middle of a 2008-level economic crash. Liberty movement activists should not get too worked up about Clinton, they should focus more on Warren, and overall, they should stop deluding themselves into thinking that the election matters in the slightest. As for Trump’s impeachment, it will probably fall apart by the end of the Democratic primaries, but this in no way secures Trump’s presidency (for those that still actually think that Trump is on the side of the liberty movement). Trump’s role as president will only continue so long as the US economy limps forward. If we do see a Lehman moment before the election, then Trump is slated to be removed from office. The only wild card scenario I could see taking place in terms of the impeachment is that it hangs on until the election and throughout the economic downturn, and is shockingly successful. In this case, Trump would be removed from office (potentially) just before he was about to lose the election anyway. Why would the establishment make such a move? Because it would galvanize both the left and the right into a possible widespread conflagration; more so that merely replacing Trump with someone like Warren. Believe it or not, there are actually a minority of dummies in the liberty movement that want to fight a civil war over Trump. I suggest that it would be a strategic disaster to fight a civil war over a banker puppet that is TRYING to take credit for the market bubble and by default the crash. It would be the fastest way for the liberty movement to lose all credibility. If we do end up in a war, it should not be in the name of Trump and should be focused on the banking elites, not the Democrats. Beyond this, if the elites need a distraction and scapegoat for their controlled demolition of the economy, a mindless left/right civil war would be more than enough to do the trick. US/China Trade War On The Edge Of Something More Dangerous The trade war has lasted for around 22 months; far longer than most analysts in the mainstream and alternative media predicted. Do not be surprised if it goes on until the end of 2020, or perhaps even longer. The conflict (like Trump) is FAR too useful to simply get rid of at this time There are some analysts out there that assume that the globalists want to keep the current system propped up. They assume that the elites need it to continue, or they will “lose their power”. I wish it was that easy. Sadly, these people have been blinded by a narrow view of events and history. The elites are VERY AWARE of the consequences of what they are doing, and they absolutely intend for those consequences to happen. In order for them to build their “new world order”, the old world order has to be dismantled. Part of this process will eventually require the end of the US dollar’s world reserve status and it’s replacement with a basket currency system and a eventually a cashless society, as has been openly discussed by globalist institutions like the IMF. I can’t think of a better way for the elites to kill the dollar than to spark off a trade war with China until China uses the “nuclear option” as the largest importer/exporter in the world and abandons the dollar in global trade. With China dropping the dollar, numerous other nations will follow their lead in order to maintain ties to their manufacturing base. China has already begun dumping US treasuries exponentially. People tracking the trade war should understand that the final outcome if the trade war continues will be the end of the dollar’s reserve status. Dollar advocates and fanboys will cry “No way!”, but they will be proven wrong in due course. Over a year ago the Trump Administration pronounced the end of US troop involvement in Syria. This action was applauded by conservatives and liberty advocates as a sign that Trump was finally going to follow through on his campaign promises to stop the endless wars in the Middle East. Of course, it was announced only a week later that US troops would be staying where they were. Now, we see the propaganda narrative that Trump is “fighting the establishment” yet again as he returns with ANOTHER declaration that US troops will be removed from Syria, this time in the face of a potential Turkish invasion in the region. I’m not sure how, but the Q-cult is spinning this move as a “Win” for Trump, perhaps because the Republican establishment is stating it is against the move. Already, Trump has been walking back his statements and indicating that troops will indeed be staying in Syria (but still not interfering in the ethnic cleansing of our Kurdish allies by Turkey). This merely shows that nothing Trump says can be taken seriously and that we should wait and see what ACTUALLY happens in the coming weeks. In all likelihood, a Syrian “withdrawal” is meant to trigger a separate agenda, and this agenda may include an economic or shooting war with Turkey. I have said for many years, long before the Syrian civil war was instigated by western covert agencies, that Syria represents a key component for a wider war in the Middle East. With so many interests involved in Syria, from the US to Iran to Russian to Turkey, one conflict in the region could spread into many conflicts. At the very least, it looks like my prediction in January that Turkey would leave NATO by the end of 2019 might be proven correct. I continue to see the Brexit storm in the UK resulting in a “No Deal” outcome, or, a bad deal outcome that looks a lot like a No Deal. I believe the Brexit itself, while noble in the movement that supports it, is actually a highly beneficial situation for the globalists IF it ends in a ‘No Deal’. The mainstream media and multiple elites have set the narrative that a No Deal will result in fiscal calamity. Of course, the elites have already ensured economic calamity by creating and then popping the Everything Bubble; but as with Trump in the US, they need someone to blame in Europe for the damage that is about to be done to the public. The Brexit movement and sovereignty activists are the intended scapegoats. While the intricacies of parliamentary gymnastics in the UK are difficult to track, so far it appears that Boris Johnson will seek to follow through with Brexit at the end of this month. While there is a potential for a three month extension, I still see no indication that Johnson plans to acknowledge it. Even more interesting is that the EU is hell bent on refusing any deal, all while painting the Brexit campaign as uncompromising. It’s as if the European establishment WANTS a No Deal… This makes sense on a surface level, as any good deal that ends with the British leaving the EU might encourage other nations to leave the supranational union as well. A No Deal ending in disaster for the UK and parts of Europe would inspire Europeans to want even more centralization. As the new head of the IMF stated this week, nations must ‘unite to halt the global economic slowdown’. In other words, give up your sovereignty or you will be made to suffer. But going much deeper, a No Deal blamed for an economic crash would also set up sovereignty activists in Europe as the bad guys, all while the banking elites elude any scrutiny. I have to say, even more so than 2016, 2019/2020 is shaping up to be the most unstable time period in modern world history. I do not think this is a storm of coincidences. The evidence does not support this notion. Rather, the evidence shows a deliberate agenda of destabilization, one that serves the interests of a globalist minority that functions much like an organization of guerrillas, or terrorists. One of the primary goals of any guerrilla war is to covertly undermine the infrastructure and economy of a system so that the population is forced to adapt to a new way of thinking – and the globalists already have a particular ideology in mind. In other words, chaos is useful in that it can be exploited to frighten or manipulate the public psyche. The most important target of a war is the mind of the enemy. Everything else is peripheral. Killing an enemy is not enough. There are always more to replace the ones you kill. But if you can trick the enemy into giving up, or thinking just like you do, or even trick him into admiring you, then your enemy becomes your slave without knowing it. No one will replace him, and thus, there are no more opponents to fight you. This is the path to total victory that the globalists most desire. If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE. After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold. You can contact Brandon Smith at: [email protected] Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today. | Activist Post | https://www.activistpost.com/2019/10/geopolitical-signals-of-global-economic-crisis-abound.html | Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:10:24 +0000 | 1,570,734,624 | 1,570,745,914 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
5,988 | activistpost--2019-11-14--People Are Still Struggling to Survive in Greece 9 Years “After” the Economic Crisis | 2019-11-14T00:00:00 | activistpost | People Are Still Struggling to Survive in Greece 9 Years “After” the Economic Crisis | Editor’s Note: Years ago, when I first began blogging, I wrote about the financial collapse of Greece. It turned out that this was a culmination of years of mismanagement (isn’t it always?). While in Greece, I have met a lot of people who have told me about how the collapse affected them personally. The thing that most people don’t realize is that things didn’t just magically get better when the EU stepped in. There are now supplies available in stores, but average people are still struggling to meet their daily needs. Many work 2-3 jobs. Others find things to sell and set up on the side of the road, hoping to make some money from passersby. It’s a beautiful country with warm, vibrant people, delicious food, and a rich culture. I am so fortunate to have spent time here researching the aftermath of the collapse. My friend Aris is one of the people with whom I spoke. He has kindly written this article to share his observations. Please give him a warm welcome and feel free to ask questions that will lead to future articles. ~ Daisy Being Greek always meant that any foreign person that you run into would be glad meeting you and he would mention things like the Acropolis, the Parthenon, Santorini, Mykonos, and maybe souvlaki or a common bad word. But over the last 9 years the same foreign guy who met a fellow human Greek would mention some other issues such as: when the crisis started, what led to the crisis, who’s to blame for, did people starve to death, did they commit suicide, etc. etc. Every Greek, of course, has his own version which is totally natural. Not even two persons share the same version of reality. Everyone has a view of his own which reflects his way of thinking, his economical and social status, his unique character and personality. I’m not the exception to the rule and what you are about to read in this and all my other pieces is my point of view, my personal description, my feelings… I will not try to be objective, but I’m not going to take any political or social side. It’s my side only. the side of an ordinary guy who got in a dangerous situation for 9 years and counting… Maybe someone will say: “Hey, man the Greek crisis is over. That’s what your politicians say for a couple of years now”. Greek politicians and their handling of THE truth is a bit “flexible,” to express it in a moderate way… For starters, my opinion is that the economic crisis in Greece hasn’t ended. Here’s why : • Salaries are still almost -50% down than the years before the crisis. • The pensions of retirees have suffered the biggest cutbacks. They had the biggest survival issues as they were the least capable to find alternative sources of income. They were the big victims, especially those with the basic pensions… • No matter what you hear about annual excess, base rates, foreign investors, etc., the real everyday economy in which an average Greek lives is still in deep crisis. And excuse me but no matter what politicians, bankers, high ranked EU officials say. my life is still on the edge as is the life of 95% of the Greek population. Maybe what you listen to and read in mass media is more optimistic, but I walk the same streets where for the past years the number of out-of-business stores still remains the same and I meet the same miserable, struggling people. The number of homeless people in the center of Athens didn’t decrease. Many work two and three jobs. See: 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income In my pieces that you’ll read here, you will find the things a guy like you witnessed and lived during a very difficult time for him his family and friends, but mostly for his country. I’m not an economy expert, I’m a middle-class fighter like you who wants to live with dignity and maybe make true some silly dreams like a trip to a favorite place, a nice car, a life without constant fear for tomorrow… How the collapse began…or when people became aware of it On the 23 of April 2010, our prime minister G. Papandreou visits Kastelorizo, an island in the east end of Greece. There, he announces that our country needs help from the IMF and from the EU in order to deal with the national debt. G. Papandreou was elected 7 months earlier using as his strong argument against the previous government the phrase “There is money.” He meant that there’s plenty of money to use but the previous government didn’t use it. Well, after 7 months we found out that there wasn’t any money but only a huge state debt… I’ll try some other time to explain how this debt was created over 30-40 years because it didn’t appear all of a sudden. I was 40 years old at that time. I was working as a DJ in various cafes and bars and I owned a small convenience store with my now ex-wife. My two parents were retired and my brother was working at a small factory. We had all had signs that things weren’t that prosperous for some years after in 2004-2005 everything started not to go well economy-wise. But nobody expected what was about to follow. We Greeks were until then stupidly reassuring ourselves that OK it’s a minor setback, a couple of bad years for the economy, the EU will help us, money is no issue. However, it wasn’t a crisis that suddenly occurred. It was like rain which started normally and as time passed the rain kept became stronger and stronger and in the end, it flooded the whole place. By the time we realized it, it was too late. What you can do to prepare for a bad economy We still think back to what we could have done as individuals or as a country to prevent it. Probably nothing, but maybe as individuals we could have protected ourselves so the consequences weren’t so harsh. I will give you some advice that may come in handy even though I really hope there will be no such occasion for you, my dear reader. Here is stuff to do before or after a crisis : • Balance your income outcome. At a minimum, spend less than you make even by 10-20 euros, dollars per month. Don’t overspend which will lead you to borrow from friends or family or even worse a bank (credit cards, loans, etc). They will demand their money back and maybe at a time that is very difficult for your pocket. • If you are an employee, secure your main source of income. Try at your job to be as reliable and crisis-proof as you can. Do not depend on unstable employers who can’t protect their business (and your job) from the ups and downs of the market. • If you have your own business keep your balances tight. Don’t make risky moves that in case of failure will drag your whole business down. No big loans from banks, no debts to business associates. • In everything you want to plan for the future two outcomes may occur a good and a bad… be prepared for both. • Always consider that you are part of a bigger picture that’s called the market. No matter how well you do, being a part of something that big means you can’t escape what happens to the rest. • Have a backup plan for the worst-case scenario. Maybe another kind of job that could come in handy, maybe some cash that will bail you out in bad situations. • When things go wrong they probably get worse. Don’t be optimistic when there is nothing to support your optimism. There’s always something even worse than you ever thought of that can occur. • Don’t be sentimental with anything that has to do with your job and money. Maybe you’ll have to sell your family business maybe your favorite car maybe move to a smaller house. You may need to make small sacrifices in order to protect your future and secure your present days. • Don’t get stuck to the way you lived until yesterday. Things change, people and ways of life too… • When it comes to money shortage, there are always two solutions: make more or spend less. Sometimes you get the option to pick sometimes you have to combine. • Prioritize your needs and money spending, not everything is equally important. • Don’t make moves according to what friends, colleagues, neighbors, TV, radio or a website tells you to do. You know your life, your needs, and your skills better than anyone. • Remain calm. Make no panic moves. Try to relax your close ones too. There’s always a solution that you haven’t considered yet. • There are plenty of specialists to give you solutions for stuff that you can’t handle yourself and especially in the legal and tax system. Don’t try to go it alone. I’m sure that there is much more to add to this list. but I hope that some of them might really help you. Thanks for spending your valuable time reading this. Let me know the questions you may have for future articles. This article was sourced from The Organic Prepper. Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today. | Activist Post | https://www.activistpost.com/2019/11/people-are-still-struggling-to-survive-in-greece-9-years-after-the-economic-crisis.html | Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:08:04 +0000 | 1,573,762,084 | 1,573,776,717 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
12,602 | aljazeera--2019-05-01--Irans economic crisis and ideological woes | 2019-05-01T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Iran's economic crisis and ideological woes | Six months after the US sanctions came into effect, Iran's economy appears to be struggling. Efforts by the international community to salvage the nuclear deal and provide an economic lifeline to Iran to dampen the fallout of the sanctions have not borne fruit so far and recent devastating floods in the oil-producing southwest of the country have only exacerbated the situation. Even before the recent decision by the United States government not to extend waivers provided to eight buyers of Iranian oil, the Islamic Republic was able to sell no more than 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd). Now its oil exports are expected to drop even further, which means the deficit gap in the state budget this year will be larger than expected. At the same time, the measures the Iranian government is taking in order to minimise the effect of the sanctions are unsustainable and unlikely to work, as they do not address any of the major structural problems the economy suffers from. The Islamic Republic continues to resort to inefficient stop-gap economic policies because giving up on its promise of social provision, which constitutes a major part of its post-1979 social contract, could endanger its survival. When preparing the budget bill for this year, President Hassan Rouhani's administration planned for oil exports to be around 1.5 million bpd, sold at a price of $54 a barrel or above. Thus the budget submitted to parliament earlier this year was set at 4.8 quadrillion rial (around $47bn at the current unofficial exchange rate) and up to 33 percent of it was supposed to come from oil revenue. Earlier this year, before the Trump administration took the decision to stop US sanction waivers was announced, the oil sector was estimated to shrink between 26 and 31 percent. With this announcement, the slump in the oil industry is expected to be even bigger. Even if the US fails to bring Iranian oil exports to zero, sales will definitely collapse way below the government-projected 1.5 million bpd (and even below the 1.1 million bpd estimated by market experts), leaving Iran with a large financial gap. This comes amid an already raging economic crisis which the Iranian authorities have struggled to contain. As inflation hit 40 percent earlier this year, consumer prices went up by 40 to 60 percent, putting additional strain on the already impoverished lower-class Iranian households. Key industries - like the petrochemical, car and construction industries, which are highly dependent on imported equipment, spare parts and raw materials - are also suffering from the depreciation of the Iranian currency, which last year lost more than 100 percent of its value, significantly decreasing the purchasing power of Iranian companies on the international market. Overall, Iran's economy in 2019 is expected to go even deeper into recession, with estimated negative growth of 5.5 percent or higher. In the face of a looming economic disaster, the Iranian government is paradoxically adopting policies that do not address any of the major structural problems burdening the national economy. The budget voted in March envisions an increase in current expenditures by 16 percent to maintain existing social programmes, boost state employee salaries to compensate for the negative effect of inflation and provide cheaper foreign currency to companies importing essential goods and raw materials. Some $14bn has been allocated to maintain the low prices on basic food products and medicines. The government is also seeking to regulate domestic prices by directly demanding from some producers to accept lower profit margins. It also offers low prices for the produce of local farmers so it can provide foodstuffs at minimal cost to the general public. It continues to subsidise fuel and electricity and is even considering the reintroduction of the coupon system it used to run during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war to allocate cheap basic goods to Iranian household. But these policies are neither sustainable nor efficient. Iran's financial capacity has already been overstretched by the substantial social spending the government has undertaken in recent years. Currently, annual subsidies and social programmes cost the Iranian government up to half of the total budget. The fact that oil exports will slump below what was planned for in the state budget means that the government will simply not have the money to implement some of these policies. In fact, it is already struggling to fulfil some of the plans it has made to provide additional assistance to struggling sectors. As of mid-March, the Iranian authorities had already failed to provide 20 percent of the loans they promised to car makers and car spare part producers. It also had to cancel a programme supplying bread producers with cheap wheat flour in order to reallocate the funds to cover the guaranteed purchases of grain from local farmers. Tehran's attempts to control consumer prices are also not working. Providing importers with cheap foreign currency is unlikely to produce the desired results. The Majlis Research Center, a think-tank affiliated with the Iranian parliament, recently found that in 2018 a similar measure had little effect on consumer prices and inflation, as the recipients of cheap foreign exchange currency tended to either sell it on the black market or sell the goods they imported at inflated prices. Price controls on local producers could also backfire. They could further discourage local businesses from expanding production given the rising cost of raw materials and shrinking profit margins and encourage the excessive export of goods out of the country, adding to the market deficit. Temporary export bans on selected items such as poultry, sugar, certain types of fruit, and more have only stimulated the smuggling business. Meanwhile, the government is pulling funds out of long-term development and infrastructural projects. In this year's budget, the allocated funds to the National Development Fund which is supposed to help decrease the dependence of the Iranian economy on oil are inadequate. The fund has also lost part of its reserves which were reallocated to cover military and civilian expenditures. The main reason behind the Iranian leadership's failure to improve the country's economic situation is its tendency to focus on dealing with the consequences of economic problems (such as high inflation rates, rising prices, illegal economic activities etc) rather than their sources. In order to find sustainable solutions to Iran's economic challenges, Tehran will need to make some structural reforms including cutting down or, at least, optimising the unjustifiably large social programmes and indirect subsidies. However, the Iranian leadership is reluctant to take such steps because it goes against its self-declared social protection agenda. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers declared the protection of the downtrodden, or mostazafin, as one of the main tasks of the newly created Islamic Republic. By doing so, they not only secured the support of the lower classes and guaranteed the durability of their regime, but also unwillingly chained their success to problematic and hard-to-sustain policies such as consumer subsidies. As a result, the Iranian authorities created a mechanism to control the import, production and distribution of basic consumer goods. However, this system, which helped guarantee the survival of the regime for four decades, came at a heavy cost - it swallowed valuable financial resources that could have been used to develop the economy. Today, the Iranian leadership knows that it cannot resolve the country's economic problems without stripping down this social protection system. However, it also knows that attempting to change this system would lead to an immediate rise in consumer prices, which could turn the lower classes against the regime. Under these circumstances, Iran's economic prospects for 2019 remain gloomy. In order to cope with the country's deep-rooted economic problems, Tehran has to conduct substantial reforms - something the current leadership is reluctant to do. Consequently, the Iranian government is stuck with the unproductive policy of trying to deal with the consequences of problems rather than their origin for yet another year. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/iran-economic-crisis-tied-ideological-woes-190412113442336.html | 2019-05-01 14:52:02+00:00 | 1,556,736,722 | 1,567,541,534 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
16,780 | aljazeera--2019-10-18--Lebanon protests over economic crisis, corruption continue | 2019-10-18T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Lebanon protests over economic crisis, corruption continue | Beirut, Lebanon - Thousands of anti-government protesters rallied in downtown Beirut for a second day on Friday, calling on Lebanon's political elite to step down over a worsening economic crisis. The protests, the country's biggest in years, are the most serious challenge to Prime Minister Saad Hariri's coalition government, which came to power less than a year ago. In Beirut's Martyr Square, protesters waving the Lebanese flag called for the resignation of the country's top leaders, including Hariri, President Michel Aoun, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, and the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil. Demonstrators - angry over government plans to impose new taxes amid rising costs of living - also accused the Lebanese leadership of corruption. They called for the country's strict banking secrecy laws to be lifted and for state funds stolen over the decades to be returned to the treasury. "Thief, Thief, Michel Aoun is a thief," protesters chanted, some looking around nervously with grins on their faces. In Lebanon, insulting the president can land you in jail. "Everyone is tired of this, the situation is horrible, people have no money, the people are falling apart, and all they give us is taxes, taxes, taxes," said Samir Shmaysri, a 39-year old hairdresser. "There's no reform process to even hope for the situation to get better." The protests began on Thursday after the cash-strapped government announced plans to impose new taxes, including on WhatsApp voice calls. Protesters blocked streets across the country by burning tyres, and in some areas set fire to buildings and vandalised shops. Amid the unrest, banks, shops and schools closed operations on Friday. The outpouring of anger prompted the Lebanese government to scrap plans for taxes on WhatsApp calls, and Hariri, who cancelled an emergency cabinet meeting on Friday, is expected to address the nation later in the day. The measures, however, have done little to placate protesters. "We want to change the situation in the country, that's it," said a protester blocking a road with a flaming rubbish bin near Beirut's Ras al-Nabaa area, just outside downtown. "We've tried being peaceful, it hasn't worked." The man had a wooden club with one charred end in his right hand. Next to him, another young man was busy re-blocking a road with smouldering rubbish bins and burning tyres, after a Lebanese Army vehicle briefly opened it to pass through. Randa, who brought her young nephew to Friday's protest, said it was her first time on the streets "It's not a matter of whether it's fitting or not for a child his age," the university teacher said, as the Lebanese national anthem rang out from speakers being her. "Everyone needs to come down," she said. "I feel that there is no partisan inclination to the protests. The intentions are pure." | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/lebanon-protests-economic-crisis-corruption-continue-191018132945814.html | Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:43:22 GMT | 1,571,427,802 | 1,571,416,263 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
17,783 | aljazeera--2019-11-25--US dollar shortage and Lebanon's economic crisis | 2019-11-25T00:00:00 | aljazeera | US dollar shortage and Lebanon's economic crisis | There have been widespread concerns over Lebanon's economy. A shortage of US dollars has caused several businesses to close and many people have lost their jobs. The crisis has triggered growing fears about the country's economic future. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/dollar-shortage-lebanons-economic-crisis-191125160725930.html | Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:07:25 GMT | 1,574,716,045 | 1,574,727,664 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
18,856 | aljazeera--2019-12-24--No Christmas miracle in Lebanon as economic crisis deepens | 2019-12-24T00:00:00 | aljazeera | No Christmas miracle in Lebanon as economic crisis deepens | Beirut, Lebanon - Atta Issaoui cannot afford Christmas gifts for his children this year, let alone buy a tree. "We want to take part in this celebration, but the situation in the country, the poverty and lack of work has made it difficult," the 55-year-old father of two said. • Roadblocks across Lebanon as anger rises over Diab pick as PM Issaoui stood in line to receive presents donated by demonstrators at a protest encampment in Beirut's Martyrs' Square, the centre of an uprising against the ruling elite that began in mid-October. "I thank God there are some who empathise with us, it really does raise our spirits," he told Al Jazeera. On Monday night, a Christmas dinner was served to about 1,000 people in Martyrs' Square, with volunteers cooking under a Christmas tree adorned with symbols of the uprising. Small initiatives like these have offered some hope to those struggling amid Lebanon's worst economic and financial crisis since the country's 15-year civil war. The currency has depreciated by 30 percent since September over its pegged rate to the dollar. But for many in the country, this Christmas remains a bitter one. In the past few months, scores of businesses have shut their doors, while many others have laid off workers, reduced their operations or paid only half salaries. A dollar shortage has led banks to introduce informal capital controls on both dollars and local currency, leaving many unable to withdraw their meagre earnings and shaking confidence in the country's banking system, long seen as a pillar of stability. The country's economic collapse has been exacerbated by the country's continuing political crisis. Lebanon has been without a government since October 29, when former Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned amid mass protests. President Michel Aoun last week tasked former education minister Hassan Diab with forming a government, but Diab faces an uphill battle to reconcile the varying demands of parliamentary blocs and convince protesters, many of whom have already voiced opposition to the politician. Meanwhile, the crisis has filtered down to those who struggled before the latest crisis hit. Mohammad, 45, who works as a doorman, said his salary of 650,000 Lebanese Lira ($430 at the official rate of 1500 Lebanese lira to the dollar) had been slashed to just 350,000 Lebanese Lira ($230). The father of four received a few bags of sweets, colouring pens and a drawing book from volunteers, which he said would be the only presents he could offer this year. "I've never been worse off. My kids haven't eaten meat for three weeks, there is no Christmas cheer, there is nothing to be happy for," said Mohammad, who wished to only go by his first name. "I don't even have the money to get a bus to my home," he added, walking off towards Beirut's Hamra district. It is unlikely the situation will improve any time soon, according to Dan Azzi, an expert on Lebanon's finances and former chairman and CEO of Standard Chartered Bank. "Politicians need to stop messing around, else they preside over the biggest collapse in the history of Lebanon," Azzi told Al Jazeera. He said that the best-case scenario depended on immediate, decisive measures being implemented as soon as possible. This includes formal, transparent policies to manage the flow of capital in and out of the country, and targeted tariffs, including on luxury cars. He also advocates for so-called financial haircuts or the confiscation of a certain percentage of the highest depositor accounts. He said that some $90bn in Lebanon's banks was held by just 6,000 depositors Much of that money is the result of high interest rates Lebanese banks put in place to attract dollars. "It's fake money," Azzi said. "It's unearned interest that has been subsidised by the Lebanese public. So you need to go in and give them a big haircut and then you can move on to focusing on creating a real economy," he said. If state policies remain unchanged, Azzi said Lebanon was heading towards the "Mad-Max scenario", a reference to the dystopian film of the same name, set after the collapse of civilised human life. "If we keep procrastinating and wasting time, or get a government that doesn't have the know-how or the intestinal fortitude to execute the right decision, then we go to a Mad Max-type scenario," Azzi said. There have already been signs of brewing chaos at banks in Lebanon, with a number of depositors refusing to leave until they are given their cash. In one video, a man says he would "burn the bank" if he was not given his money. Back in Martyrs' Square, many clung to any hope they could find in the generosity of others. Clasping four books bound in cheerful Christmas wrapping, Ahmad, 53, said that he hoped 2020 would be "a year of revenge," against corrupt politicians. "Everything is getting worse, but we have hope in the revolution, that these corrupt ones are soon heading to their execution," Ahmad, who wished to only go by his first name, added. "We still have our dreams." | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/christmas-miracle-lebanon-economic-crisis-deepens-191224152247391.html | Tue, 24 Dec 2019 19:19:45 GMT | 1,577,233,185 | 1,577,233,362 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
18,968 | aljazeera--2019-12-27--Lebanon economic crisis hurting daily life | 2019-12-27T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Lebanon economic crisis hurting daily life | Lebanon has been without a government for two months. Political deadlock is not rare, but it comes at a critical time. The economy is near collapse and the Lebanese are relying on themselves to survive the crisis, which is being described as the worst in decades. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/lebanon-economic-crisis-hurting-daily-life-191227115340916.html | Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:53:40 GMT | 1,577,465,620 | 1,577,449,520 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
55,009 | birminghammail--2019-01-22--Prince William grills Sir David Attenborough over planets environmental crisis at World Economic Fo | 2019-01-22T00:00:00 | birminghammail | Prince William grills Sir David Attenborough over planet's environmental crisis at World Economic Forum | Sir David Attenborough has warned it is difficult to overstate the environmental crisis facing the planet, as he was interviewed live on stage by the Duke of Cambridge. The veteran broadcaster urged leaders to care for the natural world as he spoke with William at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The Blue Planet and Dynasties narrator stressed the "frightening" mechanisms humans have for destruction, and warned how a healthy natural world was "absolutely essential" to human life. Sir David told the duke: "The future of the natural world is in our hands. We have never been more powerful. "We can wreck it with ease. We can wreck it without even knowing we are doing it. "And if we wreck the natural world, in the end, we wreck ourselves." The broadcaster added: "It is difficult to overstate it. We are now so numerous, so powerful, so all-pervasive, the mechanisms that we have for destruction are so wholesale and so frightening, that we can actually exterminate whole ecosystems without even noticing it." Sir David also discussed his new nature documentary Our Planet, saying streaming it on Netflix would allow it to be seen by millions of people around the world. Describing the modern technology used in his documentary making, he said: "The facilities we now have are unbelievable. We can go everywhere. We can go to the bottom of the sea, we can go into space, we can use drones, we can use helicopters, we can speed things up and we can slow them down. "So the natural world has never been exposed to this degree before." He urged people "not to waste the riches of the natural world on which we depend" and to respect the planet by not throwing away food or power. Sir David added: "Just care for the natural world, of which we are an essential part." Second in line to the throne William described it as a "personal treat" to be interviewing Sir David. The duke has spoken of his fondness for watching Sir David's programmes as a child and previously described him as having "the single most important impact in my conservation thinking". He revealed in Davos: "It's a personal treat for me to be sitting here asking you questions. "Normally I have to endure people asking me questions so it's quite nice to be turning the tables for once." One of Sir David's favourite clips from Our Planet - dramatic footage of an Arctic glacier carving up and falling into the sea - was played during the Forum. The naturalist said: "One of the most immediate dangers facing the planet today is rising temperatures... In the Arctic temperatures are rising very fast." As Sir David discussed the difficulty in capturing the fast-moving glaciers on film, William joked that they were "a bit like children - unpredictable". On Monday, Sir David was given a Crystal Award for his leadership in environmental stewardship at the WEF, and used his acceptance speech to call for a plan to tackle environmental problems. William asked Sir David: "People of my generation now are beginning to step into positions of leadership around the world. "The work to save the planet is probably, largely going to happen on our watch. "What advice do you have for my generation?" Sir David, who was given a standing ovation by delegates at the end of the interview, responded: "There has never been a time when more people have been out of touch with the natural world, than there is now. "We have to recognise that every breath of air we take, every mouthful of food we take, comes from the natural world. "And if we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves. We are one coherent ecosystem. "It's not just a question of beauty, or interest, or wonder - it's the essential part of human life is a healthy planet." The pair also discussed how Sir David will be seeking a global deal for nature in Beijing in 2020. Tanya Steele, chief executive of WWF-UK (World Wildlife Fund) of which the naturalist is an ambassador, welcomed his call for action. "We urgently need a new global deal for nature and people to kick-start a worldwide programme of recovery and, at the same time, bold action to restore nature at home in the UK," she said. "We are the first generation to know that we are destroying the world and almost certainly the last that can do anything about it." | James Rodger | https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/prince-william-grills-sir-david-15716657 | 2019-01-22 16:23:32+00:00 | 1,548,192,212 | 1,567,551,299 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
113,115 | cnsnews--2019-06-19--Economist Who Predicted 2008 Economic Crisis Warns of 2020 Recession Risk | 2019-06-19T00:00:00 | cnsnews | Economist Who Predicted 2008 Economic Crisis Warns of 2020 Recession Risk | Economist Nouriel Roubini, who foresaw the 2008 world economic crisis, is now warning about the growing risk of a 2020 recession. In 2018, he had identified 10 potential downside risks with his colleague Brunello Rosa, risks that they believe could trigger a U.S. and global recession in 2020. Roubini, co-founder of the economic forecasting team Rosa & Roubini Associates in London, was a senior economist for International Affairs in the White House's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration. He currently is a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business and CEO of Roubini Macro Associates. On Sept. 7, 2006, Roubini warned about the potential economic crisis of 2008 while speaking to an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund. His forecast proved correct, as the 2007-2008 financial crisis severely hurt the U.S. and world economy. In 2018, Roubini and Rosa said there were 10 factors that could trigger a global recession in 2020. Many of the factors involve the United States. In a recent commentary based on those factors, Roubini wrote, “Trade wars with China and other countries, along with restrictions on migration, foreign direct investment, and technology transfers, could have profound implications for global supply chains, raising the threat of stagflation (slowing growth alongside rising inflation).” Prohibiting Chinese firms from using U.S. components could trigger a process of de-globalization, he said. “With the current tension already denting business, consumer, and investor confidence and slowing global growth, further escalation would trip the world into a recession,” said Roubini. China’s reaction to President Trump’s tariff restrictions could also hurt some multi-national companies in China, such as America’s Apple. “Both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping know that it is in their countries’ interest to avoid a global crisis, so they have an incentive to find a compromise in the next few months,” said Roubini. “Yet both sides are still ratcheting up nationalist rhetoric and pursuing tit-for-tat measures.” “Trump and Xi each seem to think that his country’s long-term economic and national security may depend on his not blinking in the face of a new cold war,” said the economist. “And if they each genuinely believe the other will blink first, the risk of a ruinous clash is high indeed.” The other factors Roubini mentioned, in addition to the trade war, is China’s heavy debt and the U.S. Federal Reserve’s interest-rate policy. In Europe and Japan, central banks are already in negative-rate territory, said Roubini, and it seems clear that they cannot go much further down without triggering economic problems. In September 2018, Roubini wrote, “Trump was already attacking the Fed when the growth rate was recently 4%. Just think about how he will behave in the 2020 election year, when growth likely will have fallen below 1% and job losses emerge. The temptation for Trump to ‘wag the dog’ by manufacturing a foreign-policy crisis will be high, especially if the Democrats retake the House of Representatives this year,” which they did. “Since Trump has already started a trade war with China and wouldn’t dare attack nuclear-armed North Korea, his last best target would be Iran,” wrote Roubini. “By provoking a military confrontation with that country, he would trigger a stagflationary geopolitical shock not unlike the oil-price spikes of 1973, 1979, and 1990. Needless to say, that would make the oncoming global recession even more severe.” | Ilona Schumicky | https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/ilona-schumicky/economist-who-predicted-2008-economic-crisis-warns-2020-recession-risk | 2019-06-19 20:26:50+00:00 | 1,560,990,410 | 1,567,538,688 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
119,710 | conservativehome--2019-12-05--WATCH: Labour will create an economic crisis if they win the election, warns Javid | 2019-12-05T00:00:00 | conservativehome | WATCH: Labour will create an economic crisis if they win the election, warns Javid | “It’s Labour that was responsible for the massive rise of homelessness.” Chancellor @sajidjavid claims that the previous Labour government is to blame for the UK’s rise in homelessness. Labour’s pledged to end rough sleeping in the #GE2019 campaign: https://t.co/xUdNCUIw2l pic.twitter.com/yQ5IPIoMPB | Conservative Home | https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/12/watch-labour-will-create-an-economic-crisis-if-they-win-the-election-warns-javid.html | Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:17:39 +0000 | 1,575,562,659 | 1,575,549,962 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
188,619 | eveningstandard--2019-11-10--General election latest: Labour would plunge UK into economic crisis 'within months' | 2019-11-10T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | General election latest: Labour would plunge UK into economic crisis 'within months' | The Labour Party would plunge Britain into an economic crisis "within months", Sajid Javid has insisted. The Chancellor said the opposition would spend an "eye-watering" extra £650 million a day if they win the General Election. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell hit back, condemning the Conservative Party analysis as an "incompetent mish-mash of debunked estimates and bad maths". Mr Javid said the proposals, which include plans to renationalise rail, mail, water and energy, were "absolutely reckless" and equivalent to funding the entire NHS budget for nine years. He told BBC One's The Andrew Marr Show: "This is the true cost of Corbyn's Labour: these are the numbers that John McDonnell did not want you to see, and they're out there today... "These are eye-watering levels of spending - £1.2 trillion. "It will be absolutely reckless and will leave this country with an economic crisis within months, not years." But shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: "Labour will tax the rich to pay for things everyone needs and deserves, like decent housing, healthcare and support for our children. "We will also use the power of the state to invest to grow our economy, create good jobs in every region and nation and tackle the climate emergency. "The Conservatives will be able to read all about these plans - and how much they actually cost - when we publish our fully-costed manifesto." The analysis, overseen by Mr Javid, and published in a 35-page dossier, is based on costings for Labour's last manifesto and its most recent pledges, spread across a five-year period. It assumes the Opposition would immediately sign up to the 32-hour week, abolish private schools, and pilot a universal basic income. However shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith said Labour would not implement every policy from its annual conference - as the party could "only do a certain amount at once". Meanwhile, Business minister Kwasi Kwarteng was unable to put a price on his own party's pledges, and told Sky: "I'm not going to bandy around figures." It came as Labour's shadow communities secretary Andrew Gwynne refused to say whether a Labour government's Brexit deal would end freedom of movement. Mr Gwynne told the BBC that the £1.2 trillion claim was an "absolute work of fiction" by Tories, adding: "You can't trust a word that Johnson and his ministers say on this issue. "We will have a fully-costed manifesto in due course when we launch that, and the challenge actually is for the Conservatives to fully cost their own manifesto, something they didn't do in 2017." Asked what the correct figure for Labour's spending is, the shadow communities secretary said: "Well look, that's still being finalised." As the battle for seats continues, Labour selected Ibrahim Dogus, a restaurateur, as its candidate for deputy leader Tom Watson's West Bromwich East constituency. Meanwhile, the Conservative candidate for the Labour-held seat of Wakefield, Antony Calvert, quit the race amid a storm over comments he made on food banks and feminism. | Luke O'Reilly | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sajid-javid-labour-would-plunge-uk-into-economic-crisis-within-months-a4283326.html | Sun, 10 Nov 2019 13:54:22 GMT | 1,573,412,062 | 1,573,432,176 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
196,945 | foreignpolicy--2019-08-27--Is India Facing an Economic Crisis | 2019-08-27T00:00:00 | foreignpolicy | Is India Facing an Economic Crisis? | Welcome to Foreign Policy’s weekly South Asia Brief. Sign up here to receive this weekly newsletter directly in your inbox. The highlights this week: India tries to boost its economy, Kashmir remains under a broad lockdown, the Rohingya mark a sad anniversary, and Amazon opens its biggest office space in the world. Last Friday, India’s government finally acknowledged that all was not well in the world’s seventh-largest economy. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman rolled back a tax on foreign investors and promised to speed up tax refunds to small businesses, among other announcements. Investors seemed pleased: On Monday, the key Mumbai stock market gained more than 2 percent, after recording its worst July in nearly two decades. And the markets continued to rise on Tuesday. Broader problems. While the stock market may have received a short-term boost, Sitharaman’s announcements alone won’t fix underlying economic problems. The biggest concern—and a likely factor behind slowing consumer demand—seems to be the country’s 6.1 percent unemployment rate, the highest in 45 years. An estimated 1 million Indians enter the workforce every month, and enough jobs simply aren’t being created for them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, car sales declined by 36 percent in July. Sitharaman announced on Friday a one-off government move to replace its fleet of cars with new ones, but that will hardly encourage the auto industry to ramp up production or hire more workers. (Automakers have laid off an estimated 350,000 workers since April.) Meanwhile GDP growth has slowed, with Nomura analysts predicting a tepid 5.7 percent growth rate for the April-June quarter, expected to be announced next week. Criticism. Thomas Isaac, the finance minister of the state of Kerala, tweeted that Sitharaman’s announcements didn’t amount to enough. “What is required is a large fiscal spending package,” he wrote. And in a rare example of a top Indian businessman criticizing New Delhi, Adi Godrej, the chairman of the Godrej conglomerate, told Business Standard last week that “the speed of decision-making is very good for example in Kashmir, but the speed of decision-making on business matters is not good.” One problem may be that even as India’s central bank continues to cut interest rates—which are already at their lowest level in nine years—outdated state banks often avoid passing on cheaper loans to consumers. And the private sector seems too spooked by a global slowdown to make large investments. Put together, these trends led a top government think tank leader to admit last week that India’s economic situation was “unprecedented” and that “nobody is trusting anybody else” in the government and private sector. Depleting brain trust. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has had to cope with the loss of some key lieutenants to ill health. On Saturday, Arun Jaitley, who was finance minister from 2014 to early 2019, died after years of kidney-related illnesses. Sushma Swaraj, who served as external affairs minister over the same period, also died this month after a heart attack. And Manohar Parrikar, who served as defense minister from 2014 to 2017, died from pancreatic cancer in March. All talk. After 10 months, peace talks between the United States and the Taliban may soon be wrapping up. Under a draft agreement, the United States would pull some 5,000 troops out of Afghanistan in the next few months and 9,000 more by next year. The Taliban would cut ties to al Qaeda. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, who is eager to move forward with a scheduled presidential election at the end of September, is putting pressure on the negotiations. Refugee anniversary. On Sunday, at least 100,000 Rohingya refugees in camps in Bangladesh came together to mark what they called “Genocide Day.” It has been two years since the start of a wave of military violence—which the United Nations characterized as having “genocidal intent”—forced them to flee neighboring Myanmar. The camps in southern Bangladesh are home to more than 1 million people, making them the largest refugee settlement in the world. Tarnished brass? In late August, the Sri Lankan government named Shavendra Silva, a veteran of the decades-long civil war against the Tamil Tigers, as commander of the country’s army. The move provoked immediate backlash from the United States, United Nations, and others because Silva is accused of overseeing torture and extrajudicial killings of unarmed rebels in the last weeks of that war. Colombo has since shot back, dismissing concerns that Silva’s appointment would undermine the reconciliation process and calling foreign efforts to influence the government’s decision-making “unwarranted and unacceptable.” Let’s discuss. A few weeks into the lockdown in Kashmir, New Delhi claims that it is starting to lift some restrictions on movement there. Tensions remain as high as ever, though, with ongoing protests amid a media blackout. Meanwhile, in an interview with the New York Times last week, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan took the opportunity to weigh in on negotiations with India, arguing that “there is no point in talking to them. I mean, I have done all the talking. … There is nothing more that we can do.” And at the G-7 summit in Biarritz, France, on Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump seemed to walk back earlier offers to mediate between India and Pakistan before adding that he’d still be there if they needed him. “I have a very good relationship with both gentlemen,” he said. For more perspective from Kashmir, read this FP dispatch from Pulwama by the journalist Soumya Shankar. According to the World Bank, 28 percent of Nepal’s workforce is based abroad. What percentage of Nepal’s GDP comes from remittances? Scroll to the bottom for the answer. India online. Amazon has opened its single largest office building in Hyderabad. Some 15,000 employees can work from the new facility’s 1.8 million square feet of office space. Amazon is battling Walmart for an e-commerce market that could be worth $200 billion in less than a decade, according to Morgan Stanley. Unusual letter. According to Reuters, the U.S. ambassador to India, Kenneth Juster, wrote last month to top U.S. tech leaders encouraging them to take part in discussions on tech policy disputes with New Delhi. India recently imposed tough data localization laws that impact Facebook, Google, and Twitter, as well as more stringent rules for foreign investment. It’s unusual for businesses to receive such a letter from a sitting U.S. diplomat. Reuters, which viewed a copy of the letter, reports that Juster wrote, “My team at the Embassy stands by ready to help.” Middle ground. As the United States and the Taliban eye a deal to end nearly two decades of war, Robert Pape, a professor of political science and director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, asks what the United States can do to keep itself safe from terrorism. Rejecting both leaving troops in the country on a large scale and a complete withdrawal, Pape argues for a middle course. “An ‘over-the-horizon’ counterterrorism strategy would rely on cooperation with local partners and selective interventions of air power, U.S. special operations forces, and intelligence, economic, and political support from regional bases outside Afghanistan,” he writes. It is ultimately the only plan, he argues, that is “realistic about what can be achieved in such a heavily challenged area as Afghanistan and remains true to America’s core security interests.” That’s a rap. In Little Kid, Big Dreams, his debut album, the rapper Ahmer Javed takes on the struggles in Kashmir, his homeland. As one reviewer puts it, the music is challenging, but “his style is not directly confrontational—it is often a laying-bare of facts and stories, urging the listener to make up her mind, rather than guiding her urgently to a conclusion.” Listen on SoundCloud. According to the Financial Times, although the inflow of remittances is rising, the value has fallen as a percentage of GDP from 31 percent in 2015 to 28 percent by 2018. Read more of our South Asia-related stories on www.foreignpolicy.com. We welcome your feedback at [email protected]. You can find older editions of South Asia Brief here. For more from FP, subscribe here or sign up for our other newsletters. | Ravi Agrawal and Kathryn Salam | https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/27/india-economic-crisis-kashmir-rohingya/ | 2019-08-27 17:50:27+00:00 | 1,566,942,627 | 1,567,543,675 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
213,963 | france24--2019-01-11--A decade on Spain still haunted by economic crisis | 2019-01-11T00:00:00 | france24 | A decade on, Spain still haunted by economic crisis | Ten years ago, Spain was hit by a severe economic crisis. A million Spaniards moved abroad in search of a better life and the country’s traditional two-party system took a beating. Our correspondent takes a closer look at what has changed: Although economic indicators paint a rosier picture today, austerity has left its mark and job insecurity is on the rise. Ten years ago, Spain was crippled by one of the worst economic crises in its history. When the housing bubble burst, several whole sections of the Spanish economy collapsed. Almost half of under-25s found themselves without a job. Unable to pay their mortgages, half a million families were evicted from their homes. Deemed responsible for the crisis, the two mainstream political parties – the centre-left Socialist party and conservative People’s Party – lost ground. The emergence of new outfits like the far-left Podemos or centre-right Ciudadanos party dealt a blow to the two-party system, which had dominated Spanish politics for decades. Today, after years of austerity, the Spanish economy is faring better. Spain is currently the fourth-largest economy in the eurozone and GDP growth exceeds 3 percent. The real estate market has also bounced back. These positive indicators have prompted many young graduates, who had left during the crisis to find work abroad, to return home. Looking behind the numbers But although unemployment fell in Spain, it was at the expense of job security. In 2012, under the Conservative government of Mariano Rajoy, a major labour reform was passed in a bid to make the job market more flexible. But it has led to a fall in wages and to job insecurity. Last month, by decree, the Socialist government approved a 22 percent increase in the minimum wage from 2019. The move appears a first step in restoring trust between Spain’s political class and disillusioned citizens. | Mélina HUET | https://www.france24.com/en/20190111-video-revisited-spain-haunted-economic-crisis-decade-later-unemployment-job-insecurity | 2019-01-11 13:40:18+00:00 | 1,547,232,018 | 1,567,552,996 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
216,102 | france24--2019-07-04--Even criminals are being hit by the economic crisis in Venezuela | 2019-07-04T00:00:00 | france24 | Even criminals are being hit by the economic crisis in Venezuela | The economic crisis in Venezuela is having a devastating impact on people across all levels of society. But there is one silver lining: the number of murders and kidnappings are dropping as the crisis is hitting the country's criminal gangs hard. FRANCE 24’s team in Caracas spoke to several felons about what has changed. In other news, US government investigators are warning of dangerous levels of overcrowding at migrant centres on the southern border. Shocking photographs, which were published this week, depicted disturbingly packed cells of children with no access to food or showers. In reaction to the horrific images, protesters in New York rallied to voice their outrage. In sports, the United States is through to FIFA’s World Cup final. But its star player has snubbed an invitation from the White House, sparking a war of words between US President Donald Trump and female football star Megan Rapinoe. | Nadia MASSIH | https://www.france24.com/en/20190704-inside-americas-venezuela-gang-violence-crisis-us-migrant-centres-football-rapinoe-trump | 2019-07-04 12:11:59+00:00 | 1,562,256,719 | 1,567,536,964 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
218,070 | france24--2019-12-24--Argentina agrees on economic measures to end crisis | 2019-12-24T00:00:00 | france24 | Argentina agrees on economic measures to end crisis | FILE PHOTO: A man shows Argentine pesos outside a bank in Buenos Aires' financial district, Argentina August 30, 2018. Picture taken August 30, 2018. Argentina's center-left government approved on Monday a package of emergency measures aimed at lifting the South American country out of its worst economic crisis in years. Argentina is in a recession caused by a currency collapse that struck 18 months ago. Poverty levels in the country of 44 million still top 40 percent -- in a country that was among the world's wealthiest in the early 20th century. The emergency economic package was announced by new President Alberto Fernandez, who took office two weeks ago with a vow to put Argentina back on its feet. The emergency measures were announced just after 5:00 pm in the government's Official Bulletin -- several hours after it was expected due to some last-minute changes. The government says the tax hikes will only affect the upper and middle classes. The bill passed the lower house of Congress on Friday and the Senate on Saturday. Fernandez has described this crisis as almost as bad as that of 2001 -- when Argentina defaulted on a $100 billion debt. Its current foreign debt stands at around 90 percent of GDP. "It is not the same as 2001. But it is similar. At that time, poverty was at 57 percent, today we have 41 percent poor people; then we had a debt default, today we are in virtual default," Fernandez said in an interview with TV program La Cornice on Sunday. The new law will allow the executive extra powers over finance, tax, administration, pensions, tariffs, energy, health and social issues. The government's aim is to "attend to the needs of the most vulnerable sectors and to ... spark growth," Social Security Administration chief Alejandro Vanoli said. The government has vowed to "tackle hunger" and has announced a 10,000 ($160) peso bonus for pensioners and a six-month freeze on public utility prices. "It's a difficult situation, it's a country that has had to restructure its debt, with a deep fiscal and financial deficit, in a situation of recession and inflation," said Vanoli. "The state is putting all its efforts into those suffering the most from the social situation." Market-friendly liberal ex-president Mauricio Macri had planned in September to negotiate a restructuring of debt repayments with the International Monetary Fund, with which he'd agreed a $57 billion bailout loan last year. Argentina has already received $44 billion of that loan but Fernandez has said that he will refuse the remaining disbursements. He told reporters on Monday an IMF delegation is due in Argentina "in the next few days." Argentina's economy is expected to shrink by 3.1 percent in 2019, inflation is hovering around 55 percent and unemployment is rising to 10.5 percent. "That's what we inherited. We can't face up to it and pay the obligations that we've been landed with," Fernandez said on Sunday, as he made comparisons with the 2001 crisis. "We had massive unemployment, we also have that now. What we didn't have (then) is inflation (but) now we have it." Economist Claudio Loser of the Washington-based Centennial Group says Fernandez wants to "make it clear to creditors that they're going to have to negotiate a restructuring with Argentina." "He's referring to a virtual default to dramatize the situation and show that Macri left him a huge problem." On Friday, Argentina unilaterally postponed a $9 billion maturities payment until August, a move that saw rating agencies Fitch and S&P downgrade its credit rating. On Monday, though, Fitch restored Argentina's rating to "CC" from "restricted default" but warned of "a high probability of another default of some kind." "We're in a huge freefall ... in two years, Argentina has massively increased its debt," said Fernandez. Argentina owes $335 billion, just over 90 percent of its gross domestic product. That figure was a little over 50 percent in 2016, soon after Macri came to power. One of Argentina's main problems is its people prefer to hold dollars rather than pesos, meaning they try to sell their local currency and often keep their dollars in foreign bank accounts. "Argentina has no more dollars. Macri lost $100 billion. Argentina needs dollars to come back in," said Fernandez, who has maintained the monthly $200 limit of buying foreign currency imposed by Macri last August. "Dollars are scarce, as there aren't any, they have to be expensive" to buy, he said. | NEWS WIRES | https://www.france24.com/en/20191224-argentina-approves-economic-measures-aimed-at-ending-crisis | Tue, 24 Dec 2019 02:36:44 GMT | 1,577,173,004 | 1,577,191,197 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
227,723 | globalresearch--2019-01-31--Economic Warfare against Venezuela Illegal US Sanctions Causing Economic and Humanitarian Crisis | 2019-01-31T00:00:00 | globalresearch | “Economic Warfare” against Venezuela. Illegal US Sanctions Causing Economic and Humanitarian Crisis according to Former UN Rapporteur | A former United Nations rapporteur has criticised the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he claimed was the real reason for the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the country. Alfred de Zayas, who last year became the first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years, also suggested in his recently published UN report, that US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law. Mr De Zayas, an American lawyer, writer, historian and former secretary of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), presented his Venezuela report to the HRC in September. In the report, which can be read in full here, Mr De Zayas recommended, among other actions, that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as possible crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. In the report conclusions Mr De Zayas, who is an expert in the fields of human rights and international law, went on to say the solution to the Venezuelan crisis lay “in good faith negotiations between the Government and the opposition, an end to the economic war, and the lifting of sanctions.” The US imposed sanctions against Venezuela began in 2015 under President Barack Obama and have intensified under Donald Trump. US sanctions against Venezuela prohibit dealing in currencies and stop US-based companies or people from buying and selling new debt issued by the state-run oil body, PDVSA or the government. The US Department of State’s sanctions and justifications can be read here In his report Mr De Zayas said modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns. “Twenty-first century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees.” Since 2015 around 1.9m people have fled the country and inflation has reached 60,324%. Speaking to The Independent yesterday Mr de Zayas also suggested his research into the causes of the country’s economic crisis has so far largely been ignored. Mr de Zayas went on to suggest that sanctions are part of a US effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government and instal a friendlier regime. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and other abundant natural resources including gold, bauxite and coltan. In his report, Mr de Zayas expressed concern that those calling the situation a “humanitarian crisis” are being “weaponised” to discredit the government and make violent overthrow more “palatable”. Amnesty, for example, have said the Maduro government is responsible for “the worst human rights crisis in the country’s history,” “There is nothing more undemocratic than a coup d’état and nothing more corrosive to the rule of law and to international stability when foreign governments meddle in the internal affairs of other states,” he told The Independent. “Only the Venezuelans have a right to decide, not the United States, not the United Kingdom … What is urgent is to help the Venezuelan people through international solidarity – genuine humanitarian aid and a lifting of the financial blockade so that Venezuela can buy and sell like any other country in the world – the problems can be solved with good faith and common sense.” Mr De Zayas is one of 70 signatories of an open letter, along with with Noam Chomsky and over 70 other academics and experts, who have condemned what they described as a US-backed coup attempt against the Venezuelan government. Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. | Irish Examiner | https://www.globalresearch.ca/former-un-rapporteur-criticizes-us-for-engaging-in-economic-warfare-us-sanctions-against-venezuela-causing-economic-and-humanitarian-crisis/5667088 | 2019-01-31 13:14:00+00:00 | 1,548,958,440 | 1,567,550,077 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
227,738 | globalresearch--2019-02-01--Dishonesty Omissions and Lies in Reporting on the Venezuelan Economic Crisis | 2019-02-01T00:00:00 | globalresearch | Dishonesty, Omissions and Lies in Reporting on the Venezuelan Economic Crisis | Since 2015 Venezuela has endured gruesome economic hardships. Inflation rates have spiraled out of control, and the public is facing a recession that is tearing the country apart. Now, Venezuelans not only face economic turmoil, but also direct military aggression. A sane response of anyone who wishes to help Venezuelans through these troubles is to try to understand why this is happening. Unfortunately, not all opinion pieces and news articles are honest in their approach. In fact, most media outlets seem to regurgitate the same poor and factually erroneous narratives, leaving the public ill-informed. It is necessary to address some common falsehoods that have been circulating concerning the economic situation in Venezuela and to highlight important facts that have largely been omitted from the common narrative. Venezuela’s economic problems did not start with the Bolivarian revolution One example of dishonest narratives in the pages of the Western media is that Venezuela’s economic problems are caused by the policies Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. These men are depicted as despots who have ruined a formerly healthy economy and as the culprits of Venezuela’s current crises. Latent in such narratives is the sometimes-unuttered, sometimes yelled, assumption that the Venezuelan economy was in good shape prior to the public election of Chavez in 1998. This is certainly not true. Venezuela economic crisis started more than 35 years ago. From 1983 to 1998 real income fell by 14 percent, in a society that was already extremely corrupt and unequal (Corrales, 1999).According to data from the Inter-American Development Bank, 68 percent of Venezuelans lived below the poverty line in 1998. That same year the unemployment rate was 11.2 percent, and the inflation rate was 35.8 percent. This was a year before Chavez took office as president and before any economic sanctions and pressures from the West started. After Chavez was elected president the economy strengthened considerably for three years, despite country being hit by massive flooding and landslides in December 1999. The inflation rate fell to 12.5% in 2001 and the poverty rate was successfully lowered to 39% (Weisbrot, 2008). The Bolivarian economic policies followed by the Chavez government were lifting Venezuelans out of poverty when Venezuela fortunately not being targeted for regime change. What did cause the first downturn of Venezuela’s economy was not its progressive policies, nor Chavez’s alleged despotism, but a major attempt at a CIA assisted military coup d’état in 2002 and a subsequent violent shutdown of the country’s oil industry. That coup left the country in turmoil despite being unsuccessful.Prior to 2003, the government did not exert control over the oil industry. The oil industry shut-down in 2002-2003 was orchestrated by the “Coordina Democrática”, an umbrella group of political parties, business federations and right-wing unions that pursued to overthrow the government by non-electoral means.We shall examine that coup attempt in more detail later, but we must note that this overt policy of the Venezuelan right-wing and its supporters in the US was conducted in a climate of increasingly positive standards of living, especially for the poor. Unfortunately, the failure of that coup attempt was not the end, but only the beginning of attempts to force Venezuela to steer from its policies. From that point to the present, Venezuela’s progressive policies were targeted by ever more sinister means and attempts at un-democratic takeover. A recession followed the coup in 2002 that lasted for two years. But the country bounced back and in 2005, the Venezuelan economy grew by 9,4%, the highest in Latin America. Inflation rates lowered to 15.3% (Wilpert, 2005). In 2012, Venezuela was the most equal society in Latin America in terms of wealth distribution (BBC, 2012). According the CNN, “In 2011, the Gini coefficient — which measures income inequality –was .39, down from nearly .50 in 1998, according to the CIA Factbook. That is, equality in Venezuela was better than in the US and only behind Canada in the Western Hemisphere”. (Voigt, 2013). Thus, despite real and aggressive attempts at sabotage, the Chavéz government managed to put into place policies that aided the poor and, at the same time, strengthened the economy. A common theme in current news stories regarding Venezuela’s crisis is that its cause can be found solely in the “economic mismanagement, corruption and political oppression” of Chavéz and Maduro (Laya, 2019). Such claims are supported with examples of the “Dutch syndrome”, where a country becomes to reliant on one commodity (Venezuela is very reliant on oil), on overspending on social programs, heavy lending and corruption. These claims might be open for reasonable debate if Venezuela had in any real sense been allowed to operate in peace. But nothing could be further from the truth. A factor too seldom included in the common narrative on Venezuela’s economic crash is the apparently intentional meddling of oil prices by Saudi Arabia and its allies that apparently aimed at hurting Iran (Cooper, 2014) as well as other oil dependent countries such as Venezuela and Russia. Starting in 2014, Saudi Arabia started to flood the market with cheap oil. Despite this hurting even Saudi Arabia itself, this overproduction of oil had drastic effects. The price of oil went down from $110 per barrel to $28 in two years (Puko, 2016). This plummeting of oil prices had immediate negative effects on the Venezuelan state budget, as well as on other oil dependent countries, leaving Venezuela cash-starved. It is true that the country was indeed over dependent on one resource, and it has a serious corruption problem. But it is hard to see how the government of Venezuela could have managed to deal with such a huge blow to its economy amidst serious sanctions and economic sabotage that already plagued the country. A right-wing government would not have fared better in these circumstances. Instead of showing understanding to its problems, this crisis was used to denounce the Maduro government and to promote propaganda that increased the possibility of violent foreign and internal aggression. Economic sanctions directed by the most powerful military- and economic powers can cripple any economy. Even relatively mild sanctions can have serious consequences for the target economy. It has been found that the imposition of economic sanctions decreases the target state’s real per capita GDP growth rate by 25 to 30 percentage points on average with effects lasting for at least 10 years. More serious sanctions produce more serious effects (Neuenkirch, 2015).Furthermore, economic sanctions have been found to seriously worsen economic inequality and widen the poverty gap in target countries, in effect hitting the poorest people in the target countries hardest (Afersorgbor & Mahadevan, 2016; Mulder, 2018). For example, in 1993, Serbia was singled out for economic sanctions that lasted until 2001. The sanctions had devastating effects on the public, making more than half the population of the country poor, unemployed, or displaced as refugees (Garfield, R. 2003). In Iraq, the economic sanctions imposed on the country in August 1990 and extended following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, lead to a decrease in GDP from $38 billion in 1989 to $10.8 billion in 1996. Per capita GDP declined over 75%, leading to devastating effects for the public. According to a report by Bossuyt (2000), the transportation, power and communication infrastructure were not rebuilt during the period, the industrial sector was in shambles, and agricultural production suffered greatly due to the sanctions. The “purchasing power of an Iraqi salary by the mid-1990s was about 5 per cent of its value prior to 1990 …” and, as the United Nations Development Program field office recognized, “the country has experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty …The previous advances in education and literacy have been completely reversed over the past 10 years” (ibid). As should be obvious, economic sanctions have horrible effects on the economy of the targeted nations and their inhabitants. How strange it is that opinion pieces, editorials and news segments tend to completely ignore that the overbearing barrage of economic sanctions directed against Venezuela might be a factor in the current crisis in its economy. Journalists that fail to address this cannot and should not be taken seriously. The crash in Venezuela is directly linked to economic sanctions In 2006, the first economic sanctions against Venezuela were put in place by Venezuela’s most important trading partner and,apparently, its worst enemy, the U.S. At first, these were directed against single individuals, but gradually these have evolved into hard and serious sanctions on all Venezuela. The US House of Representatives passed the Venezuelan Human Rights and Democracy Protection Act (H.R. 4587; 113th Congress) on May 28, 2014. It applied economic sanctions against Venezuelan officials who were alleged to be involved in the mistreatment of protestors during the 2014 Venezuelan protests. In December that year, the U.S. Congress passed S. 2142 (Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014). The bill directed the President to impose sanctions against “any person, including any current or former official for the government of Venezuela or person acting on behalf of that government” who the US Congress would deem as responsible for human rights abuses or “knowingly materially assisted, sponsored or provided significant financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the commission of such acts” (Poling et al., 2014). When the US Congress passed the bill, U.S. businesses raised concerns that the legislation could provide an incremental step towards broader sanctions against the Venezuelan economy, including the country’s oil industry despite being introduced as targeting individuals (ibid). On March 9, 2015, the Obama Administration signed and issued a Presidential order. In it, Venezuela was declared a threat to US national security and sanctions were ordered against Venezuelan officials. How Venezuela was a threat to the United States was not explained. The order was strongly denounced by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Sates for its “unilateral coercive measures against International Law” (Tejas, 2015). Ernesto Samper, the Secretary-General of the Union of South American Nations, deemed the order as an attempt to disrupt the democratic process in Venezuela. The Trump Administration greatly escalated the economic pressures started by the Obama Administration. These included financial sanctions against the Venezuelan government and aggressive measures against the oil industry. The additional sanctions on Venezuela that were imposed with Executive Order 13808 on August 24, 2017 were nothing less than an act of aggression against the Venezuelan economy and its people. It specifically bars revenues from Venezuela’s state oil company to paid from the US, bars the Venezuelan government from selling bonds, and even bars the state from receiving loans. These sanctions were designed to prevent Venezuela’s own money from entering Venezuela.Note that all the Venezuelan governments’ outstanding foreign currency bonds are governed under New York State law,and one of Venezuela’s major government assets, the state oil company, is based in Texas. So barring all profit flow from that company is crippling for Venezuela (Ellner, 2019). The US economic sanctions have indeed had devastating effects on the Venezuelan economy. Francisco Rodriguez, Venezuelan economist and a long-time critic of the Venezuelan government, presented clear evidence that since 2015, and especially after the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration in 2017, Venezuela’s oil production dropped much faster than had been predicted. According to Rodriguez, after the sanctions made it illegal for the Venezuelan government to obtain financing from the US, Venezuelan production fell by 37%, much more than the 6-13% decline that had been predicted. Rodriguez calculated that the difference in total revenue between the “sanctions” and “no sanctions” case over one year was about $6 billion. That sum is 133 times larger than what the UNHCR has appealed for in aid for Venezuelan migrants. Rodríguez summed up the main cause of Venezuela’s economic implosion as follows: “The fall in oil production began when oil prices plummeted in early 2016 but intensified when the industry lost access to credit markets in 2017” (Rodríguez, 2018). The US issued yet another economic sanction on Venezuela on January 28 this year. This time specifically focusing on “persons operating in Venezuela’s oil sector”, especially on Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). The press release announcing these new economic sanctions even specify that the US will “continue to take concrete and forceful actions against those who oppose the peaceful restoration of democracy in Venezuela” adding that the US “stands with interim President Juan Guaido”, an un-elected man (US dep. of State, 2019). This means that not only is the US arbitrarily sanctioning another country’s state assets and intentionally hurting its economy, it is directly involving itself in the internal affairs on another country, which is illegal under international law. The severe attacks on Venezuela´s economy have been followed by US allies. Recently, the Bank of England refused to return $1.2 billion in gold reserves after lobbying from National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo (Laya, Bronner and Ross, 2019). Indeed, these sanctions have been described “illegal and could amount to ‘crimes against humanity’ under international law” by Alfred de Zayas, former special rapporteur to the UN. According to de Zayas, the US is engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela that results in hurting the economy and killing Venezuelans (Selby-Green, 2019). As the sanctions seem to be means to starve the population of Venezuela and deliberately cripple the economy in order to achieve political aims, these acts can rightly be described as terrorism. It is very doubtful that any economy would survive such violent sanctions. Unfortunately, the sanctions are only one part of the extensive sabotage that have been done towards the Venezuelan economy and society. An even bigger threat to Venezuela’s economy than US lead sanctions has been the conspicuous acts of the internal enemies of Venezuela’s government and its progressive Bolivarian policies. Ever since 1999, the Venezuelan government has been under constant attacks from the very rich and powerful elite of business oligarchs who hate Bolivarian politics with a passion. These oligarchs have been supported by the US, as well as far right groups in the hemisphere, not least in Colombia. The first serious coup attempt took place in April 2002. It started with a general strike called by unions for the state oil company, PDVSA, which was followed by protest marches through Caracas. As protests neared the Miraflores palace, a massacre took place where 16 people were killed, 7 policemen and 9 civilians. Within hours, the military high command had arrested Chavéz and put in his place Pedro Carmona, the head of Venezuela’s largest business association. This presidency lasted 48 hours. In that short period Carmona, dissolved Congress and cancelled the newly approved constitution of Venezuela. Scores of people were imprisoned, and a military state was put in place. However, thousands of demonstrators and military personnel opposed to Carmona’s rule managed to reverse the coup. According to Bellos (2002),the Bush administration “was left with some eggs on its face. Unlike Latin American countries, which voiced concern that the coup had forsaken democratic principles, the US showed no remorse at Mr. Chavez’s removal”. The narrative of exactly what happened is still very partisan, but the coup attempt had been organized for at least 9 months by a group of businessmen, military officers and various opposition figures in Venezuela. Keeping in mind how long this coup attempt was planned, it is hard to take seriously claims that the demonstrations and the massacre that occurred in the early hours of April 11, followed by the arrest of Chavez and other political figures by elements of the Venezuelan military were unrelated to these plans. Private media outlets reported with dishonesty about what happened that day (see Wilpert, G. 2009) and were therefore complicit in the coup attempt. Although the extent to which institutions in the US were involved in the coup attempt, US officials knew it was going to take place. In 2004, declassified intelligence documents showed that the Central Intelligence Agency was aware that dissident military officers and opposition figures in Venezuela were planning a coup against President Hugo Chávez in 2002, well in advance. Parts of the document reads as followed: “disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chávez, possibly as early as this month…” It stated that Chávez and 10 senior officers were targeted for arrest and the plotters would try to “exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month” (Forero, 2004). In November 2013, a document titled “Plan Estratégico Venezolano” or “Stratetic Venezuelan Plan” that was written in June that same year, surfaced after suits from attorney Eva Golinger (2013). The document highlighted a plan by representatives of the United States, Colombia and the oligarchs in Venezuela to undermine the economy of Venezuela as part of removing Maduro. The document was prepared by the “Democratic Internationalism Foundations” which is headed by ex-Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, and also the “First Colombia Think Tank” and the US Consulting firm, FTI Consulting. The document is a very sinister read. It outlines a strategic plan to destabilize Venezuela by various means. For example, it details a strategy to sabotage the electrical system in Venezuela, “maintain and increase the sabotages that affect public services” and “increase problems with supply of basic consumer products”. For propaganda, the authors propose “perfecting the confrontational discourse of [opposition candidate] Henrique Capriles” and generate “emotion with short messages that reach the largest quantity of people and emphasize social problems, provoking social discontent”. More seriously, the authors propose to create “situations of crisis in the streets that will facilitate US intervention, as well as NATO forces, with the help of the Colombian government” adding “whenever possible, the violence should result in deaths or injury”. The document recommends “a military insurrection” against Venezuela with “contacting active military groups and those in retirement to amplify the campaign to discredit the government inside the Armed forces… It’s vital to prepare military forces so that during a scenario of crisis and social conflict, they lead an insurrection against the government, or at least support a foreign intervention or civil uprising” (Golinger, 2013). The plan was developed during a meeting between the three organizations as well as leaders of the Venezuelan opposition, including Maria Corina Machado, Julio Borges and Ramon Guillermo Avelado, expert in psychological operations J.J. Rendon and the Director of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) for Latin America, Mark Feierstein. One must ask, how many such plans have been put in place since, but not exposed? The actions and dialogue of these oligarch show just how low they are ready to sink in order to oust a democratically elected government. The opposition in Venezuela has been very violent and showed complete disregard for democratic principles. For example, in 2014 Venezuela was hit by a big wave of demonstrations following the outcome of the 2013 presidential elections, where Nicolas Maduro won by a small margin, 50.6%. During this time of unrest opposition political figures such as Leopoldo Lopéz, who had also been involved in the 2002 coup attempt, and María Corina Machado, launched a campaign to remove Maduro from office. The plan was named “La Salida” (the exit) and had the intent of having Maduro resign through protests. Machado stated publicly that “we must create chaos in the streets” (Carasik, 2014). At least 36 people died in the unrest following this statement. The opposition predictably blamed the government for these deaths. But considering that the deaths included several security forces and pro-government civilians and others were apparently non-affiliated, that statement must be contested (see Hart, 2014). Recently, an organization called “Democratic Unity Roundtable” seems to have been coordinating acts of violence against those who are identified as pro-Chavista (Joubert-Ceci, 2017).This group was formed in 2008 to unify opposition Chavéz and can be viewed as the successor of the CoordinadoraDemocrática. The violent protests centered around a call by Maduro to a vote on a Constituent Assembly to rewrite the constitution. Despite having called for the Assembly themselves, the opposition refused to enter dialogue, demanding the presence of the Vatican. But even Pope Francis announced that the dialogue had failed because the opposition would not participate (Nelson, 2017). Instead, the opposition rallied anti-Maduro demonstrators to start a spree of violence that left at least 100 dead (ibid). According to the Canadian Peace Congress of 2017, “if an attempt at internal counter-revolution fails, plans are being put in place for direct military intervention by the United States, possibly under the cover of the Organization of American States (OAS)” (ibid). It is at least clear that the opposition is thoroughly un-democratic in their planning’s and actions but are still supported by Western powers. To report that the economy of Venezuela is in turmoil solely because of Maduros “socialistic” policies, while ignoring the very serious consequences of economic sanctions, oil price manipulations, and internal sabotage is deliberate denial of facts, is propagandistic journalism, is absurd. Informed discussions about the effects and costs of progressive social programsmay be interesting and useful theoretical exercises.But as distortions and denials of historic facts, emotional attacks on Venezuela’s government should be seen as the propaganda, designed to manipulate American, Canadian and European populations into supporting another violent regime change in another oil-producing nation. Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. Jón Karl Stefánsson is an administrator for services directed to mentally disabled individuals from Reykjavík, Iceland. He studied computer science and psychology in the University of Iceland and received his MA in psychology in the University of Tromso, Norway with focus on biased language in news discourse. Since 2003 he has written several articles independently in mostly Icelandic newspapers and independent news outlets and has focused his writing on biased language, propaganda and its effects on society. Afersorgbor, S. K. & Mahadevan, R. 2016. The impact of economic sanctions on income inequality of target states. World Development, 83, p. 1-11. BBC. (August 22., 2012). UN study says wealth gap in Latin America increases. Available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19339636. Bellos, A. (April 15., 2002). Chavez rises from very peculiar coup. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/15/venezuela.alexbellos Bossuyt, M. (June 21, 2000). The adverse consequences of economic sanctions. Global Policy Forum; Economic and Social Council. Available at https://www.globalpolicy.org/global-taxes/42501-the-adverse-consequences-of-economic-sanctions.html#case-a Carasik, L. Obama continues Bush’s policies in Venezuela. Al Jazeera. Available at http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/nicolas-maduro-onobamaandbushspoliciesinvenezuela.html Cooper, A. S. (Dec. 18., 2014). Why would the Saudis deliberately crash the oil markets? Foreign Policy. Available at https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/why-would-the-saudis-crash-oil-markets-iran/ Corrales, J. (Fall 1999). Venezuela in the 1980s, the 1990s and beyond. Revista: Harvard Review of Latin America. Available at https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/venezuela-1980s-1990s-and-beyond Ellner, S. (January 25, 2019). The radicalization of US policy on Venezuela. Consortium News. See also https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/13808.pdf Forero, J. (Dec. 3, 2004). Documents show C.I.A. knew of a coup plot in Venezuela. The New York Times. Garfield, R. (2003, June). Sanctions and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: assessing impacts and drawing lessons. Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN). Available at https://odihpn.org/magazine/sanctions-and-the-federal-republic-of-yugoslavia-assessing-impacts-and-drawing-lessons/ Golinger, E. (Nov. 8, 2013). Document evidences destabilization plan against Venezuela. Venezuela Analysis. The full document can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/184396951/FTI-Consulting-Fundacion-Colombia-Plan-Estrategico-Venezolano-2013 and https://actualidad.rt.com/opinion/eva_golinger/view/110489-documento-evidencia-plan-desestabilizacion-venezuela-golinger Hart, P. (March 26, 2014). Who is dying in Venezuela? A revealing NYT correction. FAIR. Available at https://fair.org/home/who-is-dying-in-venezuela-a-revealing-nyt-correction/ Joubert-Ceci, B. (May 31, 2017). Venezuela restists U.S. sabotage. Workers World. Available at https://www.workers.org/2017/05/31/venezuela-resists-u-s-sabotage/ Laya, P. Bronner, E. & Ross, T. (January 25, 2019). Maduro Stymied in bid to pull $1.2 billion of gold from U.K. Bloomberg. Mulder, N. (2018, 20.11). A leftist foreign policy should reject economic sanctions. The Nation. Available at https://www.thenation.com/article/sanctions-economy-foreign-policy/. Neuenkirch, M. 2015. The impact of UN and US economic sanctions on GDP growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 40, p. 110-125. Nelson, J. (August 11, 2017). Venezuela: Target of economic warfare. Counterpunch. Available at https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/11/venezuela-target-of-economic-warfare/ Poling, J. C., Segall, W. H., Davis, C. C. & Grant. A. H. (Dec. 18, 2014). Obama to sign Venezuela sanctions bill. Aking Gump, International Trade Alert. Puko, T. (Feb. 9., 2016). Oil settles below $28 per barrel. The Wall Street Journal. Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-prices-rise-on-output-uncertainty-1454993303 Rodríguez, F. (September 20, 2018). Crude realities: Understanding Venezuela’s economic collapse. WOLA: Advocacy for human rights in the Americas. Selby-Green, M. (Jan. 27, 2019). Venezuela crisis: Former UN rapporteur says US sanctions are killing Venezuelans. The Independent. Available at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-us-sanctions-united-nations-oil-pdvsa-a8748201.html Trading Economics. (2019). Venezuela Government debt to GDP. Available at https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/government-debt-to-gdp U.S. Department of State. (Jan. 28, 2019). Sanctions against PDVSA and Venezuela oil sector. Press release. Available at https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/01/288623.htm Voigt, K. Chavez leaves Venezuelan economy more equal, less Stable. CNN Business. Available at https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/06/business/venezuela-chavez-oil-economy/index.html Wilpert, G. Venezuelan economy grew 9,4% in 2005. Venezuelan analysis. Available at https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/1547 Weisbrot, M. (Fall, 2008). Poverty reduction in Venezuela. Revista: Harvard Review of Latin America. Available at https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/poverty-reduction-venezuela Wilpert, G. (June 26, 2009). The Venezuelan coup revisited: Silencing the evidence. NACLA. Available at https://nacla.org/article/venezuelan-coup-revisited-silencing-evidence All images in this article are from Countercurrents unless otherwise stated. | Jón Karl Stefánsson | https://www.globalresearch.ca/dishonesty-omissions-and-lies-in-reporting-on-the-venezuelan-economic-crisis/5667191 | 2019-02-01 13:10:53+00:00 | 1,549,044,653 | 1,567,549,928 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
229,558 | globalresearch--2019-05-31--Washingtons Silent Weapon for Not-so-quiet Wars A World Full of Dollars A 2019 Global Economic | 2019-05-31T00:00:00 | globalresearch | Washington’s Silent Weapon for Not-so-quiet Wars. “A World Full of Dollars”, A 2019 Global Economic Crisis | Today by far the deadliest weapon of mass destruction in Washington’s arsenal lies not with the Pentagon or its traditional killing machines. It’s de facto a silent weapon: the ability of Washington to control the global supply of money, of dollars, through actions of the privately-owned Federal Reserve in coordination with the US Treasury and select Wall Street financial groups. Developed over a period of decades since the decoupling of the dollar from gold by Nixon in August, 1971, today control of the dollar is a financial weapon that few if any rival nations are prepared to withstand, at least not yet. Ten years ago, in September, 2008, US Treasury Secretary, former Wall Street banker Henry Paulson, deliberately pulled the plug on the global dollar system by allowing the mid-sized Wall Street investment bank, Lehman Bros go under. At that point, with aid of the infinite money-creating resources of the Fed known as Quantitative Easing, the half-dozen top banks of Wall Street, including Paulson’s own Goldman Sachs, were rescued from a debacle their exotic securitized finance created. The Fed also acted to give unprecedented hundreds of billions of US dollar credit lines to EU central banks to avert a dollar shortage that would clearly have brought the entire global financial architecture crashing down. At the time six Eurozone banks had dollar liabilities in excess of 100% of their country GDP. Since that time a decade ago, the supply of cheap dollars to the global financial system has risen to unprecedented levels. The Institute for International Finance in Washington estimates the debt of households, governments, corporations and the financial sector in the 30 largest emerging markets rose to 211% of gross domestic product at the start of this year. It was 143% at the end of 2008. Further data from the Washington IIF indicate the scale of a debt trap that is only in early stages of detonating across the less-advanced economies from Latin America to Turkey to Asia. Excluding China, emerging market total debt, in all currencies including domestic, has nearly doubled from 15 trillion dollars in 2007 to 27 trillion dollars at end of 2017. China debt in the same time went from 6 trillion dollars to 36 trillion dollars according to IIF. For the group of Emerging Market countries, their debts denominated in US dollars has grown to some 6.4 trillion dollars from 2.8 trillion dollars in 2007. Turkish companies now owe almost 300 billion dollars in foreign-denominated debt, over half its GDP, most in dollars. Emerging markets preferred the dollar for many reasons. As long as those emerging economies were growing, earning export dollars at a rising rate, the debt was manageable. Now all that’s beginning to change. The agent of that change is the world’s most political central bank, the US Federal Reserve, whose new chairman, Jerome Powell, is a former partner of the spooky Carlyle Group. Arguing that the domestic US economy is strong enough that they can return US dollar interest rates to “normal,” the Fed has begun a titanic shift in dollar liquidity to the world economy. Powell and the Fed know very well what they are doing. They are ratcheting up the dollar screws to precipitate a major new economic crisis across the emerging world, most especially from key Eurasian economies such as Iran, Turkey, Russia and China. Despite all efforts of Russia, China, Iran and other countries to shift away from US dollar dependence for international trade and finance, the dollar remains still unchallenged as world central bank reserve currency, some 63% of all BIS central bank reserves. Moreover almost 88% of daily foreign currency trades are in US dollars. Most all oil trade, gold and commodity trades are denominated in dollars. Since the Greek crisis in 2011 the Euro has not been a serious rival for reserve currency hegemony. Its share in reserves are about 20% today. Since the 2008 financial crisis the dollar and the importance of the Fed have expanded to unprecedented levels. This is only now beginning to be appreciated as the world begins to feel for the first time since 2008 real dollar shortages, meaning a much higher cost to borrow more dollars to refinance old dollar debt. The peak for total emerging market dollar debt falling due comes in 2019, with more than 1.3 trillion dollars maturing. Here comes the trap. The Fed is not only hinting it will raise US Fed funds rates more aggressively later this year into next. It is also reducing the amount of US Treasury debt it bought after the 2008 crisis, so-called QT or Quantitative Tightening. After 2008 the Fed began what was called Quantitative Easing. The Fedbought a staggering sum of bonds from the banks up to a peak of 4.5 trillion dollars from only 900 billion dollars at the start of the crisis. Now the Fed announces it plans to reduce that by at least one third in coming months. The result of QE was that the major banks behind the 2008 financial crisis were flooded with liquidity from the Fed and interest rates plunged to zero. That bank liquidity was in turn invested in any part of the world offering higher returns as US bonds paid near zero interest. It went into junk bonds in the shale oil sector, into a new US housing mini boom. Most markedly the liquid dollars went into higher-risk emerging markets like Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, India. Dollars flooded into China where the economy was booming. And the dollars poured into Russia before US sanctions earlier this year began to put a chill on foreign investors. Now the Fed has begun QT – Quantitative Tightening – the reverse of QE. Late 2017 the Fed slowly began to shrink its bond holdings which reduces dollar liquidity in the banking system. In late 2014 the Fed already stopped buying new bonds from the market. The reduction of the bond holdings of the Fed in turn pushed interest rates higher. Until this summer, it was all “gently, gently.” Then the US President launched a global targeted trade war offensive, creating huge uncertainty in China, Latin America, Turkey and beyond, and new economic sanctions on Russia and Iran. Today the Fed is allowing 40 billion dollars of its Treasury and corporate bonds mature without replacing them, rising to 50 billion dollars monthly later this year. That takes those dollars out of the banking system. In addition, to aggravate what is quickly becoming a full-blown dollar shortage, the Trump tax cut law is adding hundreds of billions to the deficit that the US Treasury will have to finance by issuing new bond debt. As the supply of US Treasury debt rises, the Treasury will be forced to pay higher interest to sell those bonds. Higher US interest rates already are acting as a magnet to suck dollars back into the US from around the world. Adding to the global tightening, under pressure from the dominance of the Fed and the dollar, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank have been forced to announce they would no longer buy bonds in their respective QE actions. Since March, the world has de facto been in the new era of QT. From here it looks to get dramatic unless the Federal Reserve does an about face and resumes with a new QE liquidity operation to avoid a global systemic crisis. At this juncture that looks unlikely. Today the world central banks more than even before 2008, dance to the tune played by the Federal Reserve. As Henry Kissinger allegedly stated in the 1970’s “If you control the money, you control the world.” While so far the impact of dollar contraction has been gradual, it’s about to get dramatic. The combined G-3 central banks’ balance sheet increased by a mere 76 billion dollars in the first half of 2018, compared with a 703 billion dollars rise in the prior six months – almost half a trillion of dollars gone from the global lending pool. Bloomberg estimates that net asset purchases by the three main central banks will fall to zero by the end of this year, from close to 100 billion dollars a month at the end of 2017. Annually that translates into an equivalent 1.2 trillion dollars less of dollar liquidity in 2019 in the world. The Turkish Lira has dropped by half since early this year in relation to the US dollar. That means Turkish large construction companies and others who were able to borrow “cheap” dollars, now must find double the sum of US dollars to service those debts.The debt is not state Turkish debt for the most part but private corporate borrowing. Turkish companies owe an estimated 300 billion dollars in foreign currency debt, most dollars, almost half the entire GDP of the country. That dollar liquidity has kept the Turkish economy growing since the 2008 US financial crisis. Not only the Turkish economy…Asian countries from Pakistan to South Korea, minus China, have borrowed an estimated 2.1 trillion dollars. As long as the dollar depreciated against those currencies and the Fed kept interest rates low – as from 2008 – 2015, there was little problem. Now that’s all changing and dramatically so. The dollar is rising strongly against all other currencies, 7% this year. Combined with this, Washington is deliberately initiating trade wars, political provocations, unilateral breaking of the Iran treaty, new sanctions on Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and unprecedented provocations against China. Trump’s trade wars, ironically, have led to a “flight to safety” out of emerging countries like Turkey or China to the US markets, most notably the stock market. The Fed is weaponizing the US dollar and the preconditions are in many ways similar to that during the 1997 Asia crisis. Then all it needed was a concerted US hedge fund attack on the weakest Asian Tier economy, the Thai Baht to trigger collapse across most of South Asia to South Korea and even Hong Kong. Today the trigger is Trump and his bellicose tweets against Erdogan. The US Trump trade wars, political sanctions and new tax laws, in the context of the clear Fed strategy of dollar tightening, provide the backdrop to wage a dollar war against key political opponents globally without ever having to declare war. All it took was a series of trade provocations against the huge China economy, political provocations against the Turkish government, new groundless sanctions against Russia, and banks from Paris to Milan to Frankfurt to New York and anyone else with dollar loans to higher risk emerging markets began the rush for the exit. The Lira collapses as a result of near panic selling, or the Irancurrency crisis, the fall of the Russian ruble. All reflects the beginning, as likely does the decline in the China Renminbi, of a global dollar shortage. If Washington succeeds on November 4 in cutting all Iran oil exports, world (dollar) oil prices could soar above 100 dollars, adding dramatically to the developing world dollar shortage. This is war by other means. The Fed dollar strategy is acting now as a “silent weapon” for not so quiet wars. If it continues it could deal a serious setback to the growing independence of Eurasian countries around the China New Silk Road and the Russia-China-Iran alternative to the dollar system. The role of the dollar as lead global reserve currency and the ability of the Federal Reserve to control it, is a weapon of massive destruction and a strategic pillar of American superpower control. Are the nations of Eurasia or even the ECB ready to deal effectively? F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Featured image is from the author. The Great Depression of the XXI Century Each of the authors in this timely collection digs beneath the gilded surface to reveal a complex web of deceit and media distortion which serves to conceal the workings of the global economic system and its devastating impacts on people’s lives. In all major regions of the world, the economic recession is deep-seated, resulting in mass unemployment, the collapse of state social programs and the impoverishment of millions of people. The meltdown of financial markets was the result of institutionalized fraud and financial manipulation. The economic crisis is accompanied by a worldwide process of militarization, a “war without borders” led by the U.S. and its NATO allies. This book takes the reader through the corridors of the Federal Reserve, into the plush corporate boardrooms on Wall Street where far-reaching financial transactions are routinely undertaken. “This important collection offers the reader a most comprehensive analysis of the various facets – especially the financial, social and military ramific ations – from an outstanding list of world-class social thinkers.” -Mario Seccareccia, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa “In-depth investigations of the inner workings of the plutocracy in crisis, presented by some of our best politico-economic analysts. This book should help put to rest the hallucinations of ‘free market’ ideology.” -Michael Parenti, author of God and His Demons and Contrary Notions “Provides a very readable exposé of a global economic system, manipulated by a handful of extremely powerful economic actors for their own benefit, to enrich a few at the expense of an ever-growing majority.” -David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited | F. William Engdahl | https://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-silent-weapon-for-not-so-quiet-wars-a-world-full-of-dollars/5651266 | 2019-05-31 01:26:20+00:00 | 1,559,280,380 | 1,567,539,527 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
230,084 | globalresearch--2019-07-22--Economic and Social Crisis in Puerto Rico The Ugly American and the Puerto Rican National Questio | 2019-07-22T00:00:00 | globalresearch | Economic and Social Crisis in Puerto Rico: “The Ugly American” and the Puerto Rican National Question | The latest crisis in Puerto Rico involves Gov. Ricardo Rossello and appears to be the accumulation of other crises that now appear to question the legitimacy of the colonial political structure in Puerto Rico. Nearly 900 pages of personal messages on the Telegram app between him and others in his political inner circle were published by Puerto Rico’s Center for Investigative Journalism. These messages comprise of homophobic, misogynistic, and the disregard of the those who lost their lives during Hurricane Maria. They also reveal discussions of alleged election manipulation and attempts to affect his administration’s public image. This all came at the heal of arrest that the FBI of six governmental officials who were charged with 32-counts of corruption. Along with the six, is Julia Keleher, the former education secretary, and Ángela Ávila-Marrero, the former executive director of the Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration. The federal indictment states that former officials illegally directed federal funding to politically connected contractors. Some Puerto Ricans questioned the U.S.’s motive in arrests because of the possibility it is used to justify the Trump administration restriction of aid to the island in the aftermath of the hurricane. Just about any understanding of the history of Puerto Rico and the U.S. should be viewed with suspicion, especially matters dealing with the U.S. and its Puerto Rican elite alliance. It is clear that the Trump administration has shown the “ugly American” and the bigoted side of the U.S. empire, but we should not lose sight that the history of U.S. imperialism has been a U.S. bipartisan affair between the Republican and Democratic parties. As Gore Vidal reminds us, After all, it was the Obama administration, a democrat, that imposed the financial oversight board, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) of 2016, which was tasked with imposing austerity measures on the spending on public services (resulting in the closing schools, downsizing government operations and public employees) in order to service the $72 billion-dollar debt. Or more historically, it was FDR, the patron saint of the Democratic Party, whose administration repressed a movement for Puerto Rican independence in the 1930s while extending New Deal reforms that were designed to pacify Puerto Rican discontent and perfect political and economic control, which also meant the cultivation of a pro-U.S. local political elite. The economic crisis that preceded the imposition of the oversight board that was not elected by the Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico and yet wields control over the economic affairs of the economy was met with frustration by many Puerto Ricans that did not fully understand what colonial control means. As if colonial control vis-à-vis the control by an intermediate political system of the two dominant political parties of the Partido Nuevo Progresista (New Progressive Party, PNP) and the Partido Popular Democrático (Popular Democratic Party, PPD) was somehow different. This political system in Puerto Rico largely provides the illusion of self-governance, but in reality, operates within the colonial structure of control because the real authority resides with the U.S. government. The point being is that Puerto Ricans did not have control of its economic affairs prior to the imposition, but that the imposition of the oversight board unveiled this reality to many. In fact, months before Hurricane Maria, the economic conditions on the island were already in deterioration, with alarming rates of unemployment and poverty that the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization approved a draft resolution that called on the U.S. to expedite a process enabling the people of Puerto Rico to exercise fully their right to self‑determination and independence. The Committee also expressed concerns with the imposition of PROMESA and its impact on Puerto Rico’s already weakened sovereignty within the U.S. prevailing regime of political and economic control. Colonial status was supposed to have been resolved in 1952 when the U.S. approved a Puerto Rican Constitution in which it retained control over Puerto Rico. The creation of the “commonwealth” in 1952 was designed to shield against international criticism of Puerto Rico’s continued colonial status and an attempt to manufacture consent to “legitimize” the political arrangement as the expression self-determination. The U.N. committee signed off on this deception under the pressure of the United States. Yet, over the years, the PPD (the key party to sponsor the so-called status change), along with the PNP, the pro-statehood party agree with the pro-independence movement that Puerto Rico is in fact a colony. However, each of these forces has different objectives. The PPD continues to believe that the commonwealth arrangement can be made to work with modifications – i.e., enhancements that essentially continue Puerto Rico’s dependency on the United States. The problem with the PPD is that it is seen as the co-architect, with the U.S., of the status quo on the island. Yet, the PNP is also complicit in this status quo, because since 1968 it has rotated in out of the governorship and is part of the colonial structure order. This being said, the PNP advocate that the only solution is statehood. For the pro-independence movement, the colonial relationship with the U.S. cannot be resolved as an internal matter of the U.S. and requires international intervention and the establishment of a process for decolonization. In other words, this requires a process of decolonization first. Conceivable this would mean the transfer of authority of all political, economic, and cultural affairs to the Puerto Rican people, the withdrawal of the U.S. military and all other coercive and counterinsurgency agencies such as the FBI, DEA, and CIA. In addition, all U.S. interference in Puerto Rico’s affairs must cease. In addition, there needs to be a set period of time in which Puerto Ricans receive economic and technological assistance from the U.S. as it organizes its own economic development and trade in order to ensure a viable level of self-sufficiency. Until some version of the above pre-conditions is met, all plebiscites that claim to address the national question on the island are invalid because voting is reduced to voting with one’s stomach, out of the fear that decolonization means living under far worst economic conditions. Also, the path to true decolonization requires addressing the impact of internalized colonialism on the psychology of subjected people and the restoration of an independent national identity. For Puerto Ricans, the national question can be seen either as Puerto Ricans as a national minority within a larger and more powerful nation (this is the current status and would change under statehood, having particular rights like other states) or as a nation itself, with its own sovereignty (Blaut 1987). Contrary to the pro-statehood party anti-colonial stance, Pedro Albizu Campos once said that statehood would mean the “final triumph of colonialism” (Maldonado-Denis 1972:136). In other words, it would mean full cultural assimilation of Puerto Rican culture into a dominant U.S. culture (such as language and national identity). The reason why the word full is used is because political and economic integration occurred when the U.S. invaded and colonized Puerto Rico in 1898. The issue of full cultural assimilation is complex and needs to be dissected in order to understand the context of the Puerto Rican national question. Although as Trias Monge states that “Culturally the Americanization policy failed,” because “the people clung desperately to their language and sense of self” (98), however, when it comes to political identity this is a far more complex issue. In fact, the imposition of U.S. citizenship (Jones Act of 1917) is one of the most important factors that can be seen as hindering the efforts at self-determination because it integrates Puerto Ricans into the dominant cultural values and beliefs of the United States. Essentially, Puerto Ricans were forced to pledge their allegiance to another nation that treats them as colonial subjects that must be governed; this is in contrast viewing them as equals with the capacity for self-governance. The U.S. military in Puerto Rico is embedded in almost all aspects of Puerto Rican life and cannot be understood only in terms of being part of the state repressive apparatus. The military plays a dual role in socially integrating large sectors of the Puerto Rican population into the “American way of life.” Rodriguez-Beruff argues that many of the U.S. military organizations were designed to instill a pro-U.S. ideology and to develop loyal and patriotic U.S. citizens (as opposed to a Puerto Rican nationalism) (1983:23). The military or more specifically military service serves as a vehicle for social integration that unifies separate entities into a nation (Deitz, Elkin, and Roumani 1991:2). The U.S. has carried out some nation-building strategies, such as imposing U.S. citizenship and conscription into the military, which are consistent with colonial forms of rule as opposed to the formation of a democratic federation. In order to understand the illusion of the U.S. as the savior we need to understand the degree of U.S. cultural integration in Puerto Rico. First off, the concept of culture needs more explanation in this specific context. Culture as the realm in which values, norms, customs, rituals, and beliefs that reside within a people. When speaking of national culture, this usually refers to distinct cultures in which language is key is transmitting culture from generation to generation and is the glue that binds people’s identity, but a colonized people are exposed to a particular culture that is the antithesis of decolonization and independence. The imposition of one nation over another is usually a bloody affair that requires not only military might, but counterinsurgency strategies of persuasion to win people over (e.g., through deception and co-optation) to integrate (i.e., by cultural assimilate) them into the new system of domination, and to isolate and neutralize those who rebel against this imposition. Historically, as well as presently, Puerto Ricans on the island and in the U.S. have a long history of rebelling and resisting this imposition and fighting for national liberation, which these efforts have been repressed and criminalized. Although Puerto Ricans have retained their language, customs, and traditions, what we really need to develop is a deeper analysis that can enable us to understand how over one-hundred and twenty years of exposure to U.S. cultural values and beliefs impede resolving the national question. Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. Vince Montes is a lecturer in sociology at San Jose State University. Earned a Ph.D. at the New School for Social Research. Recent articles appear in Global Research, Radical Criminology, The Political Anthropologist, and Dissident Voice. Blaut, James M. 1987. The National Question: Decolonializing the Theory of Nationalism. Dietz, Henry, Jerrold Elkin & Maurice Roumani. 1991. Ethnicity, Integration, and the Military. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rodriguez-Beruff, Jorge. 1983. “Imperialism and Militarism: An Analysis of the Puerto Rican Case.” Proyecto Caribeno de Justicia y Paz, Rio Pedras: Puerto Rico. Trias Monge, Jose. 1997. Puerto Rico: The Trails of the Oldest Colony in the World. New Vidal, Gore. 1977. Matters of Fact and of Fiction: Essays 1973–76. New York, NY: Random House. | Vince Montes | https://www.globalresearch.ca/one-crisis-too-many-some-impediments-resolving-puerto-rican-national-question/5684238 | 2019-07-22 11:30:08+00:00 | 1,563,809,408 | 1,567,536,131 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
259,179 | instapundit--2019-03-22--MARTIN FELDSTEIN The Debt Crisis Is Coming Soon To avoid economic distress the government has t | 2019-03-22T00:00:00 | instapundit | MARTIN FELDSTEIN: The Debt Crisis Is Coming Soon: To avoid economic distress, the government has t… | MARTIN FELDSTEIN: The Debt Crisis Is Coming Soon: To avoid economic distress, the government has to reduce future entitlement spending. The most dangerous domestic problem facing America’s federal government is the rapid growth of its budget deficit and national debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit this year will be $900 billion, more than 4% of gross domestic product. It will surpass $1 trillion in 2022. The federal debt is now 78% of GDP. By 2028, it is projected to be nearly 100% of GDP and still rising. All this will have very serious economic consequences, and the CBO understates the problem. It has to base its projections on current law—in this case, the levels of spending and the future tax rules and rates that appear in law today. Those levels don’t match realistic predictions. Current law projects that defense spending will decline as a share of GDP, from a very low 3.1% now to about 2.5% over the next 10 years. None of the military and civilian defense experts with whom I’ve spoken believe that will happen, given America’s global responsibilities and the need to modernize U.S. military equipment. It is likelier that defense spending will stay around 3% of GDP or even increase in the coming decade. And if the outlook for defense spending is increased, the Democratic House majority will insist that the nondefense discretionary spending should rise to match its trajectory. | Glenn Reynolds | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pjmedia/instapundit/~3/v2x5DBBkaM0/ | 2019-03-22 17:00:46+00:00 | 1,553,288,446 | 1,567,545,170 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
260,275 | instapundit--2019-04-08--SAVE THE BOYS Boy crisis threatens Americas future with economic health and suicide risks | 2019-04-08T00:00:00 | instapundit | SAVE THE BOYS: ‘Boy crisis’ threatens America’s future with economic, health and suicide risks…. | SAVE THE BOYS: ‘Boy crisis’ threatens America’s future with economic, health and suicide risks. | Glenn Reynolds | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pjmedia/instapundit/~3/bOr-WGZttRo/ | 2019-04-08 17:30:41+00:00 | 1,554,759,041 | 1,567,543,531 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
267,722 | instapundit--2019-09-18--MADUROS NEW ECONOMIC POLICY Venezuela Quietly Loosens Grip on Market Tempering Economic Crisis | 2019-09-18T00:00:00 | instapundit | MADURO’S NEW ECONOMIC POLICY: Venezuela Quietly Loosens Grip on Market, Tempering Economic Crisis. “… | MADURO’S NEW ECONOMIC POLICY: Venezuela Quietly Loosens Grip on Market, Tempering Economic Crisis. “The easing of controls is a risky move for a government that has publicly championed its state-led, socialist economic model as the country’s only salvation from greedy capitalists. But the measures are giving some life, even if limited, to the economy Mr. Maduro controls, despite a raft of U.S.-led financial sanctions and dozens of nations deeming his leadership illegitimate.” A little bit of capitalism can pay for a whole lot of socialism, but the capitalists are always suckers in the end for thinking the controls won’t come back just as soon as the regime thinks it can get away with it. | Stephen Green | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/pjmedia/instapundit/~3/9N7kah5pxh8/ | 2019-09-18 12:14:01+00:00 | 1,568,823,241 | 1,569,329,903 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
277,183 | jerusalempost--2019-11-10--UK's Javid says opposition Labour would trigger economic crisis - BBC | 2019-11-10T00:00:00 | jerusalempost | UK's Javid says opposition Labour would trigger economic crisis - BBC | British finance minister Sajid Javid said the opposition Labour Party's spending plans would trigger an economic crisis within months, citing a contested dossier published by his Conservative Party and refusing to give costs for his own fiscal strategy. "These are eye-watering levels of spending - 1.2 trillion (pounds) - it will be absolutely reckless and will leave this country with an economic crisis within months," Javid told the BBC on Sunday. The Labour Party have dismissed the Conservative analysis of their spending plans, and have yet to publish their full manifesto. var cont = `Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>> `; document.getElementById("linkPremium").innerHTML = cont; (function (v, i){ }); | By REUTERS | https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/UKs-Javid-says-opposition-Labour-would-trigger-economic-crisis-BBC-607399 | Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:40:37 GMT | 1,573,400,437 | 1,573,390,587 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
351,075 | newswars--2019-01-24--Will Policy Makers Turn a Global Economic Slowdown Into a Crisis | 2019-01-24T00:00:00 | newswars | Will Policy Makers Turn a Global Economic Slowdown Into a Crisis? | The recent macroeconomic data of the leading economies point to a widespread slowdown. What is more concerning is not just a logical moderation in the path of growth, but the acceleration in the weakening of economies that were supposed to be stronger and healthier. It is even more concerning that this aggressive worsening of key leading indicators in China, the EU, and most emerging economies happens at the peak of the largest monetary and fiscal stimulus in decades. It is easy to blame this widespread weakening on political headlines, trade wars, and — of course —Trump, but it would be disingenuous to believe those are the real factors behind the negative economic surprise. The pace of global recoveries since 1975 has been slower and weaker, consistently, according to the OECD. Recoveries take longer and happen slower. At the same time, periods of crisis are less aggressive albeit more frequent than prior to 1975. Another interesting evidence of the crises and recoveries since 1975 is that almost all economies end the recession period with more debt than before. These factors are all concerning, but the evidence also shows that economic progress has continued regardless and that the main factors of wellbeing have improved dramatically. I had the opportunity of meeting Johan Norberg, author of “Progress” and we discussed all the positive elements we have seen in the past decades. In the same period, from 1975 to 2018, extreme poverty has been reduced to all-time lows. Hunger, poverty, illiteracy, child mortality… all those terrible problems have been dramatically reduced to the lowest levels in history. That is the positive. However, recognizing the positive is important, but ignoring the risks is dangerous. Global debt has ballooned to all-time highs, more than three times the world GDP. For those elements of progress to continue improving, we must stop the race of perverse incentives created by the wrong analysis of the origin of crises and the solutions that are often proposed in mainstream economics and politics. I agree with Johan Norberg that the two main factors that have driven the phenomenal progress we have seen are free markets and openness. The freedom to innovate, experiment, create and share must come with the right incentives.’ For decades, governments and central banks have always identified the problems of the economy as demand problems, even if it was not the case. If there was a crisis or a recession, governments immediately believed that it must be due to lack of demand, and subsequently decide that the private sector is not willing or able to fulfill the real demand needs of the economy, even if there was no real evidence that companies or citizens were investing or consuming less than what they needed. The entire premise was that companies were not investing “enough”. Compared to what and decide by whom? Obviously by central planners who benefit from bubbles and overcapacity but never suffer the consequences. Governments and central banks never perceive risks of excess supply and even less predict a bubble. Why? Because most central planners see debt, oversupply, and bubbles as small collateral damages of a greater good: recover growth at any cost. Behind the mistake in diagnosis is the obsession to maintain or grow Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at any cost. GDP is relatively easy to inflate. I always explain to my students that GDP is the only economic calculation in which you add what you spend with what you earn. GDP can be inflated through government spending and with higher debt-fueled expenditures. Debt is not a problem when it serves its purpose, which is to finance productive investment and allow the economy to grow, while efficiency, innovation, and technology allow us to be more productive and receive more and better goods and services at cheaper prices. It is a virtuous cycle. The virtuous cycle of credit turns into a vicious cycle of unproductive debt when we incentivize malinvestment and prevent technology substitution by implementing massive government stimuli and liquidity injections. Central banks justify their actions saying they do not cut rates, it is a market and private sector demand. Really? How and when did they survey that? What private sector? Crony or obsolescent companies? Highly indebted ones? Furthermore, if low rates and liquidity injections are a market demand, why not let the market set rates and liquidity instead of central banks? Those same governments that feel the need to “increase inflation”, something that no consumer has demanded ever anywhere, do so because they benefit as the first recipients of newly created money and the only sector that truly benefits from inflation. Not even crony sectors fully benefit from inflation, the tax of the poor. Those suffer higher costs and import expenses. By always making the same diagnosis, mistakes are repeated and accumulated. No wonder the pace of recoveries is slower, weaker and more indebted. Inflation does not rise as much as central planners want because technology and efficiency are unstoppable even if they try, and because overcapacity is perpetuated through constant re-financing. Massive liquidity and low rates make zombie companies soar. The percentage of companies that cannot pay interest expenses with operating profits balloons despite ultra-low rates and alleged “growth-boosting” plans. For decades, demand-side policies showed diminishing but not lethal results, but now the world has repeated the same policies so many times that there is simply exhaustion. Rates are unsustainably low, liquidity is excessive and there is no real fiscal space in governments that have all but consumed their ability to extract wealth from savers. The more we hear from governments that we need to spend more and save less, the weaker the response from economic agents. Governments and central banks create a crisis from a moderate and completely healthy slowdown by denying economic cycles and, even worse, presenting themselves as the ones that will revert them. The current global slowdown is not due to lack of stimuli, but the excess of them. When central planners decide to “correct” it, they create the seeds of the crisis. Malinvestment reaches unsustainable levels and bubbles burst, affecting all aspects of the real economy. There is no evidence that companies or citizens are investing or consuming less than they need, it only happens in the mind of those that expect excel-spreadsheet-style results from demand-side policies in the real economy. The global economy is close to recession, but a full-blown crisis is still unlikely. If central banks and governments present themselves, again, as the “solution,” they will create the next crisis. | Mises.org | https://www.newswars.com/will-policy-makers-turn-a-global-economic-slowdown-into-a-crisis/ | 2019-01-24 18:13:33+00:00 | 1,548,371,613 | 1,567,551,096 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
358,537 | newswars--2019-12-11--International Group Mulls Providing Financial Aid to Lebanon Amid Country’s Economic Crisis | 2019-12-11T00:00:00 | newswars | International Group Mulls Providing Financial Aid to Lebanon Amid Country’s Economic Crisis | Diplomats met behind closed doors in Paris on Wednesday to consider measures to help Lebanon as it grapples with ongoing political turmoil and its worst economic crisis in decades. The international group, co-chaired by France and the United Nations, is weighing conditions for providing financial aid to Lebanon. Lebanese businesses and households are growing increasingly desperate as cash supplies there have dwindled. “In order to halt the sharp deterioration in the economy … there is an urgent need for the adoption of a substantial, credible and comprehensive policy package of economic reforms to restore fiscal balance and financial stability,” the international support group said in a final communiqué after a meeting in Paris on Wednesday. For two months, protests have decried government mismanagement and the current political system. But even as the financial crisis deepens, protesters have denounced the Paris meeting and promised to condemn any international financial assistance to a government they see as corrupt and illegitimate. Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned October 29, but he has stayed on as caretaker prime minister since politicians have been unable to form a new government. Protesters want to see a non-sectarian, technocratic government – and they want all traces of the old regime, including Hariri, out of office. France and the United States have made clear they support a new government in Lebanon. Speaking in Washington on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that “the responsibility lies with the Lebanese people” to push for a new political order. He said the US is ready to “do the things that the world can do to assist the Lebanese people getting their economy right and getting their government right”. Alex Jones breaks down how Globalist banking forces are conspiring to create the illusion that along with populists, nationalists, and the policies they advocate comes financial ruin and collapse to convince populations that globalization is their salvation. The US has escalated its sanctions on the Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah group, which dominates the national unity government that Hariri headed. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said at a press conference ahead of the Paris meeting that Lebanese authorities must “take into account the call of the street”. He urged Lebanese authorities to “form a government rapidly because any delay will aggravate the situation”. Protesters ‘Don’t Want Aid to Go to Waste’ Meanwhile, dozens of protesters in Beirut and Paris rallied Wednesday to call on the leaders meeting in France not to give financial assistance until a new government comes together. “This authority … no longer represents the Lebanese,” said a protester in Beirut reading a letter to be delivered to the French ambassador. Calling the current government corrupt, the protester said: “We don’t want [that aid] to go to waste.” Hariri has called on Saudi Arabia, France, Turkey, the United States, China and Egypt to send funds to help Lebanon finance imports. But international donors are unlikely to write a cheque without substantial commitments to reform. More than 50 countries pledged last year to give Lebanon $11 million (€9.9m) in aid, conditional on Hariri implementing long-stalled reforms. Promised reforms never materialized. “The only possible criteria (for aid) is the effectiveness of the government in implementing the reforms awaited by the population,” said Le Drian after the meeting. “This is the only way that the participants around this table and beyond can mobilize to give Lebanon the support it needs.” ‘We Don’t Have Anything to Lose’ Hundreds of Lebanese business owners gathered in central Beirut protesting the delay in forming a new government and threatening a collective tax strike. Organizers said most private businesses have already been unable to pay taxes and are still getting slapped with penalties. “What we are asking for is to cancel the penalties. We can’t afford paying,” said Samir Saliba, a business owner. Saliba said a new campaign is aimed at educating the private sector about their rights and advocate for a blanket tax strike: “People are fed up. We don’t have anything to lose anymore.” In the last weeks, hundreds of people have been laid off or are receiving reduced salaries, while many businesses have had to shut down. Also, get all you need to completely stuff Christmas stockings this year with our Christmas Mega Pack sold AT COST during the 12 Days of Christmas Sale! | France 24 | https://www.newswars.com/international-group-mulls-providing-financial-aid-to-lebanon-amid-countrys-economic-crisis/ | Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:03:51 +0000 | 1,576,116,231 | 1,576,109,162 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
426,463 | prepareforchange--2019-01-23--Experts Warning Americans to Be Prepared For Economic Collapse Disaster Surviving the Coming Food C | 2019-01-23T00:00:00 | prepareforchange | Experts Warning Americans to Be Prepared For Economic Collapse, Disaster Surviving the Coming Food Crisis | Suddenly, the world food markets spilled out of control. Within a year, prices for wheat doubled, those for soybean and sugar even tripled. The drivers behind this surge were stock decreases during the preceding years, a disappointing harvest due to bad weather in several countries and growing demand for feedstuff. Once prices soared, governments of exporting nations curbed the outflow of food, thus exacerbating the crisis. Merely two years later, prices had come down roughly to previous levels-the affliction had ended. This is not the account of the infamous 2016/2019 price spikes; it is the half-forgotten story of the early 70s. At least for developed countries, this earlier crisis was worse than the recent one. Real food prices-corrected for inflation-climbed higher, and food expenditures absorbed a much greater share of households’ income, so that any increase was felt more harshly. This episode nonetheless takes a backseat in our collective memory because OPEC limited oil production soon after the food prices had started to rise. Higher oil prices proved to be the more lasting and pernicious impediment to global growth. So there is a historical precedent of a food price surge that did not destabilize the world economy. Instead, it was eventually followed by a quarter of a century of low food prices beginning in 1980. But the 2016/08 episode was not perceived from this bird’s-eye perspective. Even in emerging and industrialized countries, much less affected than the poorer nations, the crisis has changed the thinking of the powerful. The fear was born that the next food crisis may be waiting for us, one that will dwarf anything the world has seen before. The world might cast off its multilateral, liberal veil in the merciless scramble for food. Under this lens, the purchase or long-term lease of fertile farmland abroad appears to be a hard-nosed move of Realpolitik without humanitarian disguise. Non-governmental organizations attack the neo-colonial land grab of Arab and Chinese investors that uproots local communities and undermines the self-sufficiency of poor nations. It’s smart but contemptible, so the common judgment goes-which may be wrong on both counts. The receiving countries may actually win. Investment in developing countries’ agriculture is direly needed: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that an annual US $ 30 billion of additional funds will be required over the next 10 years. This is hardly a sum governments will muster. Often the significant pledges made by donor countries during the crisis are just that, pledges. Making a promise is not the same thing as signing a check. Private investment is necessary to fill the gap. Collapse of the US Food Supply System The ? There’s a reason why the US government is so eager to disarm the American people. It’s got little to do with crime rates or mass murders… but everything to do with the very reason the 2nd Amendment was created for: to protect the people from a tyrannical government. Because when a major disaster hits the USA, a recent executive order allows FEMA to confiscate your food stockpile… and just like in the old USSR, to give it to the government-dependent masses The Four Horsemen of the Food Apocalypse”…because they bring with them a deadly social and economic crisis… with immediate effects on your ability to feed your family. And if you don’t act fast, if you don’t act now, you’re going to miss your chance forever… a chance to finally become self-sufficient and independent, a chance to make your family “recession-proof” and “disaster proof”, while the unprepared “zombies” will be starving and killing each other over a loaf of rotten bread. he first horseman is Hunger… and it came with the searing heat of last year. The summer of 2012 brought massive drought, devastation and despair to farmers all over the globe. World granaries like Russia and Kazakhstan were scorched by hellish temperatures. Crops in Ukraine were pummeled, corn was reduced to desolating burnt stalks. And with a 15% drop in the Indian monsoon… a historical drought in Australia… and an appalling harvest in Mexico… you may be wondering… Louisiana flooding 2016 is the country’s ‘worst natural disaster’ BATON ROUGE — Five days into this disaster, adrenaline is giving way to exhaustion and — for many of those who left their homes amid rising water — a constant, churning anxiety about the future. Because the second horseman is GREED. Just as the drought was causing soy, corn and meat prices to soar 10% alone … the US turned on the printing machine, and dumped two trillion dollars in the laps of the biggest banks… through “quantitative easing”. The official story is that all this money should go back into the economy… to help small businesses and people like you and I. How to survive the coming food crisis – food survival guide. When a big or small disaster comes suddenly, people are often forced to go days without food. Only with certain amount of essentials, people could ensure the survival. And it is struggling to obtain them at a time of severe adversity, trauma, or crisis (even when an authoritative report smells the coming food crisis). Think over a series of matter like below: (1) How to survive during terror attacks that have led to widespread fear and shutdown of local stores and shops? If it happens at this time, will your only choice be to beg your neighbors for help or wait to be transferred to the nearby FEMA camps. (2) How to live through a rolling blackout that has lasted for up to weeks and created huge difficulties for normal food storage or long term bulk-food storage? (3) How to make sure that the whole family could survive a snow storm or hurricane that whipped people into a super panic frenzy of buying – grabbing almost any food as long as a person is able to get his/her hands on it. What if you failed to restock the necessary food for weeks? (4) If a flood hits your house and the roads are massively washed out, you have been aware that it became impossible to store weeks of food in time, what should you do to survive? (5) How to deal with the food shortage problems due to a long-lasting labor union protest and refusal of shipment? Could you guarantee your children will not go hungry? (6) What to do in case of an earthquake that destroyed your house and severely disrupted your abilities to obtain supplies (this kind of devastating case could occur anywhere and get much worse in a city than in a village)? Unfortunately, most people believes that any horrible disaster will not really occur around them, or not occur to themselves at least; if you also nod your head to them, this might be just what you think, try to look back to the history, history facts prove otherwise, such as Tokyo tsunami in 2011, Katrina hurricane in 2014, Indian ocean earthquake and tsunami in 2004, and Haiti earthquake in 2010. Thousands of people around the world lost their lives to natural disasters in 2018, a tragic reminder of how rapidly natural disasters such as wildfires in California2018. As to the US regions alone, every year, there are always a big number of death reports and injury reports on a variety of disasters, such as destructive tornadoes hitting the southeastern states, blizzards battering the northwestern states, earthquakes striking the coastal area of western US states, droughts affecting the central US, wildfires burning across California, floods threatening all the states literally (According to the statement of FEMA, actually every US resident lives at risk of flood, the only difference among states is the level of risk). Here you can learn about seven of the worst disasters of 2018 and how World Vision is helping people affected. Myanmar refugees in Bangladesh Indonesia earthquakes and tsunami Syrian refugee crisis East Africa hunger crisis Ebola, hunger, and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Venezuela economic and migration crisis Yemen conflict and food crisis Anytime when a disaster comes, people who are still underprepared opt to put all the survival hopes on FEMA or government, but the real biggest hope is in their own hands. And at the danger moment, no one would be more eager than you to help your own family members survive. Try to imagine that all your family are trapped in an emergency situation where survival food and water supplies are cut off, you know very well that a person whose dehydration lasts for just several hours tends to die, especially if he/she is exerting the physical energy, like running and escaping a mob, or fighting against an attacker. And a person under the extremely severe starvation will also go to death slowly and painfully, starting with diarrhea and confusion and ending up with hallucinations and muscle spasms from hell. Joking apart, any crisis which lasts for just a couple of weeks could become deadly to a person or their families in case he/she is not well prepared. Therefore, you should be aware that not learning to store your own emergency food is definitely a mistake, but a preparation of wrong food is also probably another scary thing; one day when your children or your wife realize that you did a bad job in home protection, how about your own feeling even though they would not like to mention it in front of you. Here, ask to yourself if you could instantly come up with a complete list of emergency food items. These three old lessons will ensure your children will be well fed when others are rummaging through garbage bins. Click here to learn all about the 3 skills that will help you thrive in any crises situation. Are you worried about your future? Are you worried by the many disasters that you face in your everyday life? Worry no more. The Lost Ways comes in to solve your woes. This program was created by Davis Claude and its major role is to prepare and teach you how to handle worst-case scenarios using the least independence. This program will therefore motivate you to protect your family and friends during the worst period without the help of the modern technology. Remember, calamities are everywhere: at work, home, school and many other places. These calamities cause tension and leads to a decrease in productivity. This may finally lead to a reduction in life. Fortunately, the lost ways review will provide solutions to these situations. It will give you the tips for preparing yourself when nothing seems to go as expected. Generally, most people are optimistic. This makes them unprepared for failure. However, the best thing is to prepare for worst times. It is important to tell your kids about earthquakes, fire outbreaks, extreme weather conditions and other calamities. Tell them how to deal with these calamities in case they occur. This food survival guide wants you to know what food items are the most essential for survival; and tens of those items are also pretty easy to miss and tend to disappear during hard times, or just at a hint of disaster events. You have to admit the fact that all the food items could not be created absolutely equally. And the nutrient value of some common food items is also worthless, wasting time and money on this type of foods does not help protect or even damage the health of your family during a crisis. Yet, sadly, average Americans are still lack of this survival consciousness, and do not have a idea about what to buy, they will just be ready to rush to grab anything on the shelf as much as they can. Surely, this way is obviously inadvisable. A preparation ahead of average people makes sense in the enhancement of protection for your family. A grand encyclopedia of country Carnivore’s Bible , weather wisdom, country remedies and herbal cures, cleaning solutions, pest purges, firewood essentials, adobe making and bricklaying, leather working, plant dyes, farm foods, natural teas and tonics, granola, bread making, beer brewing and winemaking, jams and jellies, canning and preserving, sausage making and meat smoking, drying foods, down-home toys, papermaking, candle crafting, homemade soaps and shampoos, butter and cheese making, fishing and hunting secrets, and much more. Carnivore’s Bible : Traditional Skills for Simple Living Carnivore’s Bible (is a wellknown meat processor providing custom meat processing services locally andacross the state of Montana and more. Whether your needs are for domestic meator wild game meat processing) The Lost Book of Remedies PDF ( contains a series of medicinal andherbal recipes to make home made remedies from medicinal plants and herbs.Chromic diseases and maladies can be overcome by taking the remediesoutlined in this book. The writer claims that his grandfather was taughtherbalism and healing whilst in active service during world war twoand that he has treated many soldiers with his home made cures. ) Easy Cellar(Info about building and managing your root cellar, plus printable plans. The book on building and using root cellars – The Complete Root Cellar Book.) The Lost Ways (Learn the long forgotten secrets that helped our forefathers survive famines,wars,economic crisis and anything else life threw at them) LOST WAYS 2 ( Wordof the day: Prepare! And do it the old fashion way, like our fore-fathers did it and succeed longbefore us,because what lies ahead of us will require all the help we can get. Watch this video and learn the 3 skills that ensured our ancestors survival in hard times offamine and war.) Liberty Generator (Build and make your own energy source) Backyard Liberty (Easy and cheap DIY Aquaponic system to grow your organic and living food bank) Family Self Defense (Best Self Defense Strategies For You And Your Family) Survive Any Crisis (Best Items To Hoard For A Long Term Crisis) Survive The End Days(Biggest Cover Up Of Our President) Drought USA(Discover The Amazing Device That Turns Air Into Water) Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm. | Edward Morgan | https://prepareforchange.net/2019/01/22/experts-warning-americans-to-be-prepared-for-economic-collapse-disaster-surviving-the-coming-food-crisis/ | 2019-01-23 05:36:43+00:00 | 1,548,239,803 | 1,567,551,163 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
432,268 | prisonplanet--2019-08-20--11 Reasons Why So Many Experts Believe That A US Economic Crisis Is Imminent | 2019-08-20T00:00:00 | prisonplanet | 11 Reasons Why So Many Experts Believe That A U.S. Economic Crisis Is Imminent | The numbers are telling us that we have never been closer to the next recession than we are right now. The storm clouds that were gathering on the horizon are now directly above us, and suddenly the mainstream media is filled with storiesabout when the next recession will begin and the effect that this may have on President Trump’s chances of winning in 2020. In fact, there has been so much chatter about this that even President Trump is talking about it. All over television, experts are breathlessly speculating about when the coming recession will begin, and they are dispensing lots of advice about how people should be preparing for it. So what evidence has led so many of these talking heads to come to such a conclusion? Well, the following are 11 reasons why so many experts now believe that a U.S. economic crisis is imminent… #1 Last week, the “spread between the U.S. 2-year and 10-year yields” turned negative for the very first time in 12 years. An inversion of the yield curve has occurred prior to every single U.S. recession since the 1950s, and this is one of the most important economic signals that we have seen yet. #2 U.S. consumer sentiment just fell to the lowest level that we have seen in all of 2019. #3 74 percent of the economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that a recession will begin in the United States by the end of 2021. #4 U.S. industrial production just slipped back into contraction territory. #5 The IHS Markit Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index just fell to the lowest level that we have seen since September 2009. #6 Just like we witnessed in 2008, fear and volatility have returned to Wall Street in a major way. In fact, so far this month we have already seen the 4th and 7th largest single day point declines in U.S. stock market history. #7 The total number of bankruptcy filings in the United States has been steadily shooting up, and it rose another 5 percent during the month of July. #8 Major U.S. retailers continue to shut down more stores, and we have continued to stay on a pace that would break the all-time record for store closings in a single year. #9 As I discussed yesterday, on a year over year basis U.S. freight shipment volume has now fallen for 8 months in a row. #10 According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the probability that a recession will happen within the next 12 months is now the highest that it has been since the last financial crisis. #11 President Trump is suggesting that the Federal Reserve should cut interest rates by 100 basis points and that the Fed should restart quantitative easing as soon as possible. Both of those moves would be considered to be “emergency measures” that should only happen if a major economic downturn was imminent. In that list, I didn’t even mention our rapidly escalating trade war with China. The two largest economies on the entire planet are engaged in an extremely bitter trade dispute, and that alone has the potential to plunge the entire global economy into a very deep downturn. On the surface, the Trump administration is trying to assure us that everything is going to be just fine, but behind the scenes they appear to be preparing for the worst. For example, we have just learned that the Trump administration is actually considering pushing for an emergency payroll tax cut… If the U.S. economy really was “booming”, an emergency payroll tax cut wouldn’t make any sense at all. But if we are on the verge of a very serious economic crisis, then such a move would make perfect sense. Of course the U.S. is definitely not the only major economy that is facing serious troubles. In fact, signs of economic trouble have been emerging all over the globe lately… In particular, developments in Germany are quite troubling. Their economy actually contracted last quarter, and the German government is “preparing to embrace new fiscal stimulus measures should its economy stumble into a deep recession”… We haven’t seen talk like this in a very, very long time. For many people, the extreme pain caused by the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 has almost faded from memory, but the truth is that many experts believe that what is ahead is going to be even worse. If everything was going to be just fine, President Trump would not be trying to get the Federal Reserve to make extremely deep interest rate cuts. In life, what people do is far more important than what they say, and the moves that global leaders are making right now are telling us that huge trouble is coming. So enjoy the relative stability that we are currently experiencing while you still can, because it looks like it won’t be lasting for too much longer. This article was posted: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 4:04 am | admin | https://www.prisonplanet.com/11-reasons-why-so-many-experts-believe-that-a-u-s-economic-crisis-is-imminent.html | 2019-08-20 09:04:48+00:00 | 1,566,306,288 | 1,567,533,985 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
457,565 | redstate--2019-08-04--Bill Maher Welcomes an Economic Crisis If Itll Oust Trump Its Worth It | 2019-08-04T00:00:00 | redstate | Bill Maher Welcomes an Economic Crisis If It’ll Oust Trump – ‘It’s Worth It’ | During the Bill Clinton era, the resounding wisdom was, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Now, at least for Bill Maher, the economy’s stupid — because “It’s the beating of Donald Trump, dummy.” During Friday’s “Overtime” segment from Bill’s eponymous HBO show Real Time, he offered something with which surely some Democrats would agree: It’d be worth people suffering economically in order to get Donald Trump out of the White House. I can’t imagine it would strike a ton of people on the far Left as an offense — after all, as we’re constantly told, the man at JFK’s desk absolutely loves being a racist and flaunting it every chance he gets (here, here, and here). Magically, it would seem, prior to him adding an “R” to his name, such wasn’t the case at all, in any way. That’s the conclusion one can easily draw from all things Trump-related before then — including his hobknobbing with Hollywood, his acceptance in Democratic circles, his mentoring of black cultural influencer Russell Simmons, and his iconic place in the lexicon of rap music. But he added that “R” and BLAMMO! Speaking of the racism thing, Bill warned the audience that Trump would again come out ahead if Democrats didn’t “come off less crazy.” I think Bill’s right (as he was here). He explained that the Blueys’ best bet is “Trump fatigue.” “Fatigue is the best thing we’ve got going for us. The majority of Americans aren’t tired of winning, they’re tired of looking at his fat f—ing face!. It’s hard to beat an incumbent in a good economy. Every incumbent since FDR has won if they avoided a recession leading up to an election year, and consumer confidence is sky-high. … The voters that Democrats need to win — moderates who have Trump fatigue — will vote against a good economy, I think, just to get back to normalcy, but they won’t trade it away for left-wing extremism.” Not Crazy, for some, may be a tall order: “All the Democrats have to do to win is to come off less crazy than Trump – and, of course, they’re blowing it! Coming across as unserious people who are going to take away all your money so migrants from Honduras can go to college for free and get a major in ‘America sucks.'” Columnist Josh Barro pointed out that a recession would really hurt people. Ultimately, Bill’s good with that — if it’s what it takes: And who can step in for Trump? That would be ol’ faithful Joe Biden: There’s another reason for Bill to be okay with an economic crisis: He has an estimated net worth of $100 million. Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, here, and here. See 3 more pieces from me: Bill Maher Smacks The Democrats On 2020: If You Make The Election About This, You’ll Get Creamed Pistol-Packin’ Granny: 79-Year-Old Arms Herself, Tells Home Invader, ‘I Got Something For You!’ Naked Man Attacks Passenger On D.C. Train, Then Does Calisthenics And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook. Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.” | Alex Parker | https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/2019/08/04/bill-maher-welcomes-economic-crisis-itll-oust-trump-worth/ | 2019-08-04 22:43:09+00:00 | 1,564,972,989 | 1,567,534,902 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
477,355 | russiainsider--2019-01-09--The Next Economic Crisis in the West Will Mean the End of the Ukraine | 2019-01-09T00:00:00 | russiainsider | The Next Economic Crisis in the West Will Mean the End of the Ukraine | The country lives mostly off of subsidies from the US and the EU. If they decrease, the Ukraine is toast. Since the “glorious revolution” on Maidan in 2014 it has been possible to trace the precipitous decline of Ukraine step by step both politically and economically. Here is a succession of facts leading to one unmistakable conclusion: the collapse of Ukraine. The “dramatic shift towards an independent and truly democratic government” was mere pretense. In four years, a collection of oligarchs has managed to gain control over almost every aspect of Ukrainian life. These robber barons – Akhmetov, Firtash, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, Poroshenko and Pasternak – control the government and just about every sector of the Ukrainian economy. In order to end its dependence on Russian subsidies (over 200 billion dollars since 1991) Ukraine has allowed itself to be taken over by biotech interests handing over massive agricultural areas to Monsanto and other corporate carpetbaggers. This was necessary – along with assurances to reform shady business practices - in order to secure a 17 billion dollar loan from the IMF ( most of which magically disappeared). Rather than becoming more transparent and efficient due to its alliance with Europe, Ukraine consistently loses $8.6 billion a year to corruption and mismanagement. The construction of the Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines bypassing Ukraine will deprive it of at least $2 billion annually in transit fees. On a related topic, the cost of heating one’s home is bound to rise to levels unacceptable to average citizens. In fact, many struggling Ukrainians are already falling behind on their payments and residents in Kiev spent all of last summer with no hot water. Before the CIA inspired coup in 2014, the GDP of Ukraine was 183 billion dollars. In 2017 it was already down to 112 billion. If that trend continues the country will be bankrupt by 2020. If this is not bad enough, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin has said that nearly a million Ukrainians are leaving the country every year. The current situation is expected to worsen in the years to come, according to Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Social Policy Olga Krentovska. As Rostislav Ishchenko has shown, Ukrainian high-tech enterprises have lost foreign market share over the past few years and even Ukraine’s agricultural products are being displaced. It is estimated that two out of three dollars of Ukraine’s state budget has been from the West or Russia since 2014. With the next economic recession expected to hit the world in less than three years, Ukraine will be lucky to receive even half of that assistance. America and the EU countries will simply not be able to afford any substantial help to Kiev. In other words, the country is doomed. There is no other way to put it. The warm fuzzy feelings that proud nationalism has given so many Ukrainians will not be enough to heat their homes next winter or the one after that. Will the citizens of Ukraine continue to suffer in order to “stick it to the Russians”? Or will they rise up against the oligarchs who have plundered the wealth of Ukraine? One thing is for sure…instead of worrying about attempting to sail a ship through the Kerch strait, the authorities in Kiev should be focusing on how to prevent the Ukrainian Titanic from smashing into the financial iceberg it is heading towards at breakneck speed. | Dr. Paul Kindlon[field_author_has_account_] | https://russia-insider.com/en/next-economic-crisis-west-will-mean-end-ukraine/ri25845 | 2019-01-09 21:01:22+00:00 | 1,547,085,682 | 1,567,553,207 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
477,547 | russiainsider--2019-01-25--Belarus Looking at Economic Crisis If Lukashenko Fails to Secure Deal With Russia IMF Says | 2019-01-25T00:00:00 | russiainsider | Belarus Looking at Economic Crisis If Lukashenko Fails to Secure Deal With Russia, IMF Says | Lukashenko is acting with a lot of bravado in dealing with Moscow, but his hand is weak. His economy is poor and even modest growth is reliant on continued Russian subsidies -- and that's according to the Western-run IMF Battered Belarus faces a new economic crisis if Minsk fails to secure full compensation from Russia for losses triggered by the latter’s new energy taxation system (the so-called tax manoeuvre), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said in its latest economic outlook released on January 17. The IMF's medium-term outlook is for "subdued absent vigorous structural reforms, weighed down by unfavourable demographics and weak productivity" in Belarus. At this juncture, medium-term growth is projected at 2%, limiting convergence towards the income levels of richer neighbouring countries, according to the multinational lender. However, this modest outlook is "conditional" on full compensation from Russia for losses triggered by the so-called tax manoeuvre. "Should compensation be significantly less than full - and this is the key risk hovering over the Belarusian economy at this stage - medium-term growth could be materially lower than 2%, and the budget and current account deficits higher than projected above," the statement reads. The so-called tax manoeuvre in the Russian oil industry envisages a gradual reduction in the rate of export duty on oil and petroleum products from 30 % to zero in the period from 2019 to 2024 and a proportionate increase in mineral extraction tax on oil production. According to the Belarusian finance ministry, the country’s budget revenue losses from the tax manoeuvre in 2019 alone were estimated at BYN600mn ($300mn), and that the losses might total $2bn by the end of 2024. On December 8, a spokesperson for Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said in a televised interview that Minsk already lost $3.6bn due to Russia's cut of energy subsidies to Belarus. Due to Moscow's 'tax manoeuvre' Belarus will lose extra $11bn within the next four years, the spokesperson added. Belarus’ foreign exchange reserves stood at around $7.1bn in late December. However, significant part of the reserves were created by bonds issued by the National Bank of Belarus (NBB), which the regulator should repay within the next 12 months. The bondholders of these notes are local commercial banks. In November, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned the Belarusian government to be prepared "contingency plans" if energy negotiations with Russia fail. "Although the government sees a low probability of less than full compensation for the tax manoeuvre losses, contingency plans would be helpful if such an event were to materialise," the IMF said in a statement. According to the multinational lender, in such an event, oil-refining activity would be reduced, dampening export revenue and growth. Tax revenues would also be hit due to lower economic activity, lower transfers from Russia, and lower customs duties. The policy response should aim to mitigate the impact on the balance of payments and facilitate the reallocation of resources in the economy, including structural reforms. "The loss of energy discounts would underscore the need for faster and deeper reform to boost productivity in SOEs, not least in the refineries," the statement reads. Meanwhile, the IMF believes that exchange rate flexibility to allow the needed adjustment in the balance of payments, supported by fiscal discipline to refrain from untargeted and costly subsidies to the refineries, and with additional measures as needed to maintain debt in a downward trajectory. At the top of that, tighter monetary policy to maintain inflation within target and limit undue volatility in the foreign exchange market, the multinational lender added. | [field_author_has_account_] | https://russia-insider.com/en/belarus-looking-economic-crisis-if-lukashenko-fails-secure-deal-russia-imf-says/ri26024 | 2019-01-25 05:01:30+00:00 | 1,548,410,490 | 1,567,550,819 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
477,894 | russiainsider--2019-02-27--Neoliberal Economic Reform Timidity in East Ukraine Has Russia Sliding Toward Internal Political Cr | 2019-02-27T00:00:00 | russiainsider | Neoliberal Economic Reform, Timidity in East Ukraine Has Russia Sliding Toward Internal Political Crisis | A rather harsh criticism of the Russian Government and the Kremlin in this SouthFront analysis. Sadly, I cannot say that I disagree with what they say. In fact, I think that they are spot on and that all the “loyal” Kremlin-bots who deny that there is a serious problem in Russia are wrong. Supporting Vladimir Putin’s struggle to truly make Russia sovereign again and built a new multi-polar world does not at all entail being blind to all the very real mistakes and even faults of the Russian government. I can only say that I hope that SF is right and that the current lack of support of the Russian people of the government’s neo-liberal/capitalist policies will force Putin to correct the course and return to the kind of social policies the Russian people clearly want. It is also high time for Russia to take a harsher stance on the Ukraine, if only because the situation in the Ukraine (political and economic) is a total disaster and because some kind of military escalation in the Ukraine seems inevitable. All in all, yet another absolutely superb report by SouthFront whose sober analysis contrasts favorably with what both flag-wavers and fear-mongers typically produce. The Russia of 2019 is in a complicated economic and even political situation. Smoldering conflicts near its borders amid continued pressure from the US and NATO affect the situation in the country negatively. This is manifested in society and in national politics. The approval rating of the Russian government and personally of President Vladimir Putin has been decreasing. According to VCIOM, a state pollster, in January 2019, Putin’s confidence rating was only 32.8%. This is 24% less than in January 2018 when it was 57.2%. At the same time, the confidence rating of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was 7.8%. The approval rating of his cabinet is 37.7% while the disapproval rating is 38.7%. Opposition sources show data, which is far worse for the current Russian leadership. This tendency is not linked to the foreign policy course of the Kremlin. Rather, it’s the result of the recent series of liberal-minded economic reforms, which look similar to the approaches exercised by the Russian government in the mid-1990s. The decision to increase Value Added Tax amid the slowing Russian economy, especially in the industrial sector, and a very unpopular pension reform increasing the retirement age were both factors contributing to the further growth of discontent in the population. Russia’s GDP increased by 2.3% in 2018 compared to 1.6% in 2017. However, the Ministry of Economic Development, in its document entitled “Economic Picture” stated that this is linked to “one-time factors” and is not “stable”. The ministry maintained its earlier forecast stating that GDP growth in 2019 will be 1.3%. It confirmed increasing capital outflow. In this case, the repayment of funds to Western creditors by the Russian private sector is one of the causes. The Ministry of Economic Development also pointed out that the expendable income of the population decreased by 0.2%. Statutory charges, including the increased taxes, are named as one of the reasons. The document says that statutory charges grew by 14.8% in 2018. Additionally, the population is facing an increasingly restrictive administrative pressure: new fines and other penalties for minor violations in various fields and additional administrative restrictions limiting the freedom of actions of citizens. Restrictive traffic management of big cities, increasing fees for using federal highways as well as policies that are de-facto aimed at small business and self-employed persons are among its landmarks. Meanwhile the general population has no effective levers of pressure to affect or correct government policy. The public political sphere has become a desert. United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) is the only political party still de—facto existing in public politics. By now its ideological and organizational capabilities have become exhausted. Other “political parties and organizations” are just media constructs designed to defend the interests of a narrow group of their sponsors. It is hard to find a lawmaker in the State Duma or the Federation Council, who is not affiliated with the cliquish top political elite and oligarch clans. In the media sphere, the government has failed to explain its current course to the population. A vast majority of the initiatives of Medvedev’s cabinet face a negative reaction from the population. A spate of scandals involving high and middle level government officials made the situation even worse. These cases revealed blatant hypocrisy and the neglectful attitude to duties of some Russian officials. Some of the officials even became heroes of nationwide memes. Probably, the most prominent of these heroes are Minister of Labour and Employment of the Saratov region Natalia Sokolova and Head of Department for Youth Policy in the Sverdlov Region Olga Glatskikh. Sokolova advised Russian pensioners to eat “makaroshki” [a derogatory term for maccheroni] to save money and to thus become able to survive on the subsistence minimum of 3,500 RUB [about 50 USD] per month. “You will become younger, prettier and slimmer! Makaroshki cost is always the same!”, she said during a meeting of the regional parliamentary group on social policy in October 2018 adding that discounted products can be used to create a “balanced, but dietic” menu. Glatskikh became a meme hero thank to her meeting with young volunteers during the same month. Commenting on the possible financing of youth projects, she told volunteers that the government did not ask their parents “to give birth” to them. So, they should expect nothing from the state. In the period from 2018 to 2019, there were multiple arrests of officials caught exceeding the limits of their authority and being involved in corruption schemes. In comparison to previous periods, this number had increased by 1.5-2 times. The most recent detention took place right in the Parliament building on January 30. A 32-year-old senator, Rauf Arashukov, is suspected of being a member of a criminal group involved in the 2010 murders of two people and in pressuring a witness to one of the killings. On the same day, authorities detained his father, an adviser to the chief executive of a Gazprom subsidiary, Raul Arashukov. He is suspected of embezzling natural gas worth 30 billion rubles ($450 million). However, these actions do not appear to be enough to change the established media situation. After a large-scale corruption scandal in the Ministry of Defense in 2012, which led to almost no consequences for key responsible persons including former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who even continued his carrier in state-linked corporation Rostec. The general public has serious reservations about any real success of anti-corruption efforts. The aforementioned factors fuel the negative perception of the Medvedev government and Vladimir Putin as the head of state among Russian citizens. The 2014 events in Crimea showed to the Russian population that its state is ready to defend the interests of the nation and those who describe themselves as Russians even by force of arms. This was the first case when this approach was openly employed in the recent history of Russia. Therefore, the population was enthusiastic and national pride was on the rise. However, the Kremlin failed to exploit these gained opportunities and did not use them to strengthen the Russian state. In fact, up to February 2019, the policy towards eastern Ukraine has been inconsistent. At the same time, Moscow continues to lose its influence in post-Soviet states. This can be observed in both the Caucasus and Central Asia. Even, their close ally, Belarus, occasionally demonstrates unfriendly behavior and focuses its own efforts on the exploitation of economic preferences granted by Russia. Evaluating the current internal political situation in Russia and its foreign policy course, it’s possible to say that the Russian leadership has lost its clear vision of national development and a firm and consistent policy, which are needed for any great power. Another explanation of this is that the Russian leadership is facing pressure from multiple agents of influence, which stand against vision of a powerful independent state seeking to act as one of the centers of power on the global stage. One more factor, often pointed out by experts, is the closed crony-caste system of elites. This system led to the creation of a leadership, which pursues its own narrow clannish interests. Apparently, all of these factors influence Russian foreign and domestic policies in one way or another. The aforementioned large-scale anti-corruption campaign, regarding the people’s show-me attitude towards its result, could be a sign of a new emerging trend, which would lead to a purge of the corrupt elites and to strategic changes in Russian domestic policy. It is highly likely that Russia will face hard times in the next two years (2019-2020) and face various threats and challenges to its economy, foreign policy course and even to its statehood. | The Saker | https://russia-insider.com/en/neoliberal-economic-reform-timidity-east-ukraine-has-russia-sliding-toward-internal-political-crisis | 2019-02-27 10:02:34+00:00 | 1,551,279,754 | 1,567,547,082 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
477,977 | russiainsider--2019-03-15--RussiaHoax Is Ending - But Now the US Is Ungovernable Unfit to Navigate Looming Economic Crisis | 2019-03-15T00:00:00 | russiainsider | RussiaHoax Is Ending - But Now the US Is Ungovernable, Unfit to Navigate Looming Economic Crisis | You had to wonder why it took Nancy Pelosi so long to figure out that maybe impeachment was not the big rock-candy mountain that, for “the resistance,” marked the gateway to a Trump-free nirvana. It became obvious this week, through the release of the Bruce Ohr and Lisa Page transcripts, that RussiaGate was birthed entirely by persons in the employ of Hillary Clintion, with then CIA Director John Brennan as midwife, and the DOJ / FBI avidly assisting — all of them fully aware that the predicate was false. What’s more, the evidence timeline makes it clear that Democratic Party leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, knew it was false. Hence, the pained smile she’s been wearing these many months. In the event of an impeachment proceeding in the House, all that would be revealed, especially if it got as far as a trial in the US Senate, where the defense is allowed to mount a case under rules of evidence. Imagine the howls of embarrassment on late-night TV when even ex-comedian Stephen Colbert would have to admit that he was gulled into acting as a shill for a seditious con. I suppose Ms. Pelosi also made the calculation that any impeachment ginned up by the likes of Jerrold Nadler and Maxine Waters would be superseded by a slew of actual indictments among the above-mentioned former law enforcement officialdom, including perhaps former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and persons in the Obama White House. You might even include the enigmatic Robert Mueller, who appears to be liable for the destruction of evidence in his own inquiry, as well as malicious prosecution. All the actual evidence in the public arena indicates that any “collusion” to interfere with the 2016 election involved agents of the Clinton campaign and US government employees, not Russians. Of course, it will not be so easy for Mr. Nadler and Ms. Waters to call off the committee exercises they’ve been rehearsing, but it will be fun to watch them pissing into the wind as the indictments roll out. In his new book, Peak Trump, David Stockman called the RussiaGate affair “a Democratic Party Bereavement Ritual,” an excellent diagnosis. The breast-beating and garment-rending has gone on for more than two years, inducing a generalized hysteria that has made it impossible for this country to govern itself, and opening the door to some really serious mischief as the party’s new Jacobin wing sets up for the advent of an American failed state. All of this is a prelude to equally serious tribulation roaring down the two-lane pike of finance and economy that will combine with the engineered destruction of institutional authority from RussiaGate to bring on the greatest crisis since the Civil War. The money is not there to perform any of the miracles of redistribution promised by AOC and Bernie Sanders — unless the Federal Reserve is coerced into printing a whole lot more money out of thin air, in which case the consequence will be that everybody gets to have a lot of worthless money that has lost its value. If congress wants to play committee games, it might want to investigate how the USA is going to rack up another $2 trillion in debt to finance its operations before the 2020 election. They’re the ones who will have to vote to allow that to happen. The disorders of money coming down in the months ahead, RussiaGate aside, are sure to discredit both political parties. I doubt that Mr. Trump will survive it politically and the revenant Republican Party behind him is so devoid of credible leadership that it could dissolve altogether like an evening mist preceding the cold darkness of night. By then, the whole American political establishment will be, as Mencken quipped, like a blind man stumbling around a dark cellar looking for a black cat that isn’t there. Hysterias don’t last forever, but the economic depression ahead will last a long, long time, and the nation will have to find some way to adjust to a lower standard of living. None of the nostrums currently in the air — the guaranteed basic income, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal — will avail to alter that fate. The big question is just how disorderly and violent the journey through that will have to be. | James Howard Kunstler | https://russia-insider.com/en/russiahoax-ending-now-us-ungovernable-unfit-navigate-looming-economic-crisis/ri26561 | 2019-03-15 17:03:15+00:00 | 1,552,683,795 | 1,567,546,070 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
477,979 | russiainsider--2019-03-15--Who Will Suffer Most in Next Economic Crisis | 2019-03-15T00:00:00 | russiainsider | Who Will Suffer Most in Next Economic Crisis? | The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster, and one of our all-time favorite pessimists. We carry his articles regularly on RI. His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining. He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive). These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here. To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. Here is a recent audio interview with him which gives a good overview of his work. Just as presidents are expected to act presidentially, Federal Reserve chairpersons are expected to act oracularly — as semi-supernatural beings who emerge now and again from some cave of mathematical secrets to offer reassuringly cryptic utterances on mysteries of the economy. And so was Jerome Powell wheeled out on CBS’s 60 Minutes Sunday night, like a cigar store Indian at an antique fair, so vividly sculpted and colorfully adorned you could almost imagine him saying something. Maybe it was an hallucination, but I heard him say that “the economy is in a good place,” and that “the outlook is a favorable one.” Point taken. Pull the truck up to the loading dock and fill it with Tesla shares! I also thought I heard “Inflation is muted.” That must have been the laugh line, since there is almost no single item in the supermarket that goes for under five bucks these days. But really, when was the last time you saw a cigar store Indian at Trader Joes? It took seventeen Federal Reserve math PhD’s to come up with that line, inflation is muted. What you really had to love was Mr. Powell’s explanation for the record number of car owners in default on their monthly payments: “…not everybody is sharing in this widespread prosperity we have.” Errrgghh Errrgghh Errrgghh. Sound of klaxon wailing. What he meant to say was, hedge-funders, private equity hustlers, and C-suite personnel are making out just fine as the asset-stripping of flyover America proceeds, and you miserable, morbidly obese, tattooed gorks watching this out on the Midwestern buzzard flats should have thought twice before dropping out of community college to drive a forklift in the Sysco frozen food warehouse (where, by the way, you are probably stealing half the oven-ready chicken nuggets in inventory). Interlocutor Scott Pelley asked the oracle about “those half-a-million people who have given up looking for jobs.” Did he pull that number out of his shorts? The total number out of the workforce is more like 95 million, and when you subtract retirees, people still in school, and the disabled, the figure is more like 7.5 million. There was some blather over the “opioid epidemic,” the upshot of which was learn to code, young man. Personally, I was about as impressed as I was ten years ago when past oracle Ben Bernanke confidently explained to congress that the disturbances in Mortgage-land were “contained.” David Leonhardt of The New York Times had a real howler in his Monday column on the state of the economy: Here’s what’s actually going on in that beast known as The Economy: Globalism is winding down as a decade of Central Bank machinations reach their limits of deception, leaving the major trading nations with little more than comparative disadvantages. Europe is dissolving into political chaos. Japan is cannibalizing itself in preparation for its return to the Tokugawa shogunate. China is groaning with factories that turn out too much stuff; America is groaning with so much of that stuff that it’s turning into Yard Sale Nation. In the background of all that are the problematic flows of oil on tankers through dangerous chokepoints like the Straits of Molucca and the Straits of Hormuz, with a looming horizon on the supply as US shale oil production chokes to death on unpayable debt. It has been easier to maintain the pretense of economic stability while all the perversities of finance and banking are being acted out in the current fiascos of government. But the tide is surely going out now and, as another ersatz oracle, Warren Buffett, once observed about such situations: pretty soon you get to see who’s been swimming naked. In the American lagoon, you will soon behold the awful spectacle of the beached whale known as President Trump flopping helplessly around the mud-flats, emitting inchoate threnodies from his blowhole. Ironically, he’ll be flopping and gasping at the same time that his antagonists are stricken by a red tide of indictments, perhaps including even the Captain Ahab of the Resistance: Robert Mueller. The Ides of March are upon us. | James Howard Kunstler | https://russia-insider.com/en/who-will-suffer-most-next-economic-crisis/ri26550 | 2019-03-15 07:03:00+00:00 | 1,552,647,780 | 1,567,546,070 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
478,556 | russiainsider--2019-06-27--A Crushing Economic Crisis Will Ultimately Destroy Zionist Power in America | 2019-06-27T00:00:00 | russiainsider | A Crushing Economic Crisis Will Ultimately Destroy Zionist Power in America | Pundits and keen observers of the current state of affairs in America are divided over how and why the country will eventually collapse. There are those who believe the country’s Achilles heel is its astronomical level of unsustainable debt that will lead to economic disaster. Another group maintains that de-dollarization in the global economy - following the lead of China and Russia – will eventually destroy the United States. A third group maintains that America will be torn apart by a civil war between the progressive forces pitted against the racist and reactionary right. There is something to be said for all three of these positions, but the biggest threat to America actually comes from Zionism. In 1975 when the United Nations still had some semblance of independence, a resolution was passed identifying Zionism with racism. This resolution (# 3379) was unequivocal in its condemnation. And rightfully so. Any visit to the Holy Land will convince the open- minded tourist that Zionism is – unfortunately – a most virulent form of racism. In fact, former president Jimmy Carter refers to Israel as an “Apartheid” state – an observation for which he was unjustly labeled an “anti-Semitic”. This strategy of attacking any critic of Zionist racism as “anti-Semitic” (an ad hominen attack) serves two purposes: it demonizes the opponent of Zionism by focusing on the character of a person rather than analyzing the issue being raised by the critic. This shuts off rational discourse (debate). Focusing on the critic rather than the issue changes the topic from ideology to personality. This also results in censorship. Speaking of… There is serious discussion within government and academic circles to have any criticism of the state of Israel equated with “anti-Semitism”. This is the ugly face of Zionism subverting one of our most precious rights: freedom of speech. This tactic of re-directing criticism of Zionism to a discussion of the critic’s “obvious”:anti-Semitism” is a common trick used by Zionists. It obscures the nefarious role of Zionism. The owners of the American news media (overwhelmingly Zionists) use a similar tactic by creating a cult of personalities placed into positions of influence and power to deflect attention away from the racist ideology of Zionism. The popularity of Rachel Maddow on “the left “and Sean Hannity (on the right) serves the purpose of having the Goyim argue over personalities rather than the substance of issues like Zionism which is currently the driving force behind American foreign policy. This is a standard “divide and conquer” tactic. It will eventually back-fire, however. When America attacks Iran – as it will be forced into doing somewhere down the road – the outcome will be devastating for the United States. The war against Iran will certainly not be a “cake-walk”. When the price of oil sky-rockets to $500 a barrel or more because of this conflict, the impact on the American economy will be catastrophic. Then – and only then – in the midst of a crushing economic depression will America have a chance to defeat the Zionists ‘stranglehold on our government and financial system. For at some point during this crisis real patriots will come forth to reclaim American sovereignty. | Dr. Paul Kindlon | https://russia-insider.com/en/crushing-economic-crisis-will-ultimately-destroy-zionist-power-america/ri27333 | 2019-06-27 14:06:00+00:00 | 1,561,658,760 | 1,567,537,812 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
496,920 | sottnet--2019-02-10--US blockade cost Venezuela 350 billion since 2013 primary reason for economic crisis | 2019-02-10T00:00:00 | sottnet | US blockade cost Venezuela $350 billion since 2013, primary reason for economic crisis | Blocking a country financially is paramount when trying to asphyxiate the national economy. The Economic Debates Unit of the Latin American Geopolitical Strategic Center (CELAG) released a report on "the economic consequences of the boycott against Venezuela," on Friday, in which it is proved that the "international financial blockade to Venezuela since 2013 is the main responsible for the economic crisis."According to CELAG's report, the financial and economic blockade that was mainly, would have cost Venezuela around US$350 billion "in the production of goods and services between 2013 and 2017."The external attacks are able to undermine the economic and productive capacity of the country, and therefore, destroy the economy. According to the study,The U.S. government led by Donald Trump is arguing in favor of military intervention in Venezuela, to allegedly end a so-called "humanitarian crisis," but the "alleged humanitarian crisis andAccording to the researchers,. "The US government justifies an eventual intervention, based in the alleged humanitarian catastrophe and in the massive emigration that its blockade, precisely, would have created."Venezuela has been forced out of financial markets, which led to the impossibility of accessing credits., "agencies such as Standards & Poor's or Moody's, have put the country-risk rate above 2,000 points since 2015," according to the CELAG report.Venezuela is a country that enters the global market mainly because of its oil production.According to the study, since President Nicolas Maduro was sworn-in in 2013, "the Venezuelan public sector stopped receiving in net terms flows that in the quinquennium 2008-2012, more than USD$95 billion dollars, that is, about USD$19 billion per year," due to the blockade. On top of that, the government had to pay higher amounts of money due to the country-risk rates, for external debt. "The Venezuelan Government had to pay more than US$17 billion dollars in the five-year period 2013-2017, about US$3.3 billion dollars per year."The study adds that the Venezuelan economy and society "suffered international asphyxiation of US$22.5 billion dollars a year resulting from a deliberate international strategy of financial isolation.If the Venezuelan government had the possibility of accessing over US$22 billion a year, the economy would be in a better place today. "As a consequence of the blockade, losses in the production of goods and services oscillated between a range of USD$350 billion and USD$260 billion in the period 2013-2017."The study concludes that, | null | https://www.sott.net/article/406911-US-blockade-cost-Venezuela-350-billion-since-2013-primary-reason-for-economic-crisis | 2019-02-10 15:22:13+00:00 | 1,549,830,133 | 1,567,549,059 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
499,253 | sottnet--2019-03-29--Erdogan blames US for triggering 2018 economic crisis in Turkey | 2019-03-29T00:00:00 | sottnet | Erdogan blames US for triggering 2018 economic crisis in Turkey | Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. | null | https://www.sott.net/article/410051-Erdogan-blames-US-for-triggering-2018-economic-crisis-in-Turkey | 2019-03-29 08:11:24+00:00 | 1,553,861,484 | 1,567,544,835 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
528,475 | sputnik--2019-03-19--Economic War Against Us Venezuela Sanctions Asset Seizures Cause of Crisis | 2019-03-19T00:00:00 | sputnik | ‘Economic War Against Us’: Venezuela Sanctions, Asset Seizures Cause of ‘Crisis’ | On Monday, the US State Department "was pleased to support" the seizure by Venezuelan opposition forces of three buildings in the United States belonging to the Venezuelan government, State Department spokesperson Robert Palladino said. Self-proclaimed Interim President of Venezuela Juan Guaido's envoy to Washington, Carlos Vecchio, told Reuters the opposition had gained control of two buildings in Washington, DC, belonging to the Venezuelan Defense Ministry as well as a consular building in New York. Vecchio said they expected more such seizures "in the days to come." The move follows a statement by Guaido on Saturday claiming "we do have control over Citgo," the US subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company PDVSA, "and a license to continue the company's activities," Sputnik reported. In late January, the US moved to block $7 billion in revenue from returning to Venezuela. Last Thursday, the US Treasury extended Citgo's license for another 18 months, enabling it to collect money for Guaido's opposition movement, "while prohibiting any benefit from flowing back to the illegitimate Maduro regime," the Treasury said. Other assets owned by the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro have also been seized since January 23, when just three days after Maduro began the second term he was elected to, Guaido, with US backing, declared himself president instead. In early February, the Bank of England froze $1.56 billion in gold assets owned by Caracas following a request by Guaido for London not to permit their repatriation. Radio Sputnik's Loud and Clear spoke about the situation in Venezuela with Gloria La Riva, the director of the Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee, who just returned from a month-long stay in the country. "They've already seized Citgo in the United States, and very likely gave instructions to England, its ally, to not release the gold that is the property of Venezuela… which they need immediately for liquidity. But, on March 1, Dulcy Rodriguez, the vice president, did announce that the Portuguese headquarters of PDVSA, the oil industry, has been moved to Moscow to protect it, and they are working much more closely together to find a way that Russia can invest more fully in the oil operation," La Riva said. "I think the US media will continue to churn out lies, the most incredible accusations, in order to soften up and make it difficult for people to oppose US military actions and economic actions," she said. "The sanctions are what are causing the crisis in Venezuela. I mentioned ‘crisis' to somebody there, some of the women who were working in the food distribution. They said, ‘It's not an economic crisis, it's an economic war against us.' We need to make that clear. And the danger is there: the dangers of US war," which La Riva mentioned means both military intervention but also the rise of paramilitary proxies, such as the US has supported in many other Central and South American countries. However, despite these moves to strangle Venezuela's economy and to portray its society as chaotic and inadequately governed, La Riva, who spent most of her recent trip in the capital city of Caracas, said, "Venezuela looks very normal." "It's modern; there's many people in the street," she said. "Until the blackout, the transport was working, the metro was free, packed with people traveling to work and elsewhere. All the shops are open; the stores are full of food — every kind of store, the super modern markets down to the smaller neighborhood stores. Of course, there's the issue of prices, in the larger private stores, and we can talk about that, but food is readily available everywhere." "I think the most interesting thing is, besides the national food distribution program to 6 million families, meaning about 24 million people in Venezuela" out of a total population of 31 million, "that there are many, many sellers of fruits and vegetables in the street, at affordable prices," La Riva told hosts John Kiriakou and Brian Becker. La Riva said she was due to fly out of Caracas the night the power went out for the first time, and the outage kept her there for another four days. "That first night, I was extremely worried. I said, ‘Are they going to try and kill President Maduro? Is there going to be troops on the ground? What's happening?'" The next morning, she found out it was sabotage, and said the power winked in and out for days, but despite the instability, hospitals had their own backup generators and were able to weather the storm. However, while the official investigation continues into the cause and origin of the blackout, which shut down the Guri dam in Bolivar state, and along with it 73 percent of Venezuela's electrical output, the consensus seems to be it was some form of cyber attack. "It still has to be filtered out, but Venezuela says they will present this to the United Nations. I think it will take some time, " La Riva said. However, the power problems persist. Sunday night into Monday, another blackout struck parts of Caracas, the cause of which is as yet unknown, Sputnik reported. Following a transformer explosion in the hills outside Caracas Monday afternoon, a wildfire erupted on the hillside that further endangered other electrical cables, observers noted. However, the fire was mostly extinguished by nightfall. La Riva cautioned that the official story touted by Washington and the mainstream media about the outage might change, too. "There are already two disclosures after initial accusations, as you know: the New York Times showing that the accusation that Maduro ordered the burning of the humanitarian aid — so-called — trucks on the bridge on February 23, caused by the fascists who were lobbing Molotov cocktails." "But there's also the admission that the drone attack was an assassination attempt… on August 4 of last year. US officials said, ‘Oh, he's trying to just claim an assassination attempt so that he can get more support.' Well, in fact was. It was based, the planning, the setting up of the drone and the bombs in the drone, in Colombia," she said. | null | https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201903191073354645-Economic-War-Venezuela-Sanctions-Asset-Seizures-Cause-Crisis/ | 2019-03-19 00:49:00+00:00 | 1,552,970,940 | 1,567,545,704 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
534,792 | sputnik--2019-05-29--Economic Slowdown Agri-Crisis Biggest Challenges for Modi Govt 20 - Analysts | 2019-05-29T00:00:00 | sputnik | Economic Slowdown, Agri-Crisis Biggest Challenges for Modi Gov't 2.0 - Analysts | New Delhi (Sputnik): The Election Manifesto of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party had envisaged growing India's economy to $5 trillion by the year 2025 from $2.8 trillion in 2018. Certain media reports have suggested that Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley may not take up the office again due to poor health. However, the government has denied such reports as baseless. According to Senior Business Journalist and author R.N. Bhaskar, in light of recent media reports, the finance minister clearly has a difficult task ahead; no matter who takes the helm at the Ministry of Finance, there are certain economic challenges India needs to address. READ MORE:China May Disrupt Indian Market Amid Trade Tensions With the US — Fitch "Basically, I feel there is a slowdown in the economy. The Index of Industrial Production stats have vindicated that. There is also a slowdown in capital formation in the country. It indicates that no new investments are taking place, no new industries are coming up and hence there are no new jobs," he added. Reports published by Ind-Ra, an Indian ratings and research agency, have suggested that FY2019 GDP growth will total 6.9%, less than the earlier advanced estimate of 7.0%. Reported growth in FY2018 was 7.2%. To fix the slowdown in economic growth, Bhaskar suggested that numerous steps need to be taken. "If the new government really wants to arrest the economic slowdown, it needs to create more jobs. For creating jobs, I would suggest some crucial steps. There is an untapped potential in the solar sector. We need to take full advantage of the solar sector. We need to develop our rooftop solar infrastructure," he said. The agrarian, or agricultural, crisis was one of the primary issues taken up by the opposition parties in their bid to corner the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government. The previous BJP-led government came up with the policy of providing Rs. 6,000 (86 USD) in annual farmer support to 120 million small and marginal farmers in India. While many BJP critics called this as a "populist" move, Bhaskar believes otherwise. "I don't believe that the Modi government was "populist" in its policies. The steps that were taken were the need of the hour. The agriculture sector was in disarray and the farmers' support income was essential." READ MORE:Analyst Outlines Three Possible Factors Behind Modi's BJP Re-Election Success Tarun Kumar, a Delhi-based economist, believes that while the agrarian crisis did affect the earlier Modi government's economic progress, there were other factors too which needed to be sorted out. "The Modi government 2.0 will not have some of the challenges which they faced in the first term. In the first term the government's focus was on repairing the stressed banking system and undertaking structural economic resets. There was pressure to control India's fiscal deficit (combined) with a tight monetary policy and they have done substantially well to address those issues," Kumar said. "However in their second term, I would expect the BJP-led government to step up infrastructure expenditure and create more jobs by trying to bring in more foreign investments. The only way to go about it is to ease the process by which foreign investors spread their business in India by reducing the bureaucratic red-tapism," he added. Narendra Modi is scheduled to take the oath of office and secrecy as the Prime Minister of India for his second term on 30 May. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect Sputnik's position. | null | https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201905291075420309-modi-economics-india-agriculture/ | 2019-05-29 05:41:00+00:00 | 1,559,122,860 | 1,567,539,900 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
541,214 | sputnik--2019-08-15--Identity Crisis Due to Hong Kongs Economic Eclipse by China Underlies Protests | 2019-08-15T00:00:00 | sputnik | Identity Crisis Due to Hong Kong’s Economic Eclipse by China Underlies Protests | Clashes between demonstrators and police broke out in the urban area of Kowloon in Hong Kong Wednesday, just a couple days after anti-Beijing protesters stormed the Hong Kong International Airport on Monday, causing the airport to cancel all flights in and out of the city until all of the protesters left the airport. Mass protests erupted in Hong Kong in early June when authorities announced they were considering making amendments to a bill that would allow the semi-autonomous Chinese city to extradite suspects to jurisdictions with which it did not have an extradition agreement, including mainland China. While Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced in July that the bill was “dead,” the protests have continued, diffusing into a generalized anti-China sentiment. More than 500 protesters have been arrested and nearly 150 police officers injured over the past several weeks, Hong Kong Police Senior Superintendent Kong Wing-Cheung told reporters last week. “I think it is complicated, and I don’t think they’re about one single thing,” Woodward told hosts John Kiriakou and Brian Becker about the protests. “Certainly, they were triggered by mishandled piece of legislation by Carrie Lam, the head of Hong Kong … that’s the type of agreement that Hong Kong has many countries and China has with many, many countries, but didn’t have with Hong Kong itself, even though Hong Kong was formerly part of China.” Hong Kong was a colony of the British empire from 1841 to 1997, when it became a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. “There was [resentment] triggered by this legislation, because it was claimed it would be used to extradite political opponents of the regime in mainland China. This is actually not the case, because the kind of crimes that were covered by the legislation were limited and didn’t include political crimes. That’s what triggered protests, but clearly there were underlying grievances or concerns which were driving some of this,” Woodward explained. “Property prices in Hong Kong have gone through the roof, unemployment in Hong Kong has begun to rise, and the economic position of Hong Kong has declined dramatically compared to the economic position of mainland China. So the position of the past, where Hong Kong saw itself as, and was indeed, the driver of the economy of the whole of China [is no longer]. Hong Kong is becoming dependent economically on the economic strength of mainland China, and so this has led to all kinds of tension and changes in self-perception, etc. So, I think a number of these issues underlie the protests.” In his usual fashion, US President Donald Trump on Tuesday tweeted, “Many are blaming me, and the United States, for the problems going on in Hong Kong. I can’t imagine why?” The tweet comes as Beijing has accused Washington of inciting the protests in Hong Kong in an effort to undermine the Chinese government, and tensions between the US and China continue to rise amid an ongoing trade war. According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, images of Julie Eadeh, the political unit chief of the US Consulate General in Hong Kong, meeting with key figures of the protests emerged in Beijing-backed media outlets last week. “I would say that [Trump’s tweet] was very much poking China. The phrase ‘I can’t imagine why,’ is generally used ironically, with the implication that it is completely obvious why. So, it is obvious why such claims are made - because the US has a hand in stirring this up. It’s been meeting with protesters. Some of the leaders of this protest were involved in a previous protest a couple of years ago called the Umbrella Movement, and they were invited to meet members of Congress, [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton, etc. at the time. There is no question that the US has had a hand in this, as indeed has Britain, which has also been encouraging and stirring up the protesters in various ways,” Woodward explained. “It’s ironic that these young people [protesters] are holding up the previous Hong Kong colonial flag, the US flag and the union flag of Britain when Britain obviously was the colonial occupier,” Woodward said of the protesters. “These young people … they have some complete illusion as to what the US and Britain represent … which is fed by the media and by social media … directly by the US and Britain in particular.” | null | https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201908151076554072-identity-crisis-due-to-hong-kongs-economic-eclipse-by-china-underlies-protests/ | 2019-08-15 00:30:20+00:00 | 1,565,843,420 | 1,567,534,165 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
542,932 | sputnik--2019-09-03--Argentinian Stock Market Plummets Almost 14 Amid Economic Crisis | 2019-09-03T00:00:00 | sputnik | Argentinian Stock Market Plummets Almost 14% Amid Economic Crisis | As of 17.48 GMT, Merval was down 14.07 percent to 22,510 after rising 6.45 percent to 26,195.41 on Monday. The index rose to an all-time high of 44,470.76 on August 9, but lost as many as 38 percent on August 12 after the opposition's unexpected victory in the primaries. The presidential election in the country is set for October. At the same time, the national currency's exchange rate has not changed. Banco Nacion, the country's largest state bank, sells US dollars at 57 pesos, the other large banks sell it at 58-60 pesos. The Central Bank of Argentina has already taken a number of measures to support the financial market. Since August 30, it has introduced capital controls, requiring banks to obtain preliminary authorization to distribute their earnings abroad. It has also decided to restrict large export companies’ access to Argentine peso in an effort to make them sell dollars. Since the announcement of the preliminary elections results in mid-August, Argentina’s economy has faced a downturn which resulted in a sharp peso drop and prompted international credit rating agencies to downgrade the rating of Latin America’s third-largest economy. | null | https://sputniknews.com/latam/201909031076716563-argentinian-stock-market-plummets-almost-14-amid-economic-crisis/ | 2019-09-03 20:18:15+00:00 | 1,567,556,295 | 1,569,331,590 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
547,000 | sputnik--2019-10-15--IMF Predicts Worst Economic Growth Since 2008 Financial Crisis, Urges Increased Spending | 2019-10-15T00:00:00 | sputnik | IMF Predicts Worst Economic Growth Since 2008 Financial Crisis, Urges Increased Spending | The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned of the worst global economic growth since the 2008 financial crisis in its latest forecast for 2019. In its World Economic Outlook, the IMF reduced its growth forecast to 3% for 2019, "its lowest level since 2008–09 and a 0.3 percentage point downgrade from the April 2019 World Economic Outlook". The dismal prediction comes amid increased trade barriers and conflict, especially between the world's two major economic powers - China and the US, who are currently locked in an embittered trade war. The fund identified the conflict as one cause of the slowing growth, as well as "macroeconomic strain" on emerging and developing economies such as in Latin America, which since the crash have aided in global economic recovery. However, the report did offer some more positive news for 2020, projecting a "pick up to 3.4 percent in 2020" due to "improvement in economic performance in a number of emerging markets in Latin America, the Middle East, and emerging and developing Europe". Gita Gopinath, the IMF's chief economist, said: "The global outlook remains precarious with a synchronised slowdown and uncertain recovery. At 3% growth, there is no room for policy mistakes and an urgent need for policymakers to support growth. The global trading system needs to be improved, not abandoned". "Countries need to work together because multilateralism remains the only solution to tackling major issues, such as risks from climate change, cybersecurity risks, tax avoidance and tax evasion, and the opportunities and challenges of emerging financial technologies", she added. Ms Gopinath also warned against a no-deal Brexit, claiming it could seriously limit UK growth: "Heightened trade and geopolitical tensions, including Brexit-related risks, could further disrupt economic activity, and derail an already fragile recovery in emerging market economies and the euro area". The report stressed that to avoid such an outcome, governments should aim to reduce trade barriers, but also provide key public economic investment and support: "policies should decisively aim at defusing trade tensions, reinvigorating multilateral cooperation, and providing timely support to economic activity where needed". This comes as the Bank England projects the UK's lowest productivity in five years in the second quarter of 2019, blaming uncertainty regarding Brexit and businesses not investing in technology or software. Nissan warned that a 10% tariff increase following a no-deal Brexit may see it become "unsustainable" to maintain a manufacturing base in the UK. Recent developments of a partial agreement last week between the US and China and the delaying of tariffs on Chinese imports originally scheduled for 15 October may indicate that the recommended lifting of trade restrictions could materialise, despite no agreement outline currently existing. China and the US remain locked in a trade war, based on accusations by the Trump administration that outsourcing and "unfair" behaviour on the part of China has led to the loss of jobs in the US, particularly manufacturing jobs. Meanwhile China has adamantly rejected these assertions, claiming that the US is resisting legitimate competition. | null | https://sputniknews.com/europe/201910151077055339-imf-predicts-worst-economic-growth-since-2008-financial-crisis-urges-increased-spending/ | Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:47:00 +0300 | 1,571,190,420 | 1,571,183,315 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
548,957 | sputnik--2019-11-10--‘True Cost of Corbyn’: Labour’s Election Pledges Could ‘Trigger Economic Crisis’ Warn Tories | 2019-11-10T00:00:00 | sputnik | ‘True Cost of Corbyn’: Labour’s Election Pledges Could ‘Trigger Economic Crisis’ Warn Tories | British finance minister Sajid Javid has told the BBC the opposition Labour Party's spending plans would trigger an economic crisis within months, as he cited a contested dossier compiled and published by his Conservative Party. Earlier, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported by the Sunday Telegraph as claiming the Labour party’s election promises would cost taxpayers an extra 1.2 trillion pounds, ($1.5 trillion). Opposition and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, if elected, would increase spending more than three times faster than former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Javid was cited as saying, as he lambasted Labour’s expenditure plans as “truly frightening.” On Sunday the Conservatives published a dossier that Sajid Javid said showed the “true cost of Corbyn”, including taxes set at the “highest level we’ve ever seen in peacetime”. Labour’s spending plans amounted to “scrapping all funding for the NHS - the UK’s universal health-care system - for the next nine years,” said Javid. The Tory dossier is based on a cost analysis of Labour's 2017 manifesto and other pledges it has made since then, including a number of commitments from Labour's annual party conference. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell branded the Conservative report a "ludicrous piece of Tory fake news" and an "incompetent mish-mash of debunked estimates and bad maths, cooked up because they know Labour's plans for real change are popular", reported the BBC. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell has previously said he wants to more than double UK investment spending to an extra £55bln per year, with Labour intending to borrow more than the Tories to invest, claiming this would boost economy growth more rapidly and increase the state's assets rather than just its liabilities. The UK Labour Party has yet to publish its 2019 election manifesto, with senior Labour figures meeting next weekend to decide which policies passed by the party's annual conference will become manifesto proposals for government. Previously, civil service head Sir Mark Sedwill on 6 November scrapped the impact assessment of the Labour Party’s election pledges, triggering a backlash from some of the Conservatives, while Labour argued it was interfering in the upcoming general election. Earlier, the Labour Party officially launched its campaign for the 12 December general election, with Corbyn confirming last month his push for a second referendum, also known as a “people’s vote”, saying that “after three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say”. The snap general election was approved by the UK Parliament's House of Commons on 29 October, a day after Brussels offered another deadline extension for the UK, giving the country until 31 January 2020 to ratify the Brexit deal negotiated by Johnson. The Conservatives and Labour are set to face each other in a heated competition, the results of which many observers see as being the most unpredictable in modern British history. According to a recent poll conducted by YouGov, however, the UK Labour Party is suffering a major loss of support in virtually all regions of the country. The pollster compared the data obtained from 11,500 respondents with data from 2017. The interviewees were asked who they would support should an election take place tomorrow. The survey revealed that the party has lost ground even in regions where it traditionally enjoys a lot of support. According to the poll, the region that has seen the biggest decrease of the support for Labour is the North West, where the number of likely voters has figure by 25 points compared to two years before. | null | https://sputniknews.com/europe/201911101077269836-true-cost-of-corbyn-labours-election-pledges-fraught-with-massive-spending-splurge-warn-tories/ | Sun, 10 Nov 2019 08:58:52 +0300 | 1,573,394,332 | 1,573,390,278 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
554,509 | sputnik--2019-12-26--India Can Turn Economic Crisis Into Chance for Development | 2019-12-26T00:00:00 | sputnik | India Can Turn Economic Crisis Into Chance for Development | The IMF’s annual review called declining consumption and investment activity, as well as tax revenues and a number of other factors impediments to one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia and the Pacific. According to the government, from July to September, India’s economic growth was the slowest in six years, falling to 4.5 percent. The central bank cut its forecast for 2019 from 6.1 to 5 percent. The Reserve Bank of India has lowered its key lending rate five times this year to a nine-year low, but the economic recession doesn’t stop. In early December, the bank left the discount rate unchanged, causing disappointment and misunderstanding on the part of the IMF. According to observers, the signs of a US trade war against India this year could have exerted strong psychological pressure on Indian export-oriented companies. The US revocation of India’s preferential trade status has closed the doors for annual exports of up to $5.6 billion worth of commodities to the United States. At the same time, before India’s status was revoked, it had been one of the largest beneficiaries of the US generalized system of preferences. India is currently trying to regain trade privileges from the United States, apparently counting on export growth, and hence state revenue. Apparently, India’s economic troubles have made the Indian negotiators on the preparation of the Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership agreement (RCEP) nervous. At the same time, because of the psychological barrier – the fear of an influx of Chinese goods after trade liberalization under the RCEP agreement – Indian partners haven’t yet managed to objectively assess the benefits of participating in this multilateral mechanism for economic development. According to Yu Lunyuy, Head of the Centre for Indian Studies of Shenzhen University, Chairman of the China Association for the Study of Indian Culture, China has the technology, capital and advanced engineering experience and is one of the few countries that can help India solve its problems. “At first glance, the economic recession is a purely economic problem, but in reality it is a complex problem, which also includes politics. A number of recent steps by the Indian government have negatively affected its economic development. If the Indian economy continues to decline, the situation in the country will worsen,” the expert noted. The Chinese Indologist believes that building trust between China and India will remove barriers in bilateral economic and investment cooperation: According to Yu Lunyuy, India’s cooperation with its BRICS partners is a strong driver of growth for the country’s economy: 2020 marks the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and India. The parties plan to hold 70 celebrations, considering them a new chance for developing bilateral contacts. As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi noted at a meeting with Venkaiah Naidu, the Vice President of India, Chairman of the Council of States, the successful second informal meeting of the two countries’ leaders in Chennai has set the vector for cooperation development. | null | https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201912261077839322-india-can-turn-economic-crisis-into-chance-for-development/ | Thu, 26 Dec 2019 04:11:00 +0300 | 1,577,351,460 | 1,577,363,625 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
561,640 | tass--2019-02-17--Russias economy lacks factors leading to economic crisis - minister | 2019-02-17T00:00:00 | tass | Russia’s economy lacks factors leading to economic crisis - minister | MOSCOW, February 17. /TASS/. Russia’s Economic Development Ministry develops macroeconomic institutions to prevent sudden and deep economic crises, Russian Economic Development Minister Maksim Oreshkin said on Rossiya’24 television channel on Sunday. Oreshkin added that there are no systemic prerequisites for an economic crisis in the Russian economy. "We build [Russia’s] macroeconomic institutions in such a way that the crises will not come out of the blue. The common macroeconomic structure now presupposes a lack of these systemic problems which might end up in deep crises like it was in 2008 or in 2015," Oreshkin said. Earlier, Spokesman for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Gerry Rice said that the IMF believes the global financial crisis of 2008 was the worst in modern history. In other media | null | http://tass.com/economy/1045143 | 2019-02-17 15:43:55+00:00 | 1,550,436,235 | 1,567,548,222 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
596,521 | thedailyblog--2019-08-16--The coming economic crisis unorthodox monetary policy and Donal Trump | 2019-08-16T00:00:00 | thedailyblog | The coming economic crisis, “unorthodox” monetary policy, and Donal Trump | What is behind the “unorthodox” monetary policies of the US and other Central Banks? There is much discussion today around how effective monetary policies are in regulating the ups and downs of the business cycle. Monetary policies are run by the Central Banks of the respective countries with the US Federal Reserve operating like the world’s central bank. Their principal tools are the setting of certain interest rates they can control or influence and creating or reducing the supply of token money. The US Federal Reserve has resumed monetary creation policies earlier than expected at its July 30/31 meeting including a cut in what is known as the federal funds rate from 2.5% to 2.25%. They also halted the repurchase of the massive amounts of token money issued between October 2008 and October 2015 in response to the global financial and economic crisis of that time. To understand what is happening we need to understand the interaction of three types of money in existence today. One form is gold which as a product of human labour has emerged as the universal equivalent of all other commodities as a measure of value. All societies with a developed system of commodity production and exchange need a universal equivalent to function. Gold can also be hoarded for its intrinsic value, especially in times of monetary disorder. Gold does not disappear. It always retains its value through any crisis. Capitalists and central banks hold a portion of their wealth or reserves in gold because of these special properties. The second form of money is token money issued by the state, dubbed “fiat” money by economists. So long as the currency is not “over-issued” the currency – whether it be dollars, pounds, yen, or rupees – can retain its value so long as it backed up by a state power which can impose taxes and use force on those it wants to do its bidding. But if the currencies are “over-issed” they lose value in proportion to the over issue. A doubling of token currency will in normal circumstances result in a halving of its individual value. This is the origin of general price inflation we saw during the 1970s and early 1980s. Then US President Richard Nixon declared “We are all Keynesians now” and believed he could finance the Vietnam War without massive cutbacks in social spending in the US through budget deficit spending. The end result was a steady devaluation of the US and other currencies and endemic inflation worldwide. The first casualty of this policy was for the US dollar to cut its link to the gold at $35 an ounce in 1971. Being “free” of the gold “shackle” as it was dubbed by opponents of the gold standard, only encouraged further devaluation. The price of gold hit $120 an ounce in 1976. Soon we had “Stagflation” inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. By the late 1970s, there was a flight out of the US dollar into gold that saw the “price” of gold soar to nearly $600 an ounce. To prevent a total collapse of the currency the US Federal Reserve had to drive up interest rates to record levels of 20% for the Federal Funds Rate and drive the economy into a deep recession. Inflation dropped from 14.8% in March 1980 to 3% by 1983. By the mid-1990s gold stabilised for a period at around $400 an ounce. The amount of token money that can be issued is governed bt the total amount of gold bullion is existence in the world. This usually expands at a relatively steady pace of say 2% a year so it is a relatively safe bet that token money can also be increased proportionately. But gold production also has its own cycle which runs counter to the normal industrial cycle and impacts interest rates and places objective limits on token money and credit creation. If there were no objective limits to the creation of token and credit money there would never be a crisis every ten years or so like we have seen throughout the 150-year history of developed capitalism. These crises have been analysed and explained by Karl Marx as being generalised crises of overproduction relative to the ability of the market to absorb these commodities at prices that guarantee the producer at least the average rate of profit. Overproduction is reflected in growing inventories, factory shutdowns and unemployed workers. If token or credit could be expanded at will forever then there could be no such crises. That is why pro-capitalist economic writers can’t explain why they happen. Monetary authorities don’t really understand what exact total of token money they can issue without devaluation. They operate to a great degree on trial and error. They don’t know what they are measuring the currency against but the consequences of over-issuing become apparent very quickly in a rising price of gold, a broader leap in commodity prices and then a general rise in prices. This forces the central bank to increase interest rates, cut back on the currency being issued or purchasing previously issued currency to neutralise it. Failure to take action can lead in some extreme circumstances to hyperinflation and a currency collapse. The third form of money is credit money. Under a developed system of finance and credit this is centralised by the banks. They are able to use deposits of token money as a base from which to expand lending many times over the actual sums deposited. So long as everyone doesn’t want their money back at the same time the merry-go-round can continue. This is called fractional reserve banking. But banks are a profit-making competitive businesses. They have a built-in tendency to seek more and more creative ways to create and extend credit to maximise their returns. Derivatives are the latest example of that. Eventually, a breakdown happens which will begin at the weakest links of the credit chain. A credit crisis and collapse of at least the most over-extended institutions then follows. Credit money is not “real” money like gold and can disappear completely without a trace. In fact, the over-issuance of credit must be periodically neutralised for the system to restore balance. If there is no reduction in credit money then it is essentially being converted into token money which will fuel an inflationary surge sooner rather than later. There is a real fear that exists in the global economy because the world is going into a new economic crisis and the monetary tools that are available to deal with the crisis are virtually non-existent compared to 2008. Interest rates are close to zero unlike in 2008 when they could be cut dramatically. In the US they went from 5.25% to zero. In New Zealand, the Reserve Bank’s Official Cash Rate went from 8.25% to 2.5% in a year. It is now at 1%. The US Fed and other central banks also indulged in the massive printing of token money, dubbed Quantitative Easing. That cannot be repeated in the same way for reasons I will discuss. Most governments in the advanced capitalist countries in Europe, North America, and Japan also have limits to their ability to use fiscal measures to counter the approaching downturn. Normally this would involve the government spending more than it takes in taxes. Most of these capitalist governments massively increased debt after the 2008 crisis and a new round like that would likely lead to surging interest rates and economic collapses rather than a new stimulus. New Zealand is a little unique in advanced capitalist countries for the low level of public debt and that will be an option here because of that. Government deficit spending also pushes interest rates higher than they otherwise would be and undermine the rate of profit of enterprise as a consequence. This happened to a degree with US President Trump’s tax cuts that were implemented in 2018. The resulting huge budget deficits helped push up long-term interest rates in the US and trigger mini-collapse in the stock-market in December 2018 and a decline in industrial production in early 2019. The ability to create token money in massive amounts like in 2008 is also limited because that increase has not been unwound significantly since then. The US Federal Reserve which operates like the world’s central bank virtually doubled the token money supply overnight to prevent the broader collapse of the banking system. In fact, the government often simply bought the worst form of debt of the banks for cash and government securities. This is in effect turning some of the credit money into token money and increasing the possibility that the US currency will lose value in an inflationary surge What is remarkable and need explaining is why there has not been an immediate inflationary surge followed by a surge in interest rates following that binge of money printing.. The Federal Reserve held off on intervening until the fourth quarter of 2008 when the crisis was already underway and panic had already broken out. This meant that there was a huge demand for US dollars as a means of payment in the world’s financial system. Most debts in the world are denominated in US dollars. Everyone wanted dollars to settle the debts that were being called in rather than rolled over. Capitalists all over the world were also desperate to build up their cash reserves as much as possible to protect against future risk. The US dollar became a preferred form of hoarding. The Fed made it clear it would create whatever was needed to stabilise the system. They even agreed to pay interest on the massive reserves now being held by commercial banks in their Federal Reserve Accounts. There has not been generalised inflation as a consequence because the money was absorbed and held as a means of payment during the crisis and after as a means of hoarding afterward. The “Fed” also committed to returning to monetary normalcy by reducing the increased money supply as quickly as possible. The huge increase in the money supply also pushed down interest rates to historic lows. This should have given added impetus to the recovery that followed. The rescue of the banks and broader credit systems in 2008 has meant that there hasn’t been a proper cleansing of the rot in the system. US corporate debt has doubled in the US to $9 trillion since 2008. Government debt has doubled to $21 trillion. US consumer debt at $13 trillion also exceeds the 2008 level again. But this business cycle for US capitalism has been one of the weakest in history. Industrial production after ten years remains at only 80% of capacity. The is part of the reason the cycle is longer than usual. The overproduction crisis is more limited and the crisis is therefore delayed. The actual economic decline during the 2008-2009 recession was far more severe than any other recession since the great depression of the 1930s. Normally there is a strong relationship between speed and strength of the recovery and the preceding depth of the recession. Not this time. In fact, the record weakness in the economic recovery has led to this stage of capitalism being dubbed a period of “secular stagnation.” Secular stagnation, in turn, creates a pool of permanent and long-term unemployment which has intensified competition for access to work among workers across the advanced capitalist world. Capitalist use this competition to weaken unions and derive up profits by increasing the rate of surplus-value they can extract from workers. This has created openings for right-wing political demagogues to claim they have solutions by blaming “the other” – especially immigrants and refugees – for their problems. Competition has also intensified between different capitalists and different capitalist nation-states. This inevitably results in a further centralisation of wealth into the hands of a small group of billionaires – the 0.0001 % – a tiny ruling class layer who really call the shots in the capitalist world today no matter what government supposedly governs us. Partly because capitalists have hoarded dollars rather than invested them, the recovery was so slow that the Fed was forced to continue Quantitative Easing until October 2015 rather than return to monetary normalcy quickly. The Fed began to shrink the monetary base by a modest 5.6% annual rate for five years after a 20% annual growth for seven years. The Federal Reserve funds rate also crept up from zero to 2.5%. The decision to cut the interest rate at its last meeting is a signal that monetary growth policies will resume. They also agreed to convert the mortgage-backed securities they hold as a consequence of various bailouts to government ones as is normal. The cut in the Federal Funds Rate, the signs of a global slowdown, the promised monetary easing, and a flight to safety in US government bonds has again pushed long-term interest rates down. This is what Trump and the Fed wants. Trump is pushing for even stronger easing steps to help ensure there is no deep recession before the next election. But the Fed is looking like it is responding to Trump’s tweets rather than objective decision making. This can undermine the “confidence of the markets” ie big financial capitalists who invest in the bond and currency markets in whether the Fed is making the correct decisions. While there has not been a broader inflationary surge yet, there has been a steady increase in the “price” of gold in US dollars as first the 2008 financial crisis and then quantitative easing policies were launched. The price hit $1657 in 2012 before dropping again to around $1000 2015 as more confidence the worst was over returned. A return to positive interest rates and an end to money printing after October 2015 should have led to a further fall in the dollar price over the last few years. Instead, it has been edging higher and higher and is back over $1500 an ounce. The traders in gold, the speculators proper, clearly don’t have renewed confidence that the original reversal of easing was serious enough, or that the renewed easing is justified. They suspect the easing is too soon, that the easing is happening before the credit squeeze and recession that allowed the easing to occur in 2008 without broader inflation. The promise of zero or negative interest rates by other central banks is also encouraging hoarding in gold. You may not earn interest but your wealth is at least preserved. A new surge in the price of gold in US dollars would force the Federal Reserve to reverse course and start hiking interest rates and reversing easing once more. Trump would then have the choice of firing the Federal Reserve and forcing his changes, as he hinted at doing in late 2018, or having an election-year recession. This would provoke a political and economic crisis of historic proportions. Watch this space over the next few months. | Mike Treen | https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/08/17/the-coming-economic-crisis-unorthodox-monetary-policy-and-donal-trump/ | 2019-08-16 20:25:12+00:00 | 1,566,001,512 | 1,567,534,089 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
668,391 | theduran--2019-09-23--Pakistans Economic Crisis | 2019-09-23T00:00:00 | theduran | Pakistan’s Economic Crisis | Pakistan is going through financial woes. The Government’s external debt sits at over 100 billion dollars [up significantly since 2017], while foreign currency reserves hovered in the range of 15 billion last July. To make matters worse, the Central Bank of Pakistan has been raising the interest rate in the last moths, from an initial rate of 6 percent up to 13.25 percent. In a recent article on Erdogan’s monetary policy ideas, I explained why spiking the interest rate isn’t wise. At the same time, private sector debt has gone up by more than a quarter since 2018. In July it started to dip a little. And for the current year, Pakistan’s industrial production has done nothing except to shrink as we see below. Before we move on to the political and policy side of things, let’s have a look at Pakistan’s sectoral balances as percentage of GDP. Starting with 2016, the foreign sector received a larger chunk of the Government’s fiscal deficit funds, while the domestic private sector’s net share of it dropped significantly. The Government of Imran Khan has only been in power for several months; and the rising inflation [reaching over 10 percent in July] during this period has been blamed on the former administration. People at grassroots aren’t blaming Khan for the problems, and they still have hope his Government will fix the economy. The IMF approved a three year 6 billion dollar loan “to support Pakistan’s economic plan, which aims to return sustainable growth to the country’s economy and improve the standards of living.” Despite pledging not to seek IMF assistance, Khan changed his mind… and earned himself the nickname of prime minister of U-turns. He also seeks foreign investment to get out of the crisis; so much so, in fact, that Khan, in an interview with Al Jazeera on the issue of Chinese reeducation camps for its Muslim minority [the Uyghurs], said he doesn’t know anything about it. Instead, Khan underlined the great business relationship between the two countries, naming China “the best friend” for Pakistan. Beijing doesn’t forget state partners who remain loyal, so I expect Chinese investment will ramp up in a timely fashion. As a side note, here’s a list of countries [Blue] who condemned China for its interment camps destined for its Muslim minority, countries [Dark] who praised China for its human rights record, and countries [Red] who abstained from doing one or the other. For the next year, the Government budget will have to be made up according to IMF conditions, which means that austerity is in order. People fear a rise in taxes and there’s talk about potential strikes due to layoffs. When we look at the tax changes in recent years, we observe three things. The personal income tax rate in Pakistan has remained, on average, 20 percent. But the corporate tax rate has gone down in 2014 [from 35 to 34], and by another percentage point in each subsequent year. It stabilized at 31 percent in 2017. While the sales tax went from 16 to 17 percent in 2014 and remains so. Now, all these taxes are regressive, and they should be abolished. As always, the fiscal advice I give is: land-value capture + untaxing wealth creation [labor, buildings, sales, and enterprise] + asset side rules for the banking sector in order to combat financial speculation + permanent zero interest rate policy to further minimize cost pressures on output. Khan’s administration will, no doubt, levy austerity policies to comply with the IMF’s desires. If they’re prudent, they’ll be able to cut more into the fat and less into the muscles and organs of the economy. | Serban V.C. Enache | https://theduran.com/pakistans-economic-crisis/ | 2019-09-23 07:49:51+00:00 | 1,569,239,391 | 1,570,222,447 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
740,028 | theindependent--2019-01-10--Nicolas Maduro celebrates start of second presidential term as devastating economic crisis worsens i | 2019-01-10T00:00:00 | theindependent | Nicolas Maduro celebrates start of second presidential term as devastating economic crisis worsens in Venezuela | Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has started a second term in office, in the face of growing isolation from the international community and a worsening economic crisis. A dozen Latin American governments and Canada have joined together in a coalition to reject the legitimacy of Mr Maduro's next six-year term, and the US has sanctioned top officials in his government. However, Cuba's president Miguel Diaz-Canel and Bolivia's president Evo Morales were among foreign leaders who attended the ceremony at the country's supreme court. While Mr Maduro's popularity has plunged amid hyperinflation, scarcities and rising authoritarianism, supporters in shantytowns who receive government subsidies continue to back the late Hugo Chavez's successor. Leaders from the ruling Socialist Party called for rallies in his support and disavowed criticism of Mr Maduro's inauguration, which will keep him at the helm of the country until 2025. But continued support from the military, a fractured opposition and a relentless crackdown on opposition critics means Mr Maduro appears to face few serious challenges at home, despite the international outcry. "They've tried to turn a constitutional swearing-in ceremony into a world war," Mr Maduro said during a news conference on Wednesday. "But whether there's rain, thunder or lightning, we're going to triumph." State TV showed Mr Maduro arriving at the supreme court where he is taking the oath of office. Several hundred supporters inside lining terraces of the building's courtyard waving small flags and cheering. His second term will extend Venezuela's socialist revolution amid widespread complaints he has stripped the country of its last vestiges of democracy. Mr Maduro denies he is a dictator and often accuses Donald Trump of leading an economic war against Venezuela. "Not before, not now, nor will there ever be a dictatorship in Venezuela," Mr Maduro said during the news conference on Wednesday. Oil-rich Venezuela was once among Latin America's wealthiest nations, producing 3.5 million barrels of crude daily when Chavez took power, but output has now plummeted to less than a third of that. Inflation is fast approaching two million per cent and an estimated 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled hyperinflation, food and medical shortages over the last two years, according to the United Nations. The country's splintered opposition movement has failed to counter the socialist party's dominance and Mr Maduro's government has jailed or driven into exile its most popular leaders. | Samuel Osborne | http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nicolas-maduro-venezuela-president-swearing-in-economic-crisis-a8721536.html | 2019-01-10 17:09:45+00:00 | 1,547,158,185 | 1,567,553,082 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
740,684 | theindependent--2019-01-14--Banking sector warns of 1930s-style crisis after no-deal Brexit aposSocial and economic catastrop | 2019-01-14T00:00:00 | theindependent | Banking sector warns of 1930s-style crisis after no-deal Brexit: 'Social and economic catastrophe' | A no-deal Brexit would be an economic and social “catastrophe”, a senior banking industry leader has warned. Stephen Jones said leaving the European Union (EU) without an agreement could lead to a 1930s-style economic depression, with widespread job losses, homeowners unable to afford their mortgages, and mass defaults on loans. “A no-deal Brexit on 29 March, where we crash out of European Union, is a catastrophe,” the head of the UK Finance trade body told Channel 4 News. “It’s a social catastrophe, it’s an economic catastrophe.” The devastation caused by a disorderly exit would not just hurt the banks’ bottom lines, but hit ordinary people, he warned. “I don’t wish to be labelled a doom mongerer… but if our economy contracts by 10 per cent that’s 1930s-style contraction," he said. "That is a massive increase in credit card losses, mortgage losses, vehicle loan losses. “This is about jobs, this is about people not being able to pay their mortgages, not being able to pay back their loans, and that’s really bad news and it’s an outcome we can avoid.” Mr Jones, who leads the British banking sector's lobby group, added: “I think there is a real risk of No Deal happening by accident… if the prime minister’s deal is voted down, we are in totally uncharted territory.” Asked if he backed Mrs May’s deal to prevent a no-deal scenario, Mr Jones would only say he backed a “solution that avoids a no-deal Brexit”. He added: “It’s not a great deal, there’s an awful lot of money being paid for a political declaration, which quite frankly is not worth the paper it is written on.” The political declaration is the second part of the withdrawal agreement which sketches out how Britain and the EU will build their new future relationship after the UK has formally left the 27 nation bloc. Unlike the rest of the document – which deals with how Britain disentangles itself from the EU and will pay £39bn in the so-called divorce bill – the political declaration is not legally binding nor does it go into significant detail. London’s position as the centre of the financial world will end after Brexit, Mr Jones also bemoaned, and the Brexit process had “diminished” the capital’s status in the world. “London as the European financial centre appears to most us to be – frankly, quietly – over. We’ll do our best to retain what we can, within the context of what’s negotiated, no deal or a deal, but Frankfurt and Paris will become much more important financial centres in a European context.” The government has been ramping up preparations for a no-deal Brexit in recent weeks. A Treasury minister was photographed with a briefing note which warned it could cause “no food” and “no Channel tunnel” after leaving a meeting with officials. Suppliers have been urged to stockpile food in the event of the prime minister’s Brexit deal being rejected, and some people have also been hoarding food and essential supplies themselves in case Mr Jones’s dire warnings come true. | Tim Wyatt | http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/no-deal-brexit-crisis-banks-economic-social-uk-finance-theresa-may-eu-a8727901.html | 2019-01-14 20:49:00+00:00 | 1,547,516,940 | 1,567,552,525 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
761,858 | theindependent--2019-06-03--How can Britain stage an economic recovery after the Brexit crisis | 2019-06-03T00:00:00 | theindependent | How can Britain stage an economic recovery after the Brexit crisis? | Without an effectively functioning economy, such objectives as “fairness” cannot be realised, and political extremes flourish. What Britain needs to prosper socially and financially in the 2020s is a longer-term strategy for sustainable growth which addresses the country’s deep failings in respect of skills, short-term financial horizons and housing. And, now, those of us who oppose Brexit and economic nationalism generally face the challenge to say how we would improve the functioning of an economy damaged by the financial crisis and then, again, by Brexit. Good economic management will be more critical than ever. In the late 1960s and 1970s Britain suffered from “stagflation”: rates of inflation well above historic trends and occasionally reaching double figures (leading to a balance of payments crisis under a fixed exchange rate system) combined with slow growth relative to developed-country comparators. What followed was a revolution in policy terms which came to be known as “Thatcherism” (with similar reactions elsewhere, notably the US): a fundamental switch from state ownership and controls to much greater faith in private ownership and market freedom (and with it, toleration of greater inequalities); independence for central banks to control inflation; fiscal rules to stop the build-up of unsustainable deficits and debt; and full-blooded engagement with an open “globalised” economy through trade, financial markets, international investment and (to a degree) migration. The Blair/Brown era of Labour government cemented this transformation. Yet after the 2008 financial crisis no such fundamental rethinking of economic policy has occurred. On the British left (as also in the US and France) there is much denunciation of “neoliberalism” and austerity but little indication of what this means in practice except in a few exotic (and disastrous) experiments, as in Venezuela. There has been a revival of belief in nationalisation, though not in explaining how it would actually work. There is a reaffirmation of the belief in more progressive taxation, but no developed economy has yet moved strongly in that direction. And led by the Democrats in the US, the emergence of the “Green New Deal” is proving a rallying point for mobilisation around a powerful and compelling theme – combatting climate change – albeit, so far, without realistic thinking on the financing of it. If there has been any kind of paradigm shift it has been a revival of economic nationalisation, mainly in the form of trade protectionism (and anti-immigrant attitudes) in the US and disengagement from EU integration in Britain by the decision, as part of Brexit, to leave the EU Single Market. It makes no sense to go back to the 1970s, as some on the left wish to do: restoring price, rent and exchange controls (or trying to); renationalising utilities and the manufacturing industries which used to constitute the “commanding heights” of the economy; abandoning fiscal rules in the name of “ending austerity”; bringing back penal tax rates on high incomes and corporate profits. Nor is there much attraction politically (or economically) in taking the Thatcherite revolution to another level, as some on the Brexit right wish to do: scrapping many of the remaining labour, consumer protection and environmental regulations; pursuing as a matter of doctrine, rather than fiscal necessity, a “small state” agenda in respect of tax and government spending. In reality there are market failures and government failures. Good policy is about getting a sensible balance between making use of markets where possible and government where necessary – not a philosophy that will appeal to demagogues, but correct, nonetheless. Economic competence is not a message that stirs the soul but, without it, rising living standards and socially progressive measures are not possible. And we start from a position where there are major elements in the current model that we should be fighting to preserve as well as some major failures to correct. One of the big advances of recent years which populists of the right and left are trying to undermine is independent central banks, overseeing financial stability. Unsurprisingly, the Bank of England is one of the main targets of the Brexit right and the radical left, complaining about the “liberal elite”, as represented by the Federal Reserve in Trump’s US and the European Central Bank in the eurozone. What is fundamentally at issue is the principle that day-to-day economic management, be it of monetary policy or financial regulation, should be left to politically independent “experts” acting on the basis of evidence. That principle should be defended as tenaciously as the principle that operations in NHS hospitals should be carried out by medical professionals rather than witchdoctors or cranks. I made my maiden speech in parliament in 1997 in support of Gordon Brown’s decision to grant operational independence to the Bank of England, one of the most important parts of his legacy. Where politics come in is in setting the rules for the Bank to follow, reflecting the experience of a major financial crisis and the fact that inflation is no longer the issue it was a generation ago (indeed, deflation has emerged as a real threat). The first changes could be to recognise the reality that the aim of policy, especially for interest rates, is to keep the economy growing as fast as possible. The way of expressing this, technically, is to set a target of money GDP (inflation plus real growth) which is pretty much what has happened in practice. The second is to acknowledge that where inflation has been dangerously high is in the property market. That is partly an issue of supply and demand, as I discuss below, but also of the availability of credit. Instead of politically driven, counter-productive and costly schemes like Help to Buy, the availability of credit should be determined by the Bank in what are now called “macro-prudential” policies. And third, one of the very painful lessons of the financial crisis is the danger posed by financial institutions that are not closely regulated (or supervised), and that accumulate high levels of leverage (debt), threatening the stability of the system. I have argued that the British financial service industry and its collection of banks (and shadow or quasi banks which create credit like banks) is simply too big for a medium-sized country. Brexit will now reduce it, but unfortunately in a way which randomly cuts its export earning potential rather than by ending activities which are high risk and of questionable value. Adair Turner, the former financial regulator, and Mervyn King, the former governor, have described how we cannot simply apply sticking-plaster solutions to a financial sector suffering from fundamental instability Perhaps the most serious issue, looking forward, relates to the vulnerability of the economy if we again face recession or depression (a period of falling production, wages and prices). The weapons to fight a crisis of this kind are heavily depleted. Interest rates are already close to zero. Government debt is already at levels which have historically occurred after times of war. The economy has been kept going by quantitative easing (the Bank of England buying government bonds to force down long-term interest rates, or purchasing assets in the hope that this will boost confidence to invest or spend). The side-effects (widening inequality of wealth) have become politically toxic. In future, perhaps sooner than we think, the authorities may be forced into more extreme alternatives. Even if the international economic outlook is benign – which is increasingly unlikely – a disruptive Brexit could trigger a serious downturn requiring emergency action. One possibility discussed during the financial crisis, but not acted upon, would be for the government to finance its spending – either boosting spending through a tax cut, or handing out vouchers to spend, or investing in capital projects – by borrowing from the central bank. This is, in effect, “printing money”, the original “magic money tree”. Were we to find ourselves in another major financial crisis, or a deep depression caused by other factors, such unorthodox measures would prove necessary. But it would be essential to maintain the separation between monetary policy, managed by technocrats on our behalf, and budgetary (fiscal) policy run by politicians. If it were not, it is not difficult to see how populist politicians, if in power during the next crisis, could manufacture short-term popularity by seizing control of the Bank of England to harvest the “magic money tree”. Debasing the currency is bound, in due course, to have the same baleful consequences as it did for medieval monarchs and modern dictators. We should not be looking to the likes of Venezuela and Zimbabwe for a template for monetary policy. All the more reason, then, to ensure that budgetary policy also operates within rules (though we can sensibly argue about what they are). The current battle between the European Commission and Italy over Italy’s chronic inability to set a sustainable budgetary policy reinforces that principle. In Britain, the phrase “the end of austerity” has the effect, if not the intention, of conjuring up a world where budget rules can be broken or no longer apply. We should be having a proper national debate about how much the public is willing to pay in higher taxes (and what taxes) to pay for better financed public services. Liberal Democrats are clear that some rises in general taxation are justified, in particular to pay for healthcare, and that changes to the way we tax wealth are essential to fund the services and investment the public wants to see. What makes no sense is vague appeals to have Scandinavian levels of public sector spending without any way to meet the costs in the long term – the stock in trade of the present Labour Party. What is required are rules of the kind originally set out by Gordon Brown – and in the EU in the Maastricht conditions – requiring governments to balance their (current) budget over the economic cycle (an elusive enough concept), policed by an independent body (currently the Office for Budget Responsibility). The major unresolved controversy is what to do about public investment. In theory public investment should be able to pay for itself and therefore not add to government debt. But in practice a lot of public investment, however worthy (like school buildings), simply adds to debt, and the Treasury treats all investment as no different from current spending (a source of some tension within the coalition). What is needed is an arms-length and professionally staffed body, perhaps constituted like the Green Investment Bank set up by the coalition, which can vet and promote public sector investment projects which the private sector will not undertake but which produce a clear, long-run economic return. Railways and housing are obvious areas and the next generation of renewable energy. The ambition to mobilise political energy around a Green New Deal can be a central part of this investment provided it is separated from magical money. There is a deep pool of potential infrastructure investment in pension funds. But the UK pension fund sector is very fragmented, and a proactive government should amalgamate them into bigger wealth funds to enable them to diversify in this way. Another important role for public investment is to pump-prime private investment in some of the “left behind” areas of the UK. There is a category of projects which do not require financial subsidy but do require the “comfort” of government co-financing or enabling investment in the form of a key piece of infrastructure. The regional growth fund operated by my department during the coalition (since relegated in importance) provides a model. Private businesses bid for investment funds. These were vetted by a politically independent team of advisers led by Michael Heseltine and then subject to a detailed economic evaluation before being signed off by ministers. In this way, substantial new investment was generated without the overheads associated with the earlier regional development agencies. Future investment could be via some hybrid of the regional growth fund and regional development agency model, seeking to devolve decision-making away from Westminster and to put a local democratic process in place to oversee it. The big underlying issue behind budgetary (tax and spending) policy is how big the state’s share should be. The effect of a period of “austerity” under the current, Conservative, government has been to take the public spending share of the economy (including investment) from 41 per cent in 2015 to 39 per cent in 2018 (and tax revenue as a share of the economy largely unchanged from 36.2 per cent to 36.15 per cent). Under the coalition the public spending share went from 43.75 per cent to 41 per cent (and tax from 35.2 per cent to 36.2 per cent). Despite the fierce ideological arguments around austerity, the shares haven’t greatly changed. The “small state” revolution, if that was what it was, didn’t get very far. And Britain is somewhere in the middle ground of developed economies, spending and taxing far less than some countries (France and Sweden) but more than others (the US). Here, economically liberal and social democratic values pull in opposite directions. My instincts are that important public goods are underfunded (health, education, policing) and taxes need to be raised to pay for them. The Lib Dems “1p in the pound” on income tax is a statement of intent to move in that direction; but we have yet to see how much appetite there is for funding a much bigger state (as opposed to taxing “someone else“ (the super-rich or multinationals). One important question, not raised since the debate around the poll tax a generation ago, and its replacement by a new form of residential property taxation, is whether the tax base should change in a fundamental way. The one, big, radical reform which is crucial is to shift tax from work (income tax and national insurance) to land. Land taxation has long been advocated as a form of tax which is economically sensible (it taxes something in fixed supply, encouraging efficient use), which cannot be avoided by shifting overseas (as can taxation of income and profit) and is relatively efficient (requiring collection from landowners rather than vast numbers of property owners). A prototype has been designed, replacing business rates by a landowner’s levy, which could progress from there to residential land (also replacing council tax). There are administrative and political challenges, but it is the direction in which we should be travelling. Another fundamental change, which is obscured by arguments about how to squeeze more tax out of companies, is to shift to shift tax away from equity (risk capital) and on to debt, which is currently treated as tax-deductible. The coalition recognised the need to make this change as a step to a more entrepreneurial business sector but it has not yet been followed through. Arguments about how to divide up the spending cake, or how to realise the tax revenue to pay for it, beg the question of what government can do to help the economy become more productive and environmentally sustainable. The more successful western economies have long appreciated that a judicious mixture of competitive private enterprise and state intervention (within agreed international rules) works best. The serious issue here is not how to create a “small state” dominated by Conservative ideologues or a “big state” fantasised by Corbynistas. It is how to make government smarter and more entrepreneurial. There are three specific things which British governments should be doing more of. The first is that while Britain has a good record in promoting, financing and safeguarding the quality of scientific research, this is not true of innovation – translating science into new products and processes through investment. UK R&D spending (especially the D) for non-military purposes lags behind that in comparator countries. Tax incentives (R&D tax credits) have helped but are wasteful of resources compared to targeted investment by government alongside the private sector. The Catapult network launched under the coalition through Innovate UK now provides a good structure, but it needs considerably more sustained government support. Professor Mariana Mazzucato has described the model of an entrepreneurial state working alongside the private sector, which has led to breakthroughs in space exploration, the internet and pharmaceuticals and will be necessary for future success in dealing with climate change or cancer. Second, all the evidence suggests that a more educated labour force raises the performance of the economy. Britain should aspire to be a successful knowledge-based economy – ideally, the best-educated country in the world. There have been piecemeal attempts to raise school standards, particularly in core subjects like literacy and maths, albeit at the expense of creativity. And there has been a massive expansion of higher education, even if it is often simply satisfying a perceived need for paper credentials. The priority now is to help young people prepare for a world of rapidly evolving technologies in which traditional skills and professions are becoming redundant and the premium is on adaptability: learning how to learn. There are two glaring failings at present. The first is the lack of resources for the FE sector, both in providing basic skills for young people who do not go to university and providing progression for many more people to progress to higher apprenticeship and other advanced training. The apprenticeship levy – essentially another employee tax – has badly set back progress that was starting to be made. Raising the demand and supply of quality apprenticeships must now be a priority. One way in which this could be made a reality is to put Britain to work on a radical programme of new house building with an associated skills academy to train people in construction. Second, adult education has been allowed to atrophy. What is needed is a much stronger commitment to lifelong learning. The concept of Individual Learning Accounts, which was briefly tried but discarded two decades ago because of fraud and lack of financial control, should be revived as a way of giving adults an incentive to keep learning and relearning. I established a commission to take forward this proposition for the Liberal Democrats. It is possible to see how such a system would work with a state-financed Individual Learning Account of – say £10,000, topped up by private and corporate contributions used to finance tuition fees whenever they are incurred and across the range of higher, further and adult education without discrimination. I know from my experience in government the enormous barriers to creating a level playing field between the various forms of post- school learning. Snobbery and ignorance play a big part. In the civil service and in politics there is a strong bias to traditional undergraduate learning (based on some imagined variant of Oxbridge colleges) as the “gold standard”. I don’t for one moment decry the merits of universities which have recently transformed the economic outlook of many provincial towns and, at best, can do wonders for creative and critical thinking. But in a world of scarce resources they have been wrongly allowed to crowd out equally valuable institutions of learning (and virtual learning). My final role for the state is to build on the industrial strategy developed in my period as business secretary and before and continued by my current successor. The twin ideas are to develop public-private partnerships especially in areas of high risk and uncertainty into which the private sector alone will not venture; and, a related point, to provide longer-term horizons than capital markets will normally allow. There are successful experiences to draw on in automobiles, aerospace and life sciences. Examples include the development of the next generation of motor vehicles, including electric cars, the Aerospace Growth Partnership, sponsoring new biotech companies, and the promotion of the fintech sector. Concretely, this will involve the government establishing priorities, a process sometime pejoratively called “picking winners”. The experience of the 1970s, including Concorde and the nuclear advanced gas-cooled reactors, provided many examples of failures which absorbed and wasted a lot of scarce capital. But recent experience, including mine, has suggested some useful lessons. One is the value of co-investment, so that the state leverages private investment rather than replaces it and goes with the flow of the market rather than against it. Recent experience with automobiles, aerospace and biotech, the Green Investment Bank and the Regional Growth Fund all followed this model. Then, there are sectors like the creative industries, professional services, construction and IT, where there isn’t a demand for large amounts of state capital but for a good framework for training, intellectual property rights, better functioning credit and equity markets and funding of early-stage innovation. The work is often unglamorous, and this is not territory for ideologues and showmen. But there are undoubtedly areas where the state will need to go where the private sector currently fears to tread – for example, renewable energy, where recent decisions on solar and tidal make a nonsense of long-term sustainable energy strategy. There is also too trusting a belief that competition will somehow naturally emerge as part of the workings of a market economy. In reality there are powerful forces working in the opposite direction, creating and entrenching monopoly power through the use of intellectual property rights – which may be necessary to spur innovation but also acts to protect monopoly positions – and through the sheer scale of new technology platforms. The next chapter deals specifically with this challenge. This article is extracted with thanks from Sir Vince Cable’s booklet, ‘Beyond Brexit’, a collection of essays on the future of liberalism | Vince Cable | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/brexit-britain-economy-crisis-vince-cable-prosperity-future-liberal-a8887471.html | 2019-06-03 14:09:31+00:00 | 1,559,585,371 | 1,567,539,223 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
762,166 | theindependent--2019-06-17--Iran nuclear crisis Britain ready to consider economic sanctions if terms of deal are broken | 2019-06-17T00:00:00 | theindependent | Iran nuclear crisis: Britain ready to consider economic sanctions if terms of deal are broken | Britain is ready to consider “all options available to us” to respond if Iran breaches the terms of its international nuclear deal, Downing Street has said. Tehran has threatened to break the uranium stockpile limit set in the 2015 deal within the next 10 days, in the latest escalation of tensions with the international community. The move comes against the backdrop of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, blamed by the US and Saudi Arabia on Iran, which has denied responsibility. Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, has warned of a “great risk” of a drift to war as a result of the attacks, but Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has urged caution, arguing that there is no “credible evidence” at this point of Iran’s involvement. Tehran’s announcement that it is ready to breach stockpile limits on low-enriched uranium, which can be used in a nuclear reactor but not an atomic bomb, appears to be an attempt to put pressure on European countries to grant the country access to international financial systems which would enable it to work round US sanctions. Downing Street declined to spell out the detail of the options to be considered if the limit is breached. Security officials were meeting on Monday to discuss the situation. But the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed in 2015 sets out a series of steps which could be implemented in response to a failure by one party to meet its commitment, starting with diplomatic pressure and moving up to sanctions. Theresa May’s spokesperson said: “We have been clear about our concern at Iranian plans to reduce compliance with the JCPOA. “Should Iran cease meeting its nuclear commitments, we would then look at all options available to us.” The spokesperson confirmed that the UK believes it is “almost certain” that last Thursday’s tanker attacks were carried out by Iran. The UK remains in close coordination with international partners to try to find a diplomatic solution to the current tensions, he said. “Unintended escalation would not be in any party’s interests,” said the prime minister’s spokesperson. Asked if warships could be deployed to protect merchant shipping, he replied: “We have a number of military assets in the region, including our new naval base in Bahrain and our facility in Oman.” But he stressed that royal navy ships currently active in the area were taking part in a pre-planned training operation which was “not related to the current situation”.. The prime minister’s spokesperson said: “As the Foreign Office announced on Friday, the UK’s assessment has concluded that it is almost certain that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps attacked the tankers. “No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible. “These latest attacks build on a picture of destabilising behaviour and pose a serious danger to the region. That is why we have called on Iran to cease destabilising activity.” | Andrew Woodcock | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iran-nuclear-crisis-deal-war-britain-response-uranium-stockpile-a8961956.html | 2019-06-17 10:09:00+00:00 | 1,560,780,540 | 1,567,539,002 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
769,729 | theindependent--2019-08-29--Climate crisis UK cannot reach net zero emissions aposif ministers remain fixed on economic growt | 2019-08-29T00:00:00 | theindependent | Climate crisis: UK cannot reach net zero emissions 'if ministers remain fixed on economic growth' | The UK cannot reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the target of 2050 while ministers remain fixed on growth as measured by GDP, the government’s chief environment scientist has warned. Sir Ian Boyd has made clear the scale of the challenge the UK faces to meet its own environmental goals, and said the public had little idea of the changes necessary to rein in our impact on the natural world. People must eat less red meat, travel less and buy fewer clothes, he said, but he also warned that enormous political reassessments must be made in order for these necessary changes to happen. Sir Ian made the comments to the BBC as he steps down from the Defra post he has held for six years. He said: “The way we live our lives is generally not good for the environment. “We like to consume things, but the more we consume the more we absorb the resources of the planet. “That means we have to grow those resources or we have to mine them – and in doing that we generate waste. And consumption is going up all the time. “(There’s) a conundrum – how do we shift ourselves from consuming? We need to do more about learning to live sustainably. We talk about sustainability but we don’t really know what it means.” Sir Ian also called for the creation of a “net zero ministry”, which he said could work across government to vet the policies of all departments to ensure they are working to a common environmental framework. He noted this type of cross-departmental arrangement already exists with the Brexit ministry, which vets Brexit decisions. Sir Ian said technology would be an essential element in reducing our impact on the planet, but indicated the biggest challenge would be in reducing rates of consumption. He added: “We’ve got to reduce demand to a much greater extent than we have in the past, and if we don’t reduce demand we’re not going to reduce emissions. “Emissions are a symptom of consumption and unless we reduce consumption we’ll not reduce emissions.” But Josh Burke, a policy fellow at LSE’s Grantham Institute for Research told The Independent their research has indicated achieving net zero and maintaining economic growth are not mutually exclusive. “We probably shouldn’t scrap GDP entirely, but it is a fairly blunt instrument in that it doesn’t take into account natural capital or social capital for example,” he said. “In New Zealand they decided to augment GDP with these additional metrics, so they record natural and social capital and those are the kinds of things we can do too.” He said the institute’s research concluded it was possible to have sustainable growth at the same time as transitioning to a low-carbon economy. “If you look at the pace of technological change, in particular the falling cost of renewables, and lessons from past technological transformations, then it does appear possible to reduce carbon and maintain growth.” He also warned against placing too great a burden on consumers, and instead said policy must lead the way towards net zero rather than trying to make people feel guilty about their habits. “When it comes to consumers there will have to be some changes in lifestyle, but the emphasis that we place on the consumer in this debate is a red herring,” he said. “With other social issues we don’t place as much emphasis on individuals for inequality or homelessness. When it comes to climate change we always think of the consumer as having a huge role to play. They have a role to play, but we should place the emphasis on the role of government, institutions and the private sector. For me they are going to deliver this change. “Consumers will have to fly a little bit less, eat 20 per cent less red meat, and do those kinds of things, but that doesn’t mean doom and gloom. A lot of these changes will benefit them. We’re going to have to stop driving combustion engine vehicles, but ultimately the cost of that will be a lot less in the future. We’ll have to heat our homes less, but then our bills will be less, because we’ll have better insulation. “It’s quite difficult for governments to tell consumers what to do. There’s a moral quandary in all this in that, it’s easy for us to say to people ‘don’t buy the cheap things’, but there are also lots of people who can’t afford to buy alternatives. “Do we have a right to say to consumers who can’t really afford to buy greener alternatives to go and do so?” Speaking about Sir Ian’s suggestion of a net zero ministry, Mr Burke said social scientists would back the creation of such a body. “One of the problems with climate policy and with policy more generally is there’s a lack of cross-departmental collaboration and people tend to work in silos. So we fully endorse a broader working group… There is precedent for such a thing and it’d be welcome.” The Independent contacted Defra for comment, and was given the same quote as the BBC, which despite asking does not address many of the issues raised by Sir Ian including measuring societies’ success by GDP, or whether it supported the creation of a “net zero ministry”. A Defra spokesperson said: “The impact of climate change is clear and demands urgent action from countries around the world. The UK has already shown global leadership by becoming the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050 – but we know there is more to do. “That’s why we’re reforming farming policy to reward environmental actions, reviewing our food system to ensure it is more sustainable, taking steps to accelerate tree-planting and peatland restoration, and introducing a flagship Environment Bill to address the biggest environmental priorities of our age.” | Harry Cockburn | https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-crisis-net-zero-eat-meat-buy-clothes-carbon-footprint-travel-a9083681.html | 2019-08-29 11:33:00+00:00 | 1,567,092,780 | 1,567,543,575 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
776,140 | theindependent--2019-11-19--As US weighs in on Iran protests, critics highlight American culpability for economic crisis | 2019-11-19T00:00:00 | theindependent | As US weighs in on Iran protests, critics highlight American culpability for economic crisis | As deadly anti-government protests continue across Iran, Washington has weighed in on the crisis that was ignited by a sudden hike in fuel prices – but come under criticism for the US' part in contributing to the economic crisis. Although Donald Trump himself has not yet reacted to the events on Twitter, some American officials have commented on the demonstrations. The White House issued a statement saying that the United States supports the Iranian people and condemns the government. And Secretary of State Michael Pompeo also issued messages of support for Iranian protesters and condemned any acts of violence by authorities in the Islamic Republic. But critics say the Trump administration's message of support for the people of Iran is not genuine as the United States is partially responsible for the economic crisis they are facing. US sanctions, combined with the Iranian government’s high levels of corruption and mismanagement, have played a key role in Iran’s economic downfall. Assal Rad, a research fellow at the National Iranian American Council, said that the policies of the Trump administration have undercut Iranian hopes. “The Trump administration could end its collective punishment by giving Iranians the economic relief they were promised under the JCPOA, lift sanctions and allow Iran to sell its oil. Forcing the Iranian government to return to full compliance and out of the isolationism that prevents Iranian people from being part of the international community,” Ms Rad told The Independent. US financial and banking sanctions against Iran have impacted the import of specialised Western-made drugs into the country, contributing to a shortage of life-saving medicine for patients with special and rare diseases. Human rights experts have been warning about the negative consequences of US economic sanctions on the lives of ordinary Iranians. Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa Director at Human Rights Watch said that if Mike Pompeo really wants to help the people of Iran, he can move to end their collective punishment through sanctions that are strangling their health and economy. "Iranians are doing what citizens around the Middle East are doing: taking their demands for effective governance to the streets," Ms Whitson told The Independent. "The last thing they need is for the US State Department to undermine their protests by manipulating their grievances for political potshots." The Trump administration has also been criticised for holding a double standard when it comes to authoritarian governments that are considered US allies, supporting protests only when they seem in line with US foreign policy, but not protests against authoritarian rulers with close ties to America. "Trump and Pompeo openly support oppressive dictators all over the world. No one seriously believes they care about the rights of Iranians,” a senior Democratic Congressional aide told The Independent, adding that “the statements of our government would have a lot more credibility if we were remotely consistent in our approach.” In a week when Donald Trump has been embroiled with continuous impeachment hearings that dominated the media, the protests in Iran have not yet made it to the top headlines of most American outlets. But as government violence increases and the death toll rises – with Amnesty reporting on Tuesday that at least 100 protesters have been killed – more attention will be directed towards Iranians. | Negar Mortazavi | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iran-protests-latest-trump-us-sanctions-oil-price-a9208421.html | Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:13:11 GMT | 1,574,197,991 | 1,574,209,989 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
3,360 | abcnews--2019-12-20--US economic growth and consumer spending show resilience | 2019-12-20T00:00:00 | abcnews | US economic growth and consumer spending show resilience | WASHINGTON -- The U.S. economy, which only recently was flashing warning signs of a worrisome slowdown, is finishing the year in stronger shape, thanks to a resilient consumer, a healthy job market and interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. The Commerce Department said Friday that the gross domestic product — the economy’s total output of goods and services — expanded at a moderate annual rate of 2.1% in the July-September quarter. A separate report showed that consumer spending grew by a solid 0.4% rate in November, the strongest gain since July, and that incomes rebounded after a weak reading in October. The brisk pace of spending in November is a reassuring sign that consumers, who account for about 70% of economic activity, are helping the economy offset drags ranging from President Donald Trump's trade wars to a global economic slump. Many economists are forecasting that the economy is expanding at a decent 2% annual rate in the final quarter of the year. Just over a month ago, some tracking polls had been flashing alarm that growth could slow sharply in the fourth quarter to a 0.5% annual pace or less. But since then, Trump has stepped back from imposing a new round of tariffs on billions of dollars of popular consumer goods such as cell phones made in China. And several sectors of the economy have shown signs of resilience. The housing market has rebounded, aided by three interest rate cuts this year from the Fed. Most significantly, the job market is looking healthy: In November, hiring jumped to its highest level since January, with U.S. employers adding 266,000 jobs. ‘’The economy is still solid,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton. “What this economy has lacked in momentum, it has made up for in stamina, and the Fed gave it a shot of adrenaline this year with three rate cuts." The government's estimate Friday that GDP grew at a 2.1% annual rate in the July-September quarter was unchanged from its previous estimate. Though the overall growth figure was unchanged, some of the individual components of GDP were revised. Consumer spending for the quarter, for example, grew at a 3.2% annual pace, the government estimated, up from its previous estimate of 2.9% growth. The new strength was led by higher spending on personal services such as barber shops and nail salons. And housing, which had fallen for six straight quarters, posted a solid 4.6% increase in the third quarter. On the other hand, the government revised down its estimate of business inventory restocking. Business investment was revised to show a slightly smaller 2.3% annual decline, still the second straight quarterly drop in that key category. Economists are forecasting moderate growth in the current quarter and for at least the first three months of next year. But they say annual growth could be reduced by about one-half percentage point to 1.5% in the first quarter, reflecting Boeing's temporary production shutdown of its troubled 737 Max jetliner, before regaining that lost output later. Though 2% annual growth is below the gains of 3%-plus growth that Trump has pledged, it is far stronger than the recession many analysts feared just a few months ago, when concerns were escalating over the tensions in the U.S.-China trade dispute and weak growth overseas. For all of 2019, the expectation is that GDP growth will come in at 2.3%, down from the 2.9% gain of 2018, which was the best since 2015. For next year, analysts generally think growth will slow further to 1.8% as the boost from the $1.5 trillion tax cut measure passed in 2017 fades further. The economy may be getting some help from a preliminary trade deal announced last week that should at least cool tensions between the United States and China. That announcement, along with better economic data recently, has helped lift stock markets to new highs. Three rate cuts by the Fed this year, partly reversing four rate increases last year, have helped fuel the rebound. And a budget agreement passed this week is expected to shower billions of dollars in increased spending on the military and domestic programs in the coming year, helping to support growth. Yet even with those gains, analysts are forecasting that growth will slow further in 2020, hurt by continued overseas weakness. Another headwind could be the 2020 presidential election. It is expected to raise business anxiety about the course of government policies, given the sharp differences between Trump and his Democratic challengers. | null | https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-economy-grew-moderate-21-rate-3rd-quarter-67849712 | Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:04:06 -0500 | 1,576,872,246 | 1,576,886,758 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
4,920 | activistpost--2019-07-02--Phony Economic Growth Stats Conceal Deep Problems on Main Street | 2019-07-02T00:00:00 | activistpost | Phony Economic Growth Stats Conceal Deep Problems on Main Street | We live not only in a time of fake news but also in the era of fake economic growth. The performance of the economies of the industrialized countries since 2010 is a prominent case of deceptive economic growth. This economic recovery is not the result of a strengthening of the productive forces of the economy, but is due to a massive expansion of liquidity. Central banks created a monetary avalanche that has gone mainly into the financial markets and has become a source of deception for investors. In real terms, the economy has not advanced very much since the financial crisis of 2008. The valuation of financial assets has decoupled from the real economy. The president’s favorite indicators of prosperity such as the stock market valuation and the official unemployment rate paint a deceiving picture of the true state of the American economy. Alternative calculations of the employment data — which include long-term discouraged workers and chronically unemployed — indicate that the labor market is much slacker than the official statistics indicate. Profits recovered in the first few years after the crisis of 2008 but over the past five years, they have been flat. Stock prices, in turn, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, have risen by over 50 percent since 2012. The recovery after the crisis of 2008 was brought about by the stimulus packages and later on by the monetary policy of “quantitative easing.” The expansion that followed does not constitute genuine economic growth. While the financial asset markets indicate wealth creation, the economy’s productive capacity tends to remain weak. Over the past ten years, the Congressional Budget Office had to lower its estimate of potential output year by year and productivity growth has stayed below the trend of the time before the crisis of 2008. At the national and the global level, the size of the fabrication of additional central bank money since 2008 has been unprecedented. Led by the Federal Reserve, the other major central banks joined in to increase the global money supply. The balance sheets of the world’s three main central banks rose from four trillion in 2008 to fifteen trillion U.S.-dollars in 2018. In the United States, the Federal Reserve System expanded its holding of assets from less than one trillion in 2008 to over 4.5 trillion US-dollars in 2015 until the American central bank began a policy of reducing its stock of assets in 2018 to the present level of about 3.8 trillion US-dollars (Figure 1). Figure 1: Total Assets of the U.S. Federal Reserve Banks, 2009-2019 The point to notice here is not only what has happened but what has not. Firstly, this massive amount of liquidity creation has not led to higher price inflation and secondly, compared to this immense increase of liquidity, the expansion of the real economy has been mediocre. Both facts are interrelated. Despite an unprecedented increase in liquidity, the real economic expansion has been poor, and the price level has remained relatively stable. Both, the average real growth rate of the US economy, and the mean annual inflation rate have been less than 2 percent over the past ten years. For the euro area, the data are not very much different, and for Japan, these indicators are even worse. The recent surge in the American economic growth rate to 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2019 is as fake as the economic growth before when it was the result of monetary expansion. Now when the American central bank tries to shorten its balance sheet via monetary policy, fiscal policy has become expansionist with the Trump tax cuts. The fiscal stimulus has replaced the monetary stimulus. At the beginning of the year 2019, US federal debt reached over 22 trillion US-dollars and the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product surpassed the level of 105 percent since 2016 (Figure 2). Dotted line: (RHS) Public debt ratio (Total debt in per cent of gross domestic product) Solid line: (LHS) Total federal debt. (Source: Tradingeconomics.com) Whereas one does not know how the economy would have done in the absence of the expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, we do know that relative to the magnitude of the monetary and fiscal stimuli, the impact of the expansionary policies on economic growth and the price inflation has been modest. Now, in the mid of 2019, while the economy has not yet fully recovered, there is still a balance sheet problem and rising public debt, both of which will become severe problems when the economy heads into the next recession. The economic policies that the authorities implemented in response to the crisis of 2008 have not been very effective. They have brought more problems instead of a solution. By pushing the interest rate down to zero, and partially into negative territory, by flooding the financial markets with liquidity, central bankers have elevated the valuation of bonds and stocks and real estate to levels that far exceed the growth of the economy and consequently the rise of salaries. This has made the monetary policymakers the prime culprits of the massive wealth disparity that has emerged over the past ten years. They have been the perpetrators behind the shift of popular sentiment that has made capitalism dubious and socialism popular. Things will get worse when the next recession strikes. The Federal Reserve System and the other important central banks have produced an economy of Zombie companies. In an environment of extremely low interest rates, a plethora of business projects emerge that create economic activity and raise employment but will not be able to withstand higher interest rates. In the meantime, these Zombie firms suck the blood out of the healthy part of the economy. Because a return to normalcy would reveal that a large part of the economy is on artificial life support and that the recovery has been fake, the central bankers have opted for lower interest rates and governments for more deficits. Central banks and governments buy a short-lived extension of the economic expansion at the price of a bigger bust to come. These policies instigate malinvestment and deepen the misallocation. Policymakers ignore the main lesson of the crisis of 2008 that monetary and fiscal stimulus policies do not bring about a solid recovery but manufacture a phony economic growth that distorts the economy’s structure of production. Instead of a V-shaped recovery that would occur if government abstained from intervention, policymakers produce an L-shaped agony. As if a prolonged stagnation wasn’t already bad enough, the interventionists also act as the undertakers of capitalism. Policy intervention distorts the economy and drives a wedge between Wall Street and Main Street. The majority of the people do not attribute the discrepancy between the growth of financial wealth and the stagnation of the real economy to the policy of the authorities — but accuses capitalism of this evil. It is hard to find a greater paradox in current politics than that the battle cry for social justice demands more government spending and a monetary policy which ignores debt and deficits. It was exactly this kind of policy that has caused the present widespread discontent. Dr. Antony P. Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. Write an e-mail. See his Amazon author page. This article was sourced from Mises.org Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today. | Activist Post | https://www.activistpost.com/2019/07/phony-economic-growth-stats-conceal-deep-problems-on-main-street.html | 2019-07-02 21:37:21+00:00 | 1,562,117,841 | 1,567,537,149 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
21,009 | bbc--2019-01-15--German economic growth slowest for five years | 2019-01-15T00:00:00 | bbc | German economic growth slowest for five years | Germany's economy grew by 1.5% last year, its slowest rate since 2013, the latest official figures show. Figures from the Federal Statistics Office showed Europe's largest economy slowed sharply as the year wore on. A weaker global economy and problems in the car industry, caused by new pollution standards, have been cited as contributing to the slowdown. At the start of 2018, the German economy had been expected to grow by 1.8%. Growth was 2.2% in 2017. Germany's economy had shrunk in the third quarter of the year, by 0.2%, with global trade disputes blamed for the contraction. There were fears that Germany was at risk of following that with another quarter of negative growth, something that would have put the country into recession. The statistics office has not released fourth-quarter figures yet, as it does not have enough data to give an accurate reading. But initial calculations by independent economists suggest the economy may have grown by about 0.2% in the final three months of the year. Reasons for slower growth last year include a slowdown in the global economy and a weaker car sector, with German consumers less willing to buy new cars amid confusion over new emission standards. In addition, low water levels, particularly in the Rhine, affected growth by holding back movement of some goods. So Germany probably avoided a recession last year, although further data publications might yet change that conclusion. What is clear though is that the economy hit a weak patch in the second half of last year. It's not alone. The eurozone as whole slowed markedly in the third quarter of the year. Two large economies, Germany and Italy, contracted in that period, though Spain and France both managed reasonably firm growth. Germany, as a leading exporter, is especially exposed to the global trade climate. A slowdown in international commerce is a major part of Germany's loss of momentum and China is an important element in that story. It's Germany's third largest export market. A recent survey of German manufacturers found the steepest fall in export orders for six years and a number of firms reporting lower sales to China. Germany's export orientation also makes it vulnerable to the tensions in global trade spilling out from the United States - the new tariffs on steel and aluminium and the conflict with China. For Germany, and the eurozone more widely, there are certainly clouds on the horizon. Germany may have dodged a recession, but a period of slower expansion looks likely. It's worth adding that whatever other problems Germany might encounter, unemployment is currently very low. Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the best guess was that the German economy had avoided recession, but the main story was still that the economy had lost pace, "thanks mainly to a slowdown in consumers' spending and exports". "Looking ahead, we think consumption will pick up. Real wage growth is firm, and the recent plunge in growth of goods spending won't be sustained." | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46875113 | 2019-01-15 11:35:14+00:00 | 1,547,570,114 | 1,567,552,376 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
23,749 | bbc--2019-02-28--US economic growth continues to slow | 2019-02-28T00:00:00 | bbc | US economic growth continues to slow | US economic growth slowed to an annualised rate of 2.6% in the final three months of 2018, figures show. However, the reading was ahead of expectations for a rate of between 1.8% and 2%. The pace of growth was below the 3.4% rate seen in the third quarter thanks to a slowdown in consumer spending. The growth figures had originally been due to be released in January, but were delayed because of the 35-day US government shutdown. The US economy was boosted last year by a big tax cut and an increase in government spending. Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said that the fourth quarter was "not a bad performance" given that the economic boost from the Trump administration's tax cuts is now fading. For the full year, GDP grew by 2.9% - just shy of President Donald Trump's 3% target - compared with 2.2% in 2017. Mr Shepherdson said he expected that growth in 2019 would revert to the "post-crash trend" of between 2% and 2.5%, "demonstrating that the personal tax cuts offered nothing more than a sugar high, and that the business tax cuts did nothing to lift trend growth. Though they did make shareholders richer". Capital Economics chief US economist Paul Ashworth said he expected growth of 2.2% this year and 1.2% in 2020. It has certainly been a significant slowdown. But that figure of 2.6% is still reasonably strong. It is actually more than most independent economists think the US can sustain over the long term. Many think there was a short-term boost from President Trump's tax cuts which is now fading. In the coming years, the economy will face further headwinds from an ageing population. The view that long-term prospects are rather more modest is shared by policymakers at the Federal Reserve. They consider the long-run growth of the US economy is likely to be somewhere between 1.7% a year and 2.2%. President Trump by contrast has suggested that 4% is doable, and his administration is aiming for 3%. Growth for the full year 2018 was very close to the latter figure. But sustaining it will be a serious challenge. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of US economic activity, increased at an annual rate of 2.8% in the final three months of last year. That was a slowdown from the 3.5% rate set in the previous quarter. Recent figures showed that retail sales fell by 1.2% in December while demand for new vehicles dropped by 1% in January compared to the same month last year, with car sales particularly hard hit with a 4% drop. Mr Ashworth said that both factors mean that "consumption growth could fall below 2%" in the first quarter of 2019. Also, while business investment growth reached 6.2%, he said "the first quarter won't be this good". "We already know that lower oil prices will depress mining investment, while the weakness of underlying durable goods orders points to a softer equipment showing." | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47392731 | 2019-02-28 15:52:47+00:00 | 1,551,387,167 | 1,567,547,003 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
74,765 | breitbart--2019-10-18--China's Economic Growth Dipped Again in Third Quarter to Slowest Pace Since 1992 | 2019-10-18T00:00:00 | breitbart | China's Economic Growth Dipped Again in Third Quarter to Slowest Pace Since 1992 | China’s economy slowed by more than expected in the third quarter, according to a report published Friday by China’s National Bureau of Statistics. The true growth rate of the Chinese economy can be hard to measure. Official statistics are suspected of often being fudged to meet central government expectations. The latest economic numbers appear to follow that pattern. China said its economy grew at a 6 percent rate in the third quarter, which happens to be exactly the government’s baseline target for full-year gross domestic product growth. If accurate, that would be the slowest pace of growth since 1992. Growth would have slowed by more if not for a reported recovery in industrial production and retail sales in the final month of the quarter. The boost in these sectors coincided with U.S. tariffs and Chinese retaliatory tariffs rising in September, which some China-watchers regard with a high level of skepticism. Investment in the industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors fell in September as the new tariff hit. Investment in infrastructure rose, however, likely due to Communist Party official authorizing spending to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Communist Party in China. | John Carney | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/Ki9wZVxVFbQ/ | Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:09:05 +0000 | 1,571,425,745 | 1,571,438,477 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
86,560 | cbsnews--2019-11-12--Trump touts wage growth in Economic Club of New York speech | 2019-11-12T00:00:00 | cbsnews | Trump touts wage growth in Economic Club of New York speech | President Donald Trump told business leaders in New York on Tuesday that he plans to continue to enact policies that will allow U.S. companies to "compete and win." U.S. manufacturers have brought back 600,000 jobs under his presidency, he said, and 7 million Americans have come off of food stamps. "We will be pro-growth, pro-American, and more is yet to come," Mr. Trump said in a speech at the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday. "You will see things, even in this room, you will be surprised to see. We have tremendous economic potential." One surprise for the room on Tuesday: Mr. Trump said that wages for the average American worker during his presidency had risen $10,000. That was $3,000 more than the $7,000 that Trump claimed workers had gained just three weeks ago. The claim is based on a report from a private economic research group. But according to data from the Census, median incomes in America were basically unchanged in 2018. Mr. Trump said about $2,000 of the income gain he cited came from lower taxes. Meantime, many experts have said that the gains for average Americans from Mr. Trump's late 2017 tax cuts have been less than $1,000. Mr. Trump also said that 10,000 factories have opened in the U.S. under his watch, adding that companies are bringing jobs back from overseas. "Many more want to, and are planning on coming back to the U.S.," he said. "I know this is true because I have said it before and no one in the media has called me out on it, and you know they love to say that Trump is lying." Investors and businesses hoping that Mr. Trump would announce progress on closing what he has called "stage one" of a trade deal with China will be disappointed. The president gave no details of that in Tuesday's speech, merely expressing confidence that the sides would clinch an agreement soon. "We're close," Mr. Trump said. At the same time, he said he would continue to raise tariffs on China if talks fell through, which he said remains a possibility. "We will only accept a deal if it's good for the U.S. and our workers and our great companies," Mr. Trump added. Tariff opponents have blamed The Trump administration's ongoing trade war with China for causing the biggest slump in U.S. manufacturing since the the Great Recession. Later this week, the administration faces a deadline on whether to raise tariffs on European Union auto imports. But Mr. Trump didn't address whether he would delay the increase. Many have been expecting him to put off new tariffs on EU autos for another six months, moving the decision closer to the 2020 election. "They recently reported a poll that said Obama is far more popular in Germany than Trump," Trump said at the event. "He should be." Mr. Trump credited his administration's policies with the continued U.S. economic expansion. He tweeted before the speech: "Economy is booming. Seems set to have another record day." Mr. Trump's remarks come as the pace of U.S. economic growth has slowed to roughly 2% annually, which would be far from a record. Financial markets rose modestly on Tuesday. The S&P 500 stock index was up nearly 0.25%, or 12 points, to 3,099, around noon. The index has never closed above 3,100. Despite Mr. Trump's focus on the stock market, many Americans, particularly lower-income ones, do not have any money invested in stocks. Economists have long questioned the ties between the stock market and the performance of the real economy. Still, despite fears earlier this year that a trade war could tip the economy into recession, the unemployment rate remains near record lows and the stock market near record highs. While the status of trade negotiations is unclear, the U.S. announced a preliminary deal in October that opens the door to a reduction in tariffs, which corporate leaders say are hurting business investment as well as broader economic growth. | null | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-economic-club-speech-live-stream-president-trump-at-the-new-york-economic-club-today-2019-11-12/ | Tue, 12 Nov 2019 20:08:33 +0000 | 1,573,607,313 | 1,573,603,734 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
98,522 | cnbc--2019-02-26--Youre making stuff up Barney Frank says theres no way the US can sustain 3 economic growth | 2019-02-26T00:00:00 | cnbc | 'You're making stuff up' — Barney Frank says there's no way the US can sustain 3% economic growth | A CNBC debate Tuesday between Democrat Barney Frank and Republican Jeb Hensarling became heated as the two former House Financial Services Committee chairmen argued over whether the tax cut championed by the GOP and President Donald Trump can keep the economy growing at 3 percent. At one point during the "Squawk Box" exchange, they were talking over each other, and Frank broke in and said to Hensarling, "Neither one of us are the chairmen anymore. So neither one of us can tell the another to stop talking and interrupt." Hensarling laughed in response, and then Frank continued by saying, "No one thinks we're going forward with the 3 percent." "But you're wrong," Hensarling countered. "Three percent economic growth is simply the average of the post-war era. All we're trying to do is rid ourselves of the legacy of Obama." The Texas Republican argued that muted economic growth in the previous administration was caused by former President Barack Obama's restrictive tax and regulatory policies. Tax cuts and deregulation under Trump will continue to boost the economy — and, in turn, will help reduce the nation's budget deficit, Hensarling said. "You're making stuff up," Frank, who represented Massachusetts in Congress, said to Hensarling, who responded by saying: "I'm making up 3 percent economic growth?" Frank then argued that Trump's 2017 tax reform was just a "short-term boost" to the economy that won't last long enough to help bring down the soaring deficit. "The notion that the tax cut was going to pay for itself has clearly not been the case," Frank added. The CNBC Rapid Update, tracking gross domestic product forecast changes, pegs growth in the fourth quarter at an average of 2.1 percent. The initial look at Q4 data, delayed by the partial government shutdown, is set for release Thursday. GDP advanced 2.2 percent in the first quarter, 4.2 percent in the second quarter, and 3.4 percent in the third quarter. Trump administration officials are hoping for 3 percent growth for all of 2018. That's a level the president has used as a yardstick of success. Earlier in the interview, a discussion about Democratic proposals to increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for liberal initiatives like the Green New Deal drew sharp rebuke from Hensarling. "The 1 percent make roughly 24 percent of the income but pay 40 percent of the taxes," he said, asking why they should pay more. Frank countered by saying the power of far-left Democrats who support the Green New Deal, proposed by firebrand freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, are not the mainstream of the party. But Hensarling said Green New Deal Democrats are not outliers, pointing out that every senator who has announced a run for president against Trump in 2020 has expressed support for the idea of a Green New Deal. Ocasio-Cortez's proposal calls for generating 100 percent of the nation's power from renewable sources within 10 years. | null | https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/26/barney-frank-there-is-no-way-the-us-can-sustain-3-percent-economic-growth.html | 2019-02-26 15:26:00+00:00 | 1,551,212,760 | 1,567,547,300 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
101,829 | cnn--2019-01-23--White House adviser says there could be zero economic growth if shutdown lingers | 2019-01-23T00:00:00 | cnn | White House adviser says there could be zero economic growth if shutdown lingers | White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett said in an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow that he was not overly worried about the long-term effects of a government shutdown. But after Harlow asked him if the United States could wind up with zero GDP growth this quarter, he conceded that it was possible. "We could, yes," he said. But Hassett noted that the economy is typically weak in the first quarter because it follows a boom during the holidays. He argued that the economy would bounce back once the government reopens and any hit to GDP would eventually be recovered. The second quarter could be "humongous" if the government shutdown ends before then, Hassett said. He told CNN Wednesday that he and his staff were not being paid during the shutdown, and he noted that some government workers are having to take on other work to compensate for the loss in wages. He said one of his staffers was now driving for Uber. The lack of a paycheck for federal employees is one reason why corporate executives are nervous about the shutdown. The Business Roundtable, an organization representing many top CEOs, said Wednesday that "the shutdown is harming the U.S. economy and American workers, both federal employees and those in the private sector supporting government functions." "The shutdown is also preventing policymakers from focusing on solutions to create strong, sustained economic growth in America," the Business Roundtable added in its statement. Hassett is more optimistic though. He told CNN he did not believe that credit rating agencies would downgrade US government debt -- as Standard & Poor's did in 2011 following a debate over raising the debt ceiling. He conceded that "brinkmanship" was making investors nervous but he added that the US economy still looks strong. To that end, Hassett said chances of the United States entering a recession in 2020 are "close to zero," even though many economists are predicting a downturn by next year. He pointed to continued strong jobs gains as a healthy sign for the economy. He also stuck to his forecast of about 3% growth for the US economy this year, despite concerns about the shutdown, China trade talks and a slowing global economy. Hassett, who told CNN's Harlow in an interview earlier this month that "a heck of a lot" of US companies will face challenges in China after Apple ( AAPL ) warned of slowing iPhone sales there, added Wednesday that the recent economic weakness in China could help lead to a long-lasting trade deal with the United States. "I think the Chinese recognize that they've got a big potential gain because their growth has fallen off the cliff," he said. | Paul R. La Monica | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/xDmFCBI3izM/index.html | 2019-01-23 19:17:11+00:00 | 1,548,289,031 | 1,567,551,240 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
108,302 | cnn--2019-12-10--How uneven economic growth feeds political turmoil | 2019-12-10T00:00:00 | cnn | How uneven economic growth feeds political turmoil | (CNN) When it comes to economic innovation, the rich are getting richer -- and that's generating increasing social frustration and political turmoil for the winners and losers alike as the digital revolution rolls through the American economy. Over the past 15 years, employment in the computer- and science-based industries at the forward edge of economic change has further concentrated into a handful of superstar cities, according to a sweeping new study released Monday by the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. Just 20 large metropolitan areas now account for a clear majority of the nation's jobs in the 13 high-productivity industries that the authors identify as the nation's most innovative. This narrowing distribution of America's most cutting edge, research-intensive industries -- including pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace, data processing, and computer and communications manufacturing -- has contributed to the concern in many smaller communities about being left behind in the changing economy. That anxiety has widened the audience for President Donald Trump's racially-infused message of economic nationalism. But simultaneously, the lopsided distribution of these new jobs has ignited a backlash over affordability, displacement of low-income families and traffic congestion even in many of the communities, like San Francisco and Seattle, on the winning side of the equation. Despite the enormous creation of wealth and jobs in the Bay Area over the past three decades, it is common to hear mayors and community leaders in emerging technology hubs declare that their greatest fear is becoming "another San Francisco." "Nobody feels that they are winning," says study co-author Mark Muro, policy director of the Metropolitan Policy Program. "Everyone seems to feel there is either too much or too little (development). Our story is fairly sobering about the ways every category of community is being hurt by this economic order that is bigger than all of them." But the winners in the digital economy are collected overwhelmingly in large metropolitan areas that are moving steadily toward the Democrats, largely around cultural and social issues from race relations and immigration to guns, gay rights and the role of women in society. Republicans have consolidated a dominant position in the places that feel most excluded and threatened not only by those cultural and social shifts, but also by the economic changes driving the transformation to an information-based economy. Correlating the study's findings with the results of the 2016 presidential election captures the enormity of that shift. In the 5% of metropolitan areas that have attracted the largest number of these cutting edge jobs -- a list of 20 communities that includes New York, Boston, Washington, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Seattle -- Hillary Clinton won 59% of the vote and routed Trump by 11.5 million ballots, according to calculations provided by Brookings. Just those 20 thriving metropolitan areas provided her over 28 million votes -- more than two-fifths of her total. In the next 5% of metro areas that have attracted the most of these high-innovation jobs -- a group that includes Pittsburgh, Orlando, Charlotte, Nashville, Austin and Portland -- Clinton beat Trump by about eight percentage points, or roughly 1.2 million votes. In all, these two groups of thriving urban areas -- the 40 communities that comprise the 10 percent of American metros that have generated the most of these highly-innovative jobs -- provided Clinton over 36 million votes, fully 55% of her total. In the metros that ranked between the 10th and 25th percentile for the number of these high-innovation jobs, Trump squeezed out a narrower advantage of about 200,000 votes, or half a percentage point. He beat Clinton soundly by 3.4 million votes in the remaining 75% of metro areas with the smallest numbers of these coveted jobs. Trump also won comfortably in the smaller communities that are not included in the nation's roughly 400 metropolitan areas. The 13 industries Monday's report labels as high-innovation provide just 3% of the nation's jobs. But they account for 6% of the nation's total economic output, a quarter of its exports and a striking two-thirds of its business research spending. Their high wages and extensive supply chains generate big "multiplier" effects that catalyze other economic activity in their area, which is why they are such a focus of municipal economic development efforts. As the Brookings/ITIF report notes, the separation of the superstar cities from the rest of the economy defies economic theory, which assumes that, like water finding its level, lower labor and housing costs will encourage more jobs to shift out of the most expensive urban centers toward less expensive places. The differences in output and wages between high- and low-income US regions did in fact generally narrow from the 1940s to the 1980s, the authors note. But since the 1980s, the richest metropolitan areas have pulled further away from the rest, with the gap significantly widening over the past 15 years, exactly as the digital economy has accelerated. Just five metropolitan areas -- San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, San Diego and Boston -- accounted for 90% of all the net new job growth in these dynamic industries since 2005, the study found. The 20 largest metros now command a much bigger share of jobs in these advanced industries than they do in employment overall. The hope of many urban affairs experts has been that oppressive housing costs will encourage talented workers -- and the companies pursuing them -- to relocate to mid-sized and smaller cities where the cost of living is much lower. There's some evidence of that occurring, but overall the convergence of more college graduates into fewer places is one of the study's most striking findings. Nearly 40% of working-age adults in the 5% of metros with the most high-innovation jobs have at least a four-year college degree, the researchers found. That number steadily declines to 35% in the next 5% of metros, 32% in the 15% beyond that and just 26% in the remaining 75%. The trend toward the concentration of the most highly-trained talent now appears self-reinforcing. College educated migrants, both from other places in the US and internationally, tend to locate in the places that already have the most college graduates, the researchers found. This divergence is ominous, Muro says, because of the evidence that the presence of large numbers of highly skilled workers Is the critical variable in where these innovative industries grow. That means, as smaller places lose more of their college graduates to the superstar cities thriving in the new economy, they become even less attractive to innovative companies, even if their cost of living is lower. This cycle fuels the modern political divide, too, as Democrats improve their standing in prospering metro areas with large numbers of college graduates and the Trump-era GOP grows stronger in non-metro areas dominated by white voters without a college degree. The paradox is that the migration of college-graduates into fewer places is generating frustration on the receiving end, too. The willingness of well-educated, well-paid young people to live in central cities has helped to revive cities from Pittsburgh to Chicago to Los Angeles. But the influx has also ignited concerns about affordability, displacement and gentrification. Virtually without exception, every city booming in the new economy faces frustration over the fact that while they are importing large numbers of college graduates, they have not proven capable of providing their own largely minority kids from low-income communities with the skills to compete for the jobs they are creating. Development is creating so many pressures in the superstar cities that the authors expect most of the future growth in employment in these industries will shift to tech hubs overseas. "More and more the incremental growth will go offshore," says Robert Atkinson, president of the ITIF and also a co-author of the study. "Just simply for the fact that these (domestic) places are packed to the gills." Given that prospect -- and the strains this concentration is imposing on both the domestic winners and losers -- Brookings and the ITIF are calling for a significant federal effort to encourage greater dispersal of these dynamic industries across mid-sized US cities. They propose that the federal government should pick 10 mid-sized communities and then invest a whopping $10 billion in each of them over a 10-year period -- mostly through a huge increase in federal research grants for local universities -- to create new "regional growth centers" across the heartland. "You just needed a big push to get places over the hump," Atkinson says. But, as Muro notes, that hostility to cities among Trump's core supporters is counterproductive because their economic fate is bound to the urban centers. "It's all about the regional spillovers of these big metro areas," he said. "They become anchors of regional mobility and regional prosperity. There is all kind of research that the economy of adjacent...rural places are hugely tied to the vibrancy of the urban center." That's a vision of shared interest across the red-blue divide almost completely absent from today's political debate. A regional economic policy that created a model for building bridges across that widening partisan trench might be the greatest innovation of all. | null | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/J00SP4IApFk/index.html | Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:01:47 GMT | 1,575,993,707 | 1,575,979,753 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
117,155 | conservativehome--2019-01-21--Kevin Hollinrake High environmental standards boost economic growth | 2019-01-21T00:00:00 | conservativehome | Kevin Hollinrake: High environmental standards boost economic growth | Kevin Hollinrake is MP for Thirsk and Malton, and is co-Chair of the APPG for Fair Business Banking. British voters overwhelming support high environmental standards – 80 per cent, for example, want the UK to maintain after we leave the European Union. This is unsurprising – high environmental standards in agriculture keep our livestock healthy and our food safe to eat, and in product design they cut our energy bills by improving the efficiency of our ovens and toasters. A sensible, long term framework of environmental rules spurs investment and innovation from business. Many businesses of course face examples of vexatious red tape – and Brexit does provide us with the opportunity to cut some of the bureaucracy that has impeded business and made our lives more difficult. From the baffling small print on radio adverts, to compelling pharmacists to scan every medicine in front of their customers, there are plenty of nonsensical EU regulations that add unnecessary costs to businesses and should be scrapped. Yet the desire to trim unnecessary red tape can sit comfortably alongside support for a long term, sensible framework of high environmental standards that, if properly enforced by an independent watchdog, will restore our countryside, clean up our air, and boost British business. BuroHappold Engineering between environmental regulations and competitiveness in particular the impact of the implementation of the London Plan in the construction sector, the Landfill Tax in the waste sector, and the passenger car emission regulations in the car industry. In all three cases their analysis found that the upfront costs of complying with regulations were outweighed by the economic benefits they triggered through increased business investment in innovation and skills, better-quality products and infrastructure, greater business competitiveness, and job creation. For example, there was an overwhelming consensus that despite flaws in the testing methodology, passenger car CO2 emission regulations have been a success story for the UK and EU car industry. The regulations have provided certainty, scale, and a clear framework to meet targets, without any negative impacts on competitiveness. The relatively stable and consistent regulatory framework has allowed for a long-term and broader view of managing the costs of compliance. This commitment to a stable and consistent framework underpins the UK’s Climate Change Act – which, through its long-term approach to tackling global warming, has delivered certainty to businesses and deep reductions in CO2 emissions. Since 1990, we have cut emissions by 42 per cent , while our economy has grown by two-thirds. This means that we have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation, while leading the G7 in growth in national income over this period. The same principle – that businesses benefit from a clear and consistent regulatory framework – underpins the Government’s Environment Bill. The Bill will set out clear goals and targets to reverse the damage done to the British countryside over previous decades and clean up our toxic air. Businesses welcome the clarity provided by these targets. Anglian Water, for example, “when targets are too vague, it’s almost impossible to assess whether government is on track to hit them. In order for real progress to be made on the environment, goals within the Environment Bill must be carefully established with robust timetables.” Businesses will then only invest if they have the confidence that these targets will be properly enforced: hence why the independence of the statutory body – the “watchdog” – is so crucial. Firms need to know that whoever is in government, their investments in things such as new technology to improve air quality will pay off. The UK is a world leader in clean growth, with over 400,000 jobs in the low carbon economy: one in five electric vehicles sold in Europe in are made in Britain; our offshore wind sector is second to none; and the City of London is the home of green finance. This is in large part down to investment decisions that have been driven by our Climate Change Act – and the certainly provided to business by the existence of an independent Committee on Climate Change that will make sure standards are upheld. We now have the opportunity to set the gold standard with a world-leading Environment Bill, and achieve similar results for British nature, while providing the certainty British businesses need about the direction of travel to a cleaner, more prosperous future. | Kevin Hollinrake | https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/01/kevin-hollinrake-high-environmental-standards-boost-economic-growth.html | 2019-01-21 11:30:05+00:00 | 1,548,088,205 | 1,567,551,503 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
121,315 | crikey--2019-07-03--The government can still end Australias lost years of economic growth | 2019-07-03T00:00:00 | crikey | The government can still end Australia’s lost years of economic growth | Australia's new normal is low growth, low interest rates, low inflation and low productivity. The government needs to act before low employment joins the list. While politicians in Canberra yesterday indulged in some silly theatrics to mark the opening of parliament -- people in funny costumes, a speech by the representative of a northern hemisphere monarch, popguns on the front lawn, a church service -- the Reserve Bank continued to play the adult in the room, deciding a second interest rate cut to 1% was needed to make inroads on spare capacity in the economy. When the politicians finally did get around to anything of substance in Canberra, it was about the sole item on the government's agenda, tax cuts, which in the immediate future will provide some modest stimulus to the economy but are otherwise irrelevant (though the press gallery, which is obsessed with reporting every trivial detail of Labor's position on the tax cuts, thinks otherwise). | Bernard Keane | https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/07/03/interest-rates-lost-economic-growth/ | 2019-07-03 00:19:00+00:00 | 1,562,127,540 | 1,567,537,000 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
129,446 | dailyheraldchicago--2019-10-11--Pritzker introduces five-year economic plan, touts 'strong job growth' | 2019-10-11T00:00:00 | dailyheraldchicago | Pritzker introduces five-year economic plan, touts 'strong job growth' | SPRINGFIELD -- Gov. J.B. Pritzker's Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity has introduced a five-year economic plan, focusing on six industries that can boost the state's economy and a variety of programs to build its workforce and encourage population growth. It's the first such plan since former Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn released his in July 2014, when he declared, "Illinois is in the midst of a resurgence." "Over the past five years, the state has battled back from the worst financial crisis in seven decades to put the economy on a positive trajectory," Quinn said in his 2014 plan. Pritzker had similar sentiments in this year's plan. He touted his first seven months in office and emphasized the passage of a $45 billion capital infrastructure plan, legalized recreational marijuana and sports gambling, and the passage of several pro-business reforms. "For the first time in nearly two decades, we've seen simultaneous strong job growth in every region of the state," Pritzker wrote in the plan's executive summary. "Underlying my vision is the fundamental principle of equity. No matter their zip code, every Illinoisan deserves economic opportunity. Where in the past sustainable and inclusive economic development has been elusive, instead I am committed to reinvigorating the most important foundational element of Illinois' economy: our diverse and talented workforce." The report, which serves as a loose guiding document rather than binding public policy, also listed challenges to overcome, including outmigration. "Illinois has experienced a mild outbound migration of approximately 0.3 percent on average for the past five years," according to the report. "This trend is driven particularly by migration among young people, minorities, and rural populations." The Illinois Board of Higher Education reported this year that 48.4 percent of Illinois public high school graduates who enrolled in a four-year institution in 2017 chose an out-of-state institution. Pritzker's plan calls for a 50 percent funding increase for Monetary Award Program grants from 2019 levels by fiscal year 2023. Those grants go to college students that have a financial need and help them attend college in Illinois. The report added: "New business creation in communities of color and a downstate revitalization effort undertaken since the beginning of 2019 are intended to reverse outmigration in communities that have historically suffered disinvestment." Other challenges noted in the plan include income inequality along the lines of race and sex, unresponsive bureaucracy, lagging commercialization of research and development, and indistinct industry strength. It also mentions a "history of fiscal imbalances," calling attention to a 736-day budget impasse under former Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and claiming the budget passed this year was the first such effort that was "bipartisan and balanced" in years. "The fiscal condition of the state has affected the ability of government to operate efficiently and the ability of businesses to invest confidently. It has also driven many costs down to the local government level, where property taxes are now high relative to other states," according to the document. The plan also focuses on "winning in key industries," including agribusiness and ag tech, energy, information technology, life sciences and health care, manufacturing, transportation and logistics, and small businesses. Pritzker emphasized reforming government to "provide world-class customer service," and "aggressively marketing" the state to its young people and those thinking of moving here. The governor's plan looks at government as an entity that can facilitate business growth through "regional economic hubs," in which "all the key economic actors in regions across Illinois, including state and local governments, industry, unions, universities, and nonprofits are communicating well and working together to accomplish the same economic vision." The plan calls for creation of an online platform "that allows Illinois-based small businesses and startups to easily access resources, content, and connections to build and grow their businesses from anywhere at any time." It also calls for "updating and broadening" incentive programs for businesses and collaboration between industry and community colleges to develop apprenticeships and training programs, and the development of a "Governor's Champions" program to acknowledge employers making workforce commitments. It will also be necessary to revitalize downstate communities and increase investment in communities of color, according to the plan. "Our state has a legacy of redlining and decades of commercial and industrial disinvestment in communities of color. We will focus efforts and invest resources in transportation, broadband, small business development, and a range of programs that meet those communities' needs. We will bring down barriers that affect startup businesses and low-income workers, and set targets for diversity in government procurement, oversight, and programming," the plan stated. The downstate revitalization effort would include local communities, according to the plan. "We would work closely with towns and cities throughout downstate Illinois to develop comprehensive plans that could include downtown redevelopment; new housing, parks, or shopping centers; transportation and public transit improvements; new or rehabilitated schools or career and technical education centers; and more," the report stated. There is no timeline for the implementation of any of the proposals in the plan, all of which would require further action from either the governor, the General Assembly or both before taking effect. | null | http://www.dailyherald.com/business/20191011/pritzker-introduces-five-year-economic-plan-touts-strong-job-growth | Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:31:34 -0400 | 1,570,829,494 | 1,570,884,009 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
132,289 | dailymail--2019-04-30--Enriching the rich Most Americans havent personally benefited from US economic growth under Trump | 2019-04-30T00:00:00 | dailymail | Enriching the rich: Most Americans haven't personally benefited from US economic growth under Trump | A majority (54 percent) of Americans feel they have not personally benefited much or at all from U.S. economic growth since Donald Trump took office – but the wealthiest Americans are the most likely say they've been enriched over the past two years, according to a new survey. Overall, 12 percent of Americans say they've benefited a 'great deal,' while 31 percent say they've seen 'some' personal improvement from the economic upturn, according to the survey of 801 adults by Monmouth University Poll. However, results broke dramatically along socioeconomic lines, with just 34 percent of those making less than $50,000 a year and 41 percent of those earning $50,000-$100,000 saying they have benefited at least somewhat from the economy's upswing. By comparison, 58 percent of those earning more than $100,000 a year say they have benefited. Overall, 18 percent of Americans believe that middle-class families have benefited 'a lot' from Trump's policies so far, while 37 percent say they've benefited 'a little' and another 36 percent say they haven't seen any improvement in their situation. 'There just isn't a sense that Donald Trump has come to the rescue of the middle class. He has his staunch defenders, but there hasn't been any clear success in winning over the public on bread-and-butter issues,' said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute. Among all Americans, 58 percent said that wealthy families have benefited a great deal from Trump's policies, while 22 percent say they've benefited a little and 9 percent said not at all. More than half (51 percent) of Americans say the poor have not benefited at all under Trump, compared to 26 percent who think they've seen small improvements and 14 percent who say poor people have benefited a lot under the president. Notably, more people expected the poor would fare better when Trump first took office, with 21 percent saying in January 2017 that low-income families would see a lot of benefit from the president's new policies. Workers have benefited in almost no way from the Trump administration's corporate tax cut, an investigation has found. This is despite lawmakers promising the billions saved by big companies would trickle down to staff in the form of wage increases and bring the average American household 'around a $4,000 pay raise.' The 2017 Tax and Jobs Act - President Donald Trump's one major piece of enacted legislation - slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent, the biggest such cut in U.S. history. Yet, only 6 percent of the $150billion saved by corporations in 2018 was spent on workers, according to not-for-profit Just Capital. In the first three months after the bill was passed by Trump in December 2017, the average yearly salary increased by just $233 a year, or $6.21 a week. The bulk of the cut went into shareholder dividends and stock buy-backs, helping only the 10 percent of Americans who own 84 percent of the stocks. Despite seeing a disparity in who has benefited under Trump, 54 percent of all Americans say their current financial situation is stable, while 20 percent say they are struggling and 25 percent saying that things are improving. The number who say they are struggling has declined from 29 percent in January 2017, when Trump first took office. Those earning less than $50,000 a year are the most likely (32 percent) to say they are struggling – down from 41 percent a year ago. By comparison, 13 percent of those earning $50,000-$100,000 and 7 percent of those earning more than $100,000 say they are struggling. 'One bit of good news in this poll is the decrease in the number of low income families who feel like they are struggling to stay afloat. However, this does not erase the general sense that administration policies really haven't been of much help to working Americans,' said Murray. The poll also asked Americans about their biggest worries right now, with the cost of health care topping the list at 19 percent, followed by taxes (9 percent), every day bills (8 percent) and job security (7 percent). Just 14 percent of Americans said the federal government's actions have helped their family with the issue they are most concerned about over the past year. Some 42 percent said the government's actions have actually hurt their family on the issue they were most concerned about. | null | https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6977185/Enriching-rich-Americans-havent-benefited-U-S-economic-growth-Trump.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490 | 2019-04-30 18:44:59+00:00 | 1,556,664,299 | 1,567,541,595 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
142,259 | drudgereport--2019-01-21--China economic growth sinks to 3-decade low | 2019-01-21T00:00:00 | drudgereport | China economic growth sinks to 3-decade low... | China on Monday announced that its official economic growth came in at 6.6 percent in 2018 — the slowest pace since 1990. That announcement was highly anticipated by many around the world amid Beijing's ongoing trade dispute with the U.S., its largest trading partner. Economists polled by Reuters had predicted full-year GDP to come in at that pace, which was down from a revised 6.8 percent in 2017. Fourth quarter GDP growth was 6.4 percent, matching expectations. That was a decline from the 6.5 percent year-over-year growth in the third quarter of 2018. There were a few bright spots in Monday's batch of official Chinese economic data. Industrial output grew 5.7 percent in December from a year earlier — beating economists' expectations of 5.3 percent growth — outpacing November's 5.4 percent growth. Retail sales data rose 8.2 percent in December on-year, in line with a forecast and up from November's 8.1 percent gain. "What we're seeing in the fourth quarter is that, while the economy is decelerating, we actually still have some support from most of the quarters from the export front-loading," said Helen Zhu, head of China equities at BlackRock, referring to exporters rushing to ship their goods out of China before new U.S. tariffs hit. Zhu told CNBC that even though she expected some support from Chinese consumption and tax cuts, growth in 2019 will decelerate this year compared with 2018. Although Beijing's official GDP figures are tracked as an indicator of the health of the world's second-largest economy, many outside experts have long expressed skepticism about the veracity of China's reports. "The official GDP figures have been too stable in recent years to be a good guide to China's economic performance," said Julian Evans-Pritchard, senior China economist at Capital Economics, a research house. "But for what it's worth, the headline breakdown suggests that service sector activity strengthened slightly last quarter," he added. | null | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DrudgeReportFeed/~3/lC2M-Mj6YQw/china-2018-gdp-china-reports-economic-growth-for-fourth-quarter-year.html | 2019-01-21 21:13:37+00:00 | 1,548,123,217 | 1,567,551,571 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
158,928 | eveningstandard--2019-01-11--Economic growth halves as confidence ebbs away amid Brexit uncertainty | 2019-01-11T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Economic growth halves as confidence ebbs away amid Brexit uncertainty | Britain’s economic growth has halved since the summer against a backdrop of Brexit chaos and the threat of global trade wars, official figures have shown. GDP moved ahead 0.2 per cent in November, bringing the quarterly rolling average growth rate down from 0.4 per cent to 0.3 per cent. It had been as high as 0.7 per cent in the three months to August when output was boosted by the royal wedding, the World Cup and hot summer weather. However, data from the Office for National Statistics showed that confidence ebbed away during the autumn as Theresa May struggled to win support from her Cabinet for her plan to quit the European Union. City experts said there was unlikely to be any pick-up for the economy while there was still so much uncertainty. Mike Jakeman, senior economist at consultancy PwC said: “The clear loss of momentum in the economy since the summer is as expected, given the ongoing lack of clarity on Brexit. For as long as this remains unclear, businesses will continue to defer major investment plans and households will reconsider making big-ticket purchases.” Pablo Shah, economist at forecasters CEBR said: “The economy has now entered what is likely to be a prolonged spell of weak growth. CEBR forecasts that the UK economy will expand by 1.1 per cent in 2019, which would make it the weakest year since the 2009 recession, as economic uncertainty continues to cripple sentiment among firms and households alike.” During November the economy was supported by the dominant services sector, which gained 0.3 per cent. But industrial production slipped 0.4 per cent, dragged down by a 0.3 per cent fall in factory output. Manufacturing has fallen for five consecutive months for the first time since the banking crisis a decade ago, with the car and pharmaceuticals sectors both performing poorly. Industrial output fell 0.8 per cent in the latest three months. The figures came after the British Retail Consortium declared Christmas the worst for the high street in a decade and a number of well-known retail names revealed falls in sales or only meagre growth. However, there was more encouraging news today from two retailers in contrasting sectors of the market. Piccadilly store and grocer to the Queen Fortnum & Mason reported record Christmas trading, with sales up 12 per cent in the five-week period before December 31. Chief executive Ewan Venters said: “We have always believed that quality products, exceptional service and an extraordinary retail environment is what makes us stand out. In this day and age, it is more important than ever to be unique, and our exceptional Christmas results demonstrate that.” Meanwhile discount supermarket chain Lidl said it had seen a 33 per cent increase in sales of its premium product range over Christmas and an eight per cent increase in sales across all its branches in the six weeks to December 30. | JOnathan Prynn | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/economic-growth-halves-as-confidence-ebbs-away-amid-brexit-uncertainty-a4036401.html | 2019-01-11 11:05:00+00:00 | 1,547,222,700 | 1,567,552,896 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
164,597 | eveningstandard--2019-02-14--Brexit has wiped 40 billion from Britainaposs annual economic growth since referendum top Bank o | 2019-02-14T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Brexit has wiped £40 billion from Britain's annual economic growth since referendum, top Bank of England official reveals | Brexit has already wiped £40 billion off Britain’s annual economic growth since the 2016 referendum, a top Bank of England official revealed today. Gertjan Vlieghe said it amounted to £800 million per week of “lost income for the country” -- more than twice as much as the £350 million a week that the Vote Leave campaign claimed could be “saved” by quitting the European Union. Mark Rutte, the Dutch premier and one of Britain’s closest EU allies, said the UK would be “weaker” after Brexit and “too small to appear on the world stage on its own”. International Trade Secretary Liam Fox rounded on Tory Right wingers threatening to defeat Theresa May in the Commons tonight, accusing them of behaving like an “internal debating society” and risking the “wrong signals” that would undermine her backstop negotiations. Germany avoided a technical recession by a whisker — and the country’s economy ministry blamed Brexit “uncertainty” for holding back the EU’s biggest economy. One of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest allies moved against a second in-out referendum. Unite union boss Len McCluskey told ITV’s Peston show that a re-run of the 2016 vote “threatens the whole democratic fabric on which we operate” and was “not the best option for our nation”. Speaking in London, Mr Vlieghe said Britain would be growing two per cent faster if the referendum had voted for Remain. “Based on what happened in the rest of the world we would have expected UK growth to accelerate, but actually it slowed,” he told the Resolution Foundation. Crashing out of the European Union without a deal would force emergency measures to prevent the economy stalling, such as a cut in interest rates, he warned. The comments by Dutch premier Mr Rutte to a Spanish newspaper were particularly worrying because he has supported Britain on the European stage. “It is the UK that will be weakened,” he said. “It is already weakening; it is on the wane compared to two or three years ago. “It is going to become a middling economy stuck in the Atlantic Ocean. It is neither the US nor the EU. It is too small to appear on the world stage on its own.” On Mrs May’s attempts to change the Irish backstop and save her deal, he said: “I do not know how this will end and whether we can avoid a hard Brexit. It would be devastating for the UK.” Mr Fox delivered a warning to Tory Right-wingers to call off a Brexit revolt. “I think that there’s a danger that we send the wrong signals,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “What we say is looked at and listened to by those that we are negotiating with.” He said EU leaders would be “watching our debate” and if Mrs May was defeated they would conclude it was pointless to make concessions as she could not deliver in Parliament. Former Brexit minister Steve Baker responded by calling it a “storm in a tea cup” but said members of the European Research Group would only decide at the last minute whether to back down. “Is the EU really hanging on a non-binding motion at 5pm on a Thursday afternoon?” he asked. Rebuking the whips for bringing forward a badly drawn motion, he added: “This unnecessary carry-on is wanted by no one.” The revolt is over a motion that ERG members say would effectively support removing a no-deal Brexit from the table, something they say would weaken the UK position. Ex-Cabinet minister Nicky Morgan, a leading former Remain campaigner, backed the ERG’s criticism of the Government, saying it should have “taken time to discuss the wording of the motion with MPs on all sides... they would have achieved a clear and united signal”. | JOE MURPHY | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-has-wiped-80-billion-from-britains-economic-growth-since-referendum-top-bank-of-england-a4066851.html | 2019-02-14 11:37:00+00:00 | 1,550,162,220 | 1,567,548,508 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
188,703 | eveningstandard--2019-11-11--Britain heading into election with slowest annual economic growth in nearly 10 years, official figur | 2019-11-11T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Britain heading into election with slowest annual economic growth in nearly 10 years, official figures show | Britain is heading into a winter election with the slowest annual economic growth for nearly a decade, according to official figures. The sluggish performance, which came as the UK was hit by Brexit and the slowdown in global economic growth, immediately raised fresh doubts over the affordability of multi-billion-pound spending sprees promised by both the Conservatives and Labour. Former Cabinet minister David Gauke warned Boris Johnson that his Brexit and spending plans risked leaving thousands of traditional Conservative voters feeling “politically homeless”. The UK avoided slipping into a recession after the economy expanded by 0.3 per cent in the third quarter of this year, according to data from the Office for National Statistics. However, the figure was below City and Bank of England expectations and shows the economy has grown by just one per cent compared with a year ago — the slowest rate since the start of 2010. “With the election just under five weeks away, clearly this isn’t the good news the Government might have hoped for,” said Ruth Gregory, senior UK economist at Capital Economics. However, Chancellor Sajid Javid tweeted: “Great to see solid Q3 growth — another welcome sign fundamentals of UK economy are strong. Biggest risk to our economy is Corbyn’s Labour — its plans for *two* referendums in 2020 and out of control debt.” Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: “The fact that the Government will be celebrating 0.1 per cent growth in the last six months is a sign of how low their hopes and expectations for our economy are. “Labour will build a high-wage, high-skill economy by investing for growth in every region and nation of the UK.” Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Sir Ed Davey added: “The economy under the Tories is anaemic.” The economy had been under threat of entering a recession, which is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic decline, after it contracted by 0.2 per cent in the three months to June. This scenario was avoided with 0.3 per cent growth in the third quarter, powered by 0.4 per cent growth in July that was driven by strong manufacturing figures thanks to a robust pharmaceutical sector. The services and construction sectors delivered growth throughout the quarter, boosted by seasonal trends. There were now signs of economic growth “slowing”, the ONS added. Former justice secretary Mr Gauke stressed on the ConservativeHome website that a large number of Tory seats may be “put at risk” because the party’s reputation for economic competence is being undermined. Mr Javid is “putting up a fight to limit the fiscal incontinence”, he added. But potentially significant numbers of Conservative-inclined voters are now worried about their party “engaging in a bidding war with a Marxist”. Mr Gauke, a former chief secretary to the Treasury, told the Evening Standard: “Large numbers of Conservative voters have traditionally supported the party because of its reputation for economic competence. “Too many unfunded spending commitments and being boxed into a hard Brexit will undermine this reputation. “The Conservative leadership should not take these votes for granted. Many of these voters feel politically homeless and, but for the fear of Corbyn, would almost certainly abandon the Tories.” However, a Conservative source said: “People have had enough of delay and indecision. "It’s time to get the country back on the road to a brighter future and the way to do that is to get Brexit done, leaving the EU with the great new deal we’ve secured, so that we can focus all our energy on people’s priorities. “The Conservative Party’s driving mission is to level up the country, and we will not shy away from investing in our NHS and schools, tackling violent crime and helping people to make ends meet.” Mr Javid ditched his predecessor Philip Hammond’s fiscal rules last week for a proposed £100 billion spending bonanza on roads, rail, broadband and buildings over the next five years. He still maintained tougher spending constraints than Labour, which is ready to splurge £400 billion on “investment on a scale never seen before in this country”. Both sprees, which will mean borrowing more, have raised concerns that future generations will be laden with having to tackle an even bigger debt mountain — which stood at £1.8 trillion in March. Doubts were cast today over a Tory claim that Labour’s spending plans will cost £1.2 trillion. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told LBC radio: “We won’t know that until their manifesto comes out. "But the bigger picture of course is... Labour are saying we are going to spend a very, very large amount more than is being spent at the moment and that has been spent any time in the last 40 years.” | NIcholas Cecil and Joe Murphy | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/britain-heading-into-election-with-slowest-annual-economic-growth-in-nearly-10-years-official-a4284036.html | Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:34:00 GMT | 1,573,490,040 | 1,573,475,406 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
199,859 | fortruss--2019-10-18--China records lowest quarterly economic growth in 27 years | 2019-10-18T00:00:00 | fortruss | China records lowest quarterly economic growth in 27 years | BEIJING – In the midst of a trade war with the United States and falling domestic demand, China registered a 6% GDP increase in the third quarter of the year compared to the same period of 2018. That is the smallest number since Beijing began compiling the data in 1993, the Associated Press reports. Quarterly economic growth was announced by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) on Friday. According to the Beijing agency, the number was lower than expected by analysts (6.1%) and the annual economic growth of 2019, compared to 2018, is at 6.2%. The slowdown has global repercussions and is expected to dampen Chinese demand for industrial components from its Asian neighbors as well as soy and other foods from Brazil, Australia and other commodity suppliers. Trade suffered from US tariff increases, but the biggest impact on Chinese growth appears to come from a slowdown in domestic activity, including consumer spending and investment. Retail sales growth fell to 8.2% from a year earlier in the first three quarters of 2019, down from 8.4% in the first half. Industrial production growth slowed to 5.6% from January to September, compared to 6% in the first six months of the year. The prediction Beijing is to have a GDP growth between 6% and 6.5% in 2019. After the last round of talks, China and the US were able to reach a substantial consensus on the first part of the trade agreement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a news conference on Tuesday. The latest round of trade talks between the US and China took place on last Thursday and Friday. The most important decision of the US Administration was to postpone the introduction of tariffs on Chinese imports to the US scheduled for October 15. US President Donald Trump stated that the first part of the US agreement with China could be signed at the APEC Chile Summit. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the deals cover intellectual property, financial services and the purchase of $40-50 billion. | Paul Antonopoulos | https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/10/china-records-lowest-quarterly-economic-growth-in-27-years/ | Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:30:54 +0000 | 1,571,419,854 | 1,571,411,961 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
202,895 | fortune--2019-03-19--US Economic Growth Expected to Slow Sharply in 2019 | 2019-03-19T00:00:00 | fortune | U.S. Economic Growth Expected to Slow Sharply in 2019 | Chief financial officers and even average U.S. citizens have been bracing themselves for a recession, either this year or next. American executives and investment experts have been more sanguine in surveys, typically discounting the possibility of a significant downturn. And, technically, as a recession means sustained negative economic growth, they still are, according to a new CNBC poll of economists and people in the equities and fixed income industries. But the 43 respondents offered an average expected real GDP gown of 2.3%, factoring in inflation, which is down from the actual 3.1% year-over-year growth seen at the end of 2018’s last quarter. The projection is also down from a January poll that put growth at 2.44%. The poll also suggests that growth will drop below 2% by 2020. The biggest two drivers for the lowered expectations are slower global growth and tariffs put into place by Donald Trump. If Trump wants to be a two-term president, he needs to make a China trade deal and start lowering tariffs across the board,” Hank Smith, co-chief investment officer at Haverford Trust Company, said to CNBC. “This will cause business confidence to rise and capital spending to increase, stimulating the economy.” When that might happen is a question. Trump has floated the idea of walking away from a deal with China if it isn’t to his liking. A potential economic slowdown could convince the Federal Reserve to put off another interest rate hike, according to the poll. In January, 78% of respondents expected a rate hike sometime this year. That is down to 60% now. | Erik Sherman | http://fortune.com/2019/03/19/economic-growth-slowdown/ | 2019-03-19 13:20:40+00:00 | 1,553,016,040 | 1,567,545,646 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
207,104 | fortune--2019-11-07--Caught Between Trade Wars and Brexit, EU Cuts Economic Outlook as It Sees Dismal Growth Into 2022 | 2019-11-07T00:00:00 | fortune | Caught Between Trade Wars and Brexit, EU Cuts Economic Outlook as It Sees Dismal Growth Into 2022 | How to Keep Your Skype Interview From Going Viral | Bernhard Warner | https://fortune.com/2019/11/07/trade-wars-brexit-eu-cuts-growth-outlook/ | Thu, 07 Nov 2019 18:29:00 +0000 | 1,573,169,340 | 1,573,168,020 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
213,715 | foxnews--2019-12-22--Buttigieg unveils immigration plan he says will reduce deportations, spur economic growth | 2019-12-22T00:00:00 | foxnews | Buttigieg unveils immigration plan he says will reduce deportations, spur economic growth | Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg on Sunday unveiled an immigration plan that he says will reprioritize the nation’s deportation efforts with the goal of cracking down on criminals and protecting otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. “Our immigration enforcement system is not working,” Buttigieg wrote. “Current enforcement practices not only terrorize communities but also make all of us less safe by pulling resources away from genuine public safety concerns. The net result is harmful to communities and corrodes what should be the mission and focus of enforcement officers.” Buttigieg plans to implement an executive order to prioritize enforcement on undocumented immigrants who are a “genuine public safety threat.” A Buttigieg administration also would pursue deportations for those who have just entered the country and have no claim of asylum. MAYOR PETE BECOMES MAIN TARGET FOR DEMS, MODERATES AND LEFTISTS ALIKE The South Bend, Ind., mayor wrote that this “targeted and effective” approach will “assure law-abiding people who pose no public safety risk that they have nothing to fear from our government.” Immigration enforcement has been a linchpin of Donald Trump's presidency, with his administraion ordering mass deportation roundups across the country earlier this year. The same week he launched his 2020 reelection campaign in June, Trump announced a weekend of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids by tweeting that the agency “will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.” Trump has deported 282,242 people in the fiscal year 2019, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Deportations, however, were higher under his predecessor, Barack Obama, who was labeled the “deporter-in-chief” by critics. According to DHS data, Obama removed more than 2 million illegal immigrants during his tenure. Buttigieg also proposed updating the list of offenses that can prompt deportation, calling the current list “extensive, outdated, overly harsh, and inconsistent with criminal justice reforms.” Under his presidency, drug offenses and misdemeanors would not result in deportation. He plans to apply this rule retroactively to free the fear of deportation from those who have committed the low-level offenses. Buttigieg vowed to end the 287 (g) agreement, which allowed local and state police departments to perform the functions of federal immigration officers. The move would “help establish trust between police and their communities,” he wrote. He also plans to “reinstate and reinforce prohibitions against immigration enforcement near sensitive locations such as schools, health facilities, places of worship, and courts.” In order to protect the nation’s southern border and decrease the number of illegal crossings, Buttigieg said he would invest in “smart border technology” that is estimated to cost between $1 billion and $2 billion. He slammed Trump’s proposed border wall as “astronomically expensive and ineffective.” Buttigieg also wants to make immigration court-independent, stripping control from the attorney general, which he said has led to “greater politicization, to the detriment of immigrants’ rights and lives.” “This system will guarantee immigration judges full procedural power and ensure that all immigrants receive due process and timely resolution in their cases,” Buttigieg wrote. A campaign spokesperson told Fox News that Buttigieg understands that “immigration is not exclusively a border issue,” adding that immigrants “power our nation's economy and contribute to the success of cities across our country, cities like South Bend.” Buttigieg plans to unlock the economic potential of immigrants. He vowed to “modernize our employment-based visa system” by reviewing it every two years to change the number of visas allotted to immigrants if the economy requires more workers. “This process will make our immigration system more adaptable, evidence-based, and competitive. It will be informed by labor market needs, engagement with immigrant and other stakeholders, and analysis of domestic and global trends,” Buttigieg wrote. Buttigieg said this will fix the backlogged system that prevents many from gaining access to the United States. Temporary work visas won’t be tied to a single employer under a Buttigieg presidency, giving immigrants the freedom to move to a different employer within the same industry. His Community Renewal Visa program would place immigrants in rural communities to supplement population loss and spur economic growth. If the immigrant remains in that community, they would be eligible for an expedited green card. Buttigieg’s visa proposal would also prioritize health care workers in order to address the shortage in rural areas. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP He also plans to address the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants. “Undocumented people are our neighbors who raise families and pay taxes; share our workplaces and schools; pray in churches, synagogues, and mosques; and are Americans in every way except one — they are not citizens and have no pathway to citizenship,” he wrote. Within the first 100 days of his presidency, Buttigieg promises he would push legislation to create that pathway to citizenship. The immigration plan also calls for eliminating the Trump travel ban and raising the cap on refugees. | Andres del Aguila | http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/EAPReslcLbg/buttigieg-unveils-immigration-plan-he-says-will-reduce-deportations-spur-economic-growth | Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:02:49 GMT | 1,577,030,569 | 1,577,016,689 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
218,394 | freebeacon--2019-11-14--Economists’ Analysis Finds Warren Wealth Tax Would Slow Economic Growth | 2019-11-14T00:00:00 | freebeacon | Economists’ Analysis Finds Warren Wealth Tax Would Slow Economic Growth | A new projection from the Penn Wharton Budget Model finds that the wealth tax supported by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) would hinder the nation's economic growth. The nonpartisan, research-based initiative calculated in an analysis due to be released Thursday afternoon that under the Massachusetts senator's plan, "annual economic growth would slow from an average of 1.5 percent to an average of just over 1.3 percent over a decade," equivalent to a roughly 13 percent reduction. The analysis comes as economists and conservative analysts have criticized Warren's economic plans as based on unrealistic assumptions. Warren's Medicare for All proposal, for example, estimates a price tag of only $20.5 trillion across 10 years, despite the liberal Urban Institute placing the cost at around $34 trillion. Penn Wharton director of policy analysis Richard Prisinzano told the New York Times that the reduction in growth would stem from wealthy Americans consuming more and investing less. "The wealth tax shrinks the economy because saving is more expensive," he said. "The results also suggest that the negative effect of the tax increases as the tax rate increases." Penn Wharton's model takes at face value the Warren campaign's claim—disputed by some economists—that the wealth tax would rise $3 trillion in revenue. It also assumes that the $3 trillion would be used to pay off the national debt, which in the model would encourage growth by stimulating investment. In Warren's actual plan, the money would be spent on projects such as free childcare and student loan forgiveness, with uncertain effects on GDP growth. | Alex Griswold | https://freebeacon.com/politics/economists-analysis-finds-warren-wealth-tax-would-slow-economic-growth/ | Thu, 14 Nov 2019 20:20:04 +0000 | 1,573,780,804 | 1,573,779,312 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
351,172 | newswars--2019-01-28--Government Spending Doesnt Create Economic Growth | 2019-01-28T00:00:00 | newswars | Government Spending Doesn’t Create Economic Growth | According to many commentators, outlays by government play an important role in the economic growth. In particular, when an economy falls into a slower economic growth phase the increase in government outlays could provide the necessary boost to revive the economy so it is held. The proponents for strong government outlays when an economy displays weakness hold that the stronger outlays by the government will strengthen the spending flow and this in turn will strengthen the economy. In this way of thinking, spending by one individual becomes part of the earnings of another individual, and spending by another individual becomes part of the first individual’s earnings. So if for some reason people have become less confident about the future and have decided to reduce their spending this is going to weaken the flow of spending. Once an individual spends less, this worsens the situation of some other individual, who in turn also cuts his spending. Following this logic, in order to prevent an emerging slowdown in the economy’s growth rate from getting out of hand, the government should step in and lift its outlays thereby filling the shortfall in the private sector spending. Once the flow of spending is re-established, things are back to normal, so it is held, and sound economic growth is re-established. The view that an increase in government outlays can contribute to economic growth gives the impression that the government has at its disposal a stock of real savings that employed in emergency. Once a recessionary threat alleviated, the government may reduce its support by cutting the supply of real savings to the economy. All this implies that the government somehow can generate real wealth and employ it when it sees necessary. Given that, the government is not a wealth generator, whenever it raises the pace of its outlays it has to lift the pace of the wealth diversion from the wealth-generating private sector. Hence, the more the government plans to spend, the more wealth it is going to take from wealth generators. By diverting real wealth towards various non-productive activities, the increase in government outlays in fact undermines the process of wealth generation and weakens the economy’s growth over time. This way of thinking follows the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. Briefly, Keynes held that one could not have complete trust in a market economy, which is inherently unstable. If left free the market economy could lead to self-destruction. Hence, there is the need for governments and central banks to manage the economy. In the Keynesian framework of thinking an output that an economy could generate with a given pool of resources i.e. labor tools and machinery and a given technology without causing inflation, labeled as potential output. Hence the greater the pool of resources, all other things being equal, the more output can be generated. If for whatever reasons the demand for the produced goods is not strong enough this leads to an economic slump. (Inadequate demand for goods leads to only a partial use of existent labor and capital goods). In this framework of thinking then, it makes a lot of sense to boost government spending in order to strengthen demand and eliminate the economic slump. What is missing in this story is the subject matter of real savings. For instance, a baker out of the production of ten loaves of bread consumes two loaves, saves eight loaves, and exchanges them for a pair of shoes with a shoemaker. In this example, the baker funds the purchase of shoes through the saved eight loaves of bread. Note that the bread maintains shoemaker’s life and wellbeing. Likewise, the shoemaker has funded the purchase of bread by means of shoes that maintains bakers’ wellbeing. Now, the baker has decided to build another oven in order to increase the production of bread. In order to implement his plan the baker hires the services of the oven maker. He pays the oven maker with some of the bread he is producing. Again, what we have here is a set-up where the building of the oven is funded by the production of final consumer good – bread. If for whatever reasons the flow of bread production is disrupted the baker would not be able to pay the oven maker. As a result, the making of the oven would have to be aborted. Now, even if we were to accept the Keynesian framework that the potential output is above the actual output, it does not follow that the increase in government outlays will lead to an increase in the economy’s actual output. It is not possible to lift overall production without the necessary support from final saved consumer goods or from the flow of real savings. We have seen that by means of a final consumer good — the bread — the baker was able to fund the expansion of his production structure. Similarly other producers must have final saved real consumer goods – real savings – to fund the purchase of goods and services they require. Note that the introduction of money does not alter the essence of what saving is. (Money is just a medium of exchange. It is only used to facilitate the flow of goods it however cannot replace the final consumer goods). The government as such does not create any real wealth, so how can an increase in government outlays revive the economy? Various individuals who employed by the government expect compensation for their work. The only way it can pay these individuals is by taxing others who are still generating real wealth. By doing this, the government weakens the wealth-generating process and undermines prospects for economic recovery. The fiscal stimulus could “work” if the flow of real savings is large enough to support i.e. fund, government activities while still permitting a positive growth rate in the activities of the private sector. (Note that the overall increase in real economic activity is in this case erroneously attributed to the government’s loose fiscal policy). If, however, the flow of real savings is not large enough then regardless of any increase in government outlays overall real economic activity cannot be revived. In this case the more government spends i.e. the more it takes from wealth generators, the more it weakens prospects for a recovery. Thus when government by means of taxes diverts bread to its own activities the baker will have less bread at his disposal. Consequently, the baker will not be able to secure the services of the oven maker. As a result, it will not be possible to boost the production of bread, all other things being equal. As the pace of government, spending increases a situation could emerge that the baker will not have enough bread to even maintain the workability of the existing oven. (The baker will not have enough bread to pay for the services of a technician to maintain the existing oven in a good shape). Consequently, his production of bread will actually decline. Similarly, other wealth generators because of the increase in government outlays will have less real savings at their disposal. This in turn will hamper the production of their goods and services. This in turn will retard and not promote overall real economic growth. As one can see the increase in government outlays leads to the weakening in the process of wealth generation in general. According to Ludwig von Mises, There is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of it quantity. | Mises.org | https://www.newswars.com/government-spending-doesnt-create-economic-growth/ | 2019-01-28 16:22:34+00:00 | 1,548,710,554 | 1,567,550,591 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
351,711 | newswars--2019-02-11--The Division of Labor Is at the Very Core of Economic Growth | 2019-02-11T00:00:00 | newswars | The Division of Labor Is at the Very Core of Economic Growth | Modern economic theory tends to treat production, the process of generating valued consumption in a market, as a function carried out within firms and so out of reach for the general market (Coase 1937). Firms are seen as “black box” generators of output from inputs in accordance with a calculable and formalized “production function,” and both inputs and outputs are exchanged at competitive money prices in market transactions. The market, consequently, is seen as simply a means for efficiently allocating resources through the price mechanism. The development and production of the specific goods and services that are directly valued by consumers is considered of much lesser import. In contrast, Austrians emphasize the causal processes in the economy and therefore pay much attention to production — the way value is created through consumer wants satisfaction — and capital theory — how factors are utilized to support production. Austrians recognize that the specialized market process consists of and is dependent on an intricate structure of productive resources. This structure supports roundabout production processes that exploit productivity-enhancing uses of non-permanent intermediate (produced) goods. Such an advanced production apparatus is dependent on the specific uses of capital goods that facilitate taking factors of production through stages aimed at eventually satisfying consumer wants. This distinctly Austrian perspective on the market as a process of production is the subject for this chapter, with specific emphasis on how changes to the economy’s production apparatus or capital structure are brought about. The aim is to elaborate on the implications of the market’s capital and production structure and thereby illustrate a specific theoretical problem that is conspicuously missing in the Austrian analysis. I draft a solution to this problem by addressing potential remedies made available by market actors exercising productive entrepreneurship. In this sense, the essay elucidates a realm for entrepreneurship within production and capital theory. Capital goods can be defined as “the produced goods that must be combined still further with other factors in order to provide the consumers’ good” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 299). These intermediate or “produced” goods that can only indirectly satisfy consumer wants are “a necessary way station to increased consumption” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 966; emphasis in original). Seen as a whole, they compose “an intricate, delicate, interweaving structure of capital goods” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 967; Lachmann 1978 [1956]), a production structure that in its current length and form is configured to satisfy wants already anticipated by entrepreneurs. A production structure is composed of specific capital goods, themselves a combination of other capital goods and original factors. It is assembled and configured in a specific way for a specific purpose (Lachmann 1978 [1956]) and operated by specialized labor. Production is temporally dependent since it must be carried out in time. Carrying out a production process with already existing, supporting capital goods takes time, as does the production of the capital goods used in the process. The existent production structure was brought together and configured in the past, and is used and operated in the present to produce consumers’ goods available in the future. Time, therefore, is both a limitation and a factor of production: due to its irreversibility, it “puts the future services of certain resources beyond our reach in the present and so makes it impossible to anticipate their use” (Hayek 1941, p. 52). In other words, we cannot conceive of specialized production without capital. Even acknowledging that there is a capital structure supporting production in multiple stages ultimately appears insufficient for us to fully understand the production process. For this reason, a theory of production is of limited use without a capital theory that also includes action and so explains the structure’s dynamic: how and why the production structure has taken a certain shape and how and why the structure changes over time. As we will see, the Austrian conception of production subject to the heterogeneous structure of productive capital indicates a problem related to the structure of tasks in an economy’s production apparatus. This problem does not exist for Robinson Crusoe but is potentially crippling in a specialized market, and it requires entrepreneurship and integration to be solved. Imagine that a person P, in a world without existent capital, decides to manufacture a product A with the intention of making it available for consumers in the open market. To the extent the production process requires (or is more productive with) capital, these capital goods must first be produced. Regardless of the complexity of the specific production process, the only possible way of realizing production of A is to first produce the necessary intermediate goods such as tools and machinery, and then, at a later time and using the intermediate goods, produce A. To make this happen, P therefore accumulates the resources necessary, gets busy creating the means to carry out the production process, and then produces the end product. Due to P’s productive endeavor to establish the necessary structure for their envisioned production process, the world now has capital. This capital gives P a competitive advantage in the market by creating a unique production capability (Barney 1995; 1991), which increases in the overall valuable output in the economy. The direct effect of the “advancing capital structure increases the marginal productivity of labor” without requiring an increase in “the labor energy expended” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 578). The capital created is essentially an extension of and therefore facilitates more productive uses of labor. In this sense, the investment creating “non-permanent resources enables us [the market] to maintain production permanently at a higher level than would be possible without them” (Hayek 1941, p. 54, emphasis in original). Overall, P’s endeavor has brought about a situation where the original factors — land and labor — are used more efficiently toward satisfying consumer wants than was the case before. Production has become more roundabout. The value of this better use of original factors is measured by the subjective valuations of consumers who benefit from this production. As Austrians have known since Menger (2007 [1871]), the market value of the capital produced is derived from consumer benefits. This means the value cannot be established until consumer valuation of the end product has been revealed through market action (purchases of the product). The market value of the produced capital — the indirect means to satisfy consumer wants — is equal to their contribution to the value consumers ultimately place in the consumption good produced (Mises 1951 [1936]; Rothbard 1987). The temporal sequence of actions within the production process is then exactly the opposite of how its value is derived. Production begins with the extraction of the highest-order goods from their natural state and the production of intermediate or capital goods, and continues through the stages to eventually produce the lowest-order good offered to consumers. Upon consumers’ decision to purchase the lowest-order good at a certain price, the market value of capital goods is established by imputation “upstream” through the higher orders to the highest order and original factors (Menger 2007 [1871]). There can be no capital that is not preceded by production, and there can be no specialized, roundabout production without the existence of capital. Let us now turn to analyzing a specialized market economy with existing advanced production structures, as does e.g. Rothbard (2004 [1962]) and Coase (1937). We assume a market with highly specialized production with a capital structure that is well configured to satisfy consumer wants. As capital is heterogeneous, by which is meant that it “is not an amorphous mass but possesses a definite structure [and] is organised in a definite way” (Hayek 1941, p. 6), the capital structure entails both productivity gains and high costs of adjustment. As the market data change, the existing capital structure will be misaligned to real consumer wants. In this sense, the specialized market place is very fragile to (unanticipated) changes. This problem is partly recognized in the Austrian business cycle theory, but it is scarcely elaborated. Rather, it is acknowledged that the realignment process of the market’s capital structure, from the anticipated and prepared-for market situation to the new and revealed situation, takes time. This is undoubtedly true, and this process is carried out by entrepreneurs (broadly defined), who are “eager to earn profits, appear as bidders at an auction, as it were, in which the owners of the factors of production put up for sale land, capital goods, and labor” (Mises 1998 [1949], p. 335). Time-consuming and costly realignment follows (cf. Williamson 1985, pp. 21–22). Yet this problem does not arise only when the market process is affected by abrupt and/or unanticipated exogenous change such as the expansion of credit by banks and the subsequent distortion of market prices. In fact, any reconfiguration, elaboration, or expansion of the capital structure, whether as a reaction to changing consumer preferences or as a means toward increased productivity and economic growth, is subject to what we can describe as a “specialization deadlock”: production structure based inertia to which both market actions and actors are subject. A specialized market consists of production processes that encompass many stages and where the stages are carried out separately by specialized labor operating specialized capital structures configured to facilitate this particular (and perhaps similar) stage. While there may be several uses for specialized capital, each of the uses tends to be highly specific and the capital goods are therefore very limitedly substitutable in the market. To the degree capital traded in the market has undergone a particular transformation by being irreversibly combined into a non-decomposable unique (or uniquely aligned) capital good, there is no existent market for the produced means of production. New capital goods exist in a non-salable state to the degree their uses have no or very limited substitutability and lack obvious substitute uses. Whether or not a market for specialized capital goods emerges depends on the competitive discovery process (Hayek 1978) as entrepreneurs imitate and attempt to surpass the original entrepreneur’s successful production achievement (Bylund forthcoming; 2011). While the uniqueness of particular capital goods in specialized production may severely limit their markets (both in terms of demand and supply), this may not constitute more than a temporary problem. The problem emerges as specialized capital is utilized in roundabout production processes under intensive division of labor. Assuming a market with entrepreneurs alert to and ready to adjust errors and misalignment through arbitrage (Kirzner 1973), and therefore an equilibrating market process, the market should soon approach stasis. Entrepreneurs, eager for profit, will bid for capital and labor factors that they perceive to be undervalued or in otherwise suboptimal use. Provided entrepreneurs do not commit more errors than successful adjustments, and provided consumer preferences do not frequently, radically, and unexpectedly change, a market without innovation has limited opportunity for growth and productivity increase. In fact, even allowing for innovation of capital goods, which can be usefully thought of as finding new productive combinations of land factors and existing capital (Schumpeter 1934 [1911]), will not facilitate economic growth through productivity increases unless there is also a corresponding intensification in the division of labor. As Mises (1998[1949], p. 164) notes, The division of labor splits the various processes of production into minute tasks, many of which can be performed by mechanical devices. It is this fact that made the use of machinery possible and brought about the amazing improvements in technical methods of production. Mechanization is the fruit of the division of labor, its most beneficial achievement, not its motive and fountain spring. The truthfulness of the temporally dependent order in Mises’s claim can easily be shown, as we shall see in the next section. Consider the specialized market in the previous section. Assuming the market is minimally regulated and therefore without artificial barriers of entry, we can assume with Rothbard (2004 [1962], p. 369, fig. 41) that the rate of interest income for capitalist investments in each production stage will be approximately the same. Entrepreneurial arbitrage will see to it that this holds true within one production process as well as across parallel, competing processes. Alert entrepreneurs will discover and correct through arbitrage any “errors” revealed by above-normal returns in any process or stage. Profitable (successful) undertakings tend to be imitated and loss-generating (unsuccessful) are abandoned by entrepreneurs eager to earn profits, which suggests an equilibrating process consisting of continuous adjustment through correction (Shane 2003). This, in turn, suggests that markets are effectively created for specific capital goods utilized in production processes as entrepreneurs set out to imitate and emulate processes that earn profits (Stigler 1951; Bylund 2015). The economy in this sense functions as a continuous “discovery process” where competition for profit is the driving force toward better alignment between the totality of the production structure and consumer wants (Hayek 1978). Along the lines of this reasoning one can develop a theory of strategic management based on the resources used within the firm, as has been done by Barney (1986; 1991) and others. The incentive of any firm (or rather, its owners and management) is here to strive for including and utilizing as rare and unsubstitutable resources as possible that are still valuable in production. The rarer and less substitutable (and imitable) the resources, the longer a firm can stay ahead of its competition and earn above-normal profits — competitors are simply unable to emulate the capital recipe of success. But it should be noted that while this competitive advantage may last for some time due to the unavailability of necessary resources for competitors, it will eventually be undermined by the discovery of better processes or alternative implementations of the same process. The reason for this is that capital goods are produced and non-permanent. Even in situations where a certain capital good cannot be imitated or emulated (however unlikely this scenario is), it must be reproduced when it is used up or expired. The serviceability of capital can be extended through investments in maintenance, upkeep, and repairs. Still, capital is ultimately consumed during the production process, which means the owner of a unique capital good used in profitable production must at some point invest to extend its productive life. In a specialized market economy, any such reproduction must to some degree depend on the availability of market for materials, parts, etc., — the higher-order goods used in production of the capital good. It is therefore an impossibility that a certain resource combination — a particular capital good — is non-reproducible over time. But even so, as Mises shows in the quote above, capital is ultimately dependent on division of labor preceding its development and use. Only through the splitting of tasks can capital goods be (1) innovated and (2) utilized in new processes. The former holds true simply because new specializations (that is, a more intensive division of labor) are necessary in order to produce a new type of capital good, at the very least in the tasks of combining factors or configuring an existing capital good. The latter is illustrated by Mises’s example of mechanization of the minute tasks that are made into separate tasks only through the splitting of existing, more broadly defined, tasks. Consider a production process in our previously assumed specialized market that is dedicated to the production of bread. It consists of the following division of labor: a farmer produces wheat, a miller produces flour, and a baker produces and sells the bread. Each stage uses capital: the farmer uses a plow in the spring and sickle in the late summer, the miller uses milling stones, and the baker uses an oven. One can imagine making this process more roundabout through the innovation of new capital goods to support either of the stages, e.g. a tractor for the farmer or a blender for the baker (Böhm-Bawerk 1959 [1889]). But no such capital can be made available for the farmer or baker without an innovative entrepreneur figuring out the full production process for that specific capital good. This amounts to a much greater undertaking than the error-correction type of arbitrage provided by Kirznerian entrepreneurs (Kirzner 1973; 2009). An alternative is to make the bread-producing process itself more roundabout through the insertion of more narrowly specialized labor: splitting a task into several (Smith 1976 [1776]; Bylund forthcoming). The splitting of a task is different from simply “adding” labor power. The farmer can “hire” labor workers to carry out the same tasks as he is already carrying out, which increases output through increasing the volume of labor being used in the process. As these workers need to be paid — and likely monitored (Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Williamson 1993) — it is not obvious that this is a profitable investment for the farmer. Where an increase in the number of workers leads to diminishing returns, the farmer is likely to make a loss on invested funds. The alternative is to engage in intensifying the division of labor, which, as suggested in the Mises quote above, entails taking an existing task and dividing it into a number of more narrowly defined tasks. In the case of the bread production process, this amounts to replacing one of the existing stages with several new and separate tasks in the same way a hypothetical original production process was split from self-sufficiency toward specializations in farming, milling, and baking. Where a market stage already consists of easily separable tasks, such as the plowing, sowing, watering, and harvesting of farming, specialization may not be more than a minor change. For instance, a farmer having hired labor workers may assign specific tasks to different workers and thereby simplify specialization. This must be preceded by increased density of labor factors (Durkheim 1933 [1892]) and can be facilitated by coordination through centralized ownership (Stigler 1951). As this type of “marginal” or incremental specialization can be rather easily brought about, it may not constitute an economic problem of production. In fact, such productivity-increasing measures should be easily discernible for the actors themselves: we know that “work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and that man’s reason is capable of recognizing this truth” (Mises 1998 [1949], p. 144; emphasis added). This is not a division of labor as much as it is a rational (re)allocation of labor input across already existing chores. But this means it also cannot constitute a problem for competing farmers, who as (or even more) easily can institute this type of division of labor by imitation or emulation. So we may, for the sake of simplicity, assume that such comparatively simple opportunities have already been exploited. Indeed, we can think of the inefficient use of laborers on the farm as an “error” to be corrected by the alert farmer. This leaves the type of disruptive specializing that suggests a new production sub-process to replace a commonplace and standardized task carried out by market actors. We can now begin to discern the problem, since all the “low-hanging fruits” in terms of productivity-increasing allocative measures are easily exploitable and so should tend to already be exploited. What remains is the unintuitive or highly coordinative task-splitting that requires foresight, investment, and perhaps development of new types of capital goods to be realized. Add to this situation how within-stage (horizontal) competition should tend to standardize the procedures used and therefore effectively produce market standards around best practices. This is the process through which markets are created, which was explained by Stigler (1951). While the market may not reach a general equilibrium, it can easily be seen how its competitive process brings about standardizing at the production possibilities frontier. At this point, further specializing should seem unattainable if at all advantageous — much like splitting the task of “driving a taxi” into the more specialized tasks of driving straight, driving around corners, and going in reverse. Further advances in productivity requires the adoption of a more intensive division of labor — the further splitting of existent tasks — and the use of (new) capital to replace labor with automatic execution of newly identified and separated “minute tasks.” The market, in other words, finds a state of rest in the sense of a highly restricting inertia — if not impossibility — of adopting further productivity-increasing measures. Specialization cannot go further through incremental adoption of better utilizations of labor. Whether or not market actors have exhausted all opportunities for further incremental improvements to production processes, the market is in a specialization deadlock. So far we have considered production in the market: while not all actions necessarily take place independently and under the price mechanism, we noted how markets are generated as new production structures are imitated by competitors (Stigler 1951; Bylund 2011; forthcoming). For all tasks carried out in an economy’s production apparatus, therefore, there is semi-standardization within the limits of substitutability where the price mechanism is applicable. In other words, there is a tendency toward standardization of best practices through competition as improvements are all but universally implemented through profit-induced imitation in the open market. So far we have not made any assumptions about who brings about or profits from the adjustments made in the market. The reason for this is that opportunities for incremental changes to the production structure are neither difficult to discover nor to implement or observe /imitate. This suggests the function of adjustment can be carried out by most or all market actors and without much foresight, coordination or investment. Indeed, the farmer who hires labor workers and assigns different responsibilities to them is engaging in (a weak form of) specialization and division of labor, but in such a mundane fashion that it is of little analytical importance. These tasks were already carried out — they may even have been identified as separate such — and the increased density due to increased volume of available labor facilitated an “obvious” opportunity for “specializing.” Rather than each labor worker switching between the same or similar tasks, each worker could save time and energy by streamlining their work and so focusing on a single or only a few tasks serially divided among them (Smith 1976 [1776]). This type of improvement in productivity is, indeed, within the limits of man’s capability of reason. In fact, we might expect the common worker, knowledgeable of the production process as well as the “particular circumstances of time and place” (Hayek 1945, p. 521), to identify and act to implement such productivity-increasing measures. But this only augments our perception that the specialization deadlock is an economic problem. It should furthermore be an increasing problem as a market becomes more intensely specialized, since specializing increases heterogeneity and therefore lowers the overall density of workers carrying out similar tasks in the market place. As opportunities for specializing are exploited, taking specialization even further may necessitate much less obvious changes — and coordination. So far in our discussion, we have not included more than minimal coordination in the market place, primarily through the price mechanism and simple agreements. Consider the case of the tractor noted above. In order to provide a tractor in this market, actors need to break free from the specialization deadlock. This is a problem of innovation, coordination, and capital investment, since it includes the insertion of a new productive sub-process to produce a higher-order good (the tractor) to be used in farming. This sub-process requires its own division of labor to carry out tasks specific to tractor production. In this case, this is a novel process the tasks of which may not have been more than limitedly known. But this need not be the case: we can easily imagine splitting the existing tasks into several independent subtasks. The solution is however found to be the same: innovation, coordination, and capital investment are necessary for the implementation and thus realization of the new tasks and thereby the more roundabout production structure. It is not within the scope of this chapter’s discussion to specify the exact nature of implementing such improvements to the production structure. This has been done elsewhere (Bylund 2011; 2015; forthcoming), so it should therefore be sufficient to point out that this is the role of the innovative and imaginative entrepreneur. But it should also be noted that there can be no blueprint for the implementation (realization) of such novel production processes that introduce a radically intensified division of labor since their functioning is strictly unknowable — detailed information about the intricate workings of a previously unseen sub-process is revealed only through its implementation process. For this reason, the entrepreneur can only guide the project and must rely on the decentralized problem-solving or proxy-entrepreneurship of employed workers (Foss, Foss and Klein 2007). This appears to require an integrated production structure, which is commonly referred to as a firm. What has been drafted above suggests that production theory is incomplete without both capital theory and entrepreneurship. This may appear obvious to Austrians, but the entrepreneurship aspect appears often missing or lacking in discussions on capital theory. Rothbard’s discussion on production theory in Man, Economy and State can serve as an illustrative example. Rothbard here provides a groundbreaking discussion on production theory, but his discussion on the effect of saving on the economy’s production stages is severely lacking. Increased saving, states Rothbard, shifts “investment further up the ladder to the higher-order production stages.” And further: “Simple investigation will reveal that the only way that so much investment can be shifted from the lower to the higher stages … is to increase the number of productive stages in the economy, i.e. to lengthen the structure of production” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 519, emphasis in original). Perhaps this is a necessary conclusion, but as we have seen in this chapter, increasing the number of production stages implies the splitting of tasks and, essentially, breaking free from the specialization deadlock of the existent capital structure. We can hardly assume that this process is automatic or immediate (and it is of course unlikely that Rothbard would rely on such an assumption). But even if we allow this process to be time-consuming, any production process must already encompass a full-length process with stages covering the production distance from virgin land to consumer. A more roundabout production process does not add stages to the “top,” but must split a stage into several or insert a new sub-process in-between or to assist existing stages. This has implications for the income accruing to factors and capitalists involved in each stage, since a “local” intensification of the division of labor by splitting one stage into many necessarily disrupts production. Rothbard seems to assume a preexisting market for each production stage, which suggests standardization and substitutability throughout the market and thus somewhat accurately determined market prices. From the perspective of Rothbard’s discussion, it may not be limiting but useful to rely on analytical aggregates and talk of “readjustment.” But “readjusting” the production structure to new levels of saving is a much messier process than the type of arbitrage-like allocative adjustment we discuss above — and much messier than is shown in Rothbard’s analysis. Changes to the length of the production structure means the structure is disrupted by an imaginative entrepreneur, which has implications throughout the “intricate, delicate, interweaving structure of capital goods” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 967). It is insufficient and potentially misleading to assume changes in the savings rate reallocates “capital” within the production process (and therefore across the production apparatus’ existing stages). More realistically, productive investments can fundamentally change production processes by splitting or inserting stages, and this can bring about important changes to the economy’s capital structure. It is furthermore insufficient to treat the entrepreneur as simply the discoverer of price discrepancies who then acts to shift factors from one production process to another to better account for their “real” value (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 511; cf. Kirzner 1973; Sautet 2000). As Rothbard (2004 [1962], pp. 858–59) puts it: But as we saw above, while adjustment takes place “all the time” it can and does take place within the limits of the existing division of labor intensity; “adjustment” is unable to deal with the specialization deadlock and therefore excludes disruptive innovation. In other words, it does not include “breaking free” from the deadlock through revolutionizing the production structure, which necessitates realizing an innovative splitting of tasks — which in turn requires integration (a firm) (Bylund 2015). Entrepreneurial adjustment ensues upon and as a consequence of disruption, but it is limited to corrections given the existing production or capital structure and incremental improvements to it. In this sense, we have drafted a scope for entrepreneurship with the help of capital and production theory that both confirms and challenges Rothbard’s analysis. It confirms Rothbard’s focus on adjustments, which are carried out “all the time” through the market’s competitive discovery process and “is not exhausted in any single act of investment.” This can potentially be seen as a “Kirznerian” type of entrepreneurship (Kirzner 1973; 1979; 1999; 2009). Yet Rothbard, by not including the type of disruptive entrepreneurship that can be found in e.g. Schumpeter (1934 [1911]), sees no significance in organization or its function in the market. He therefore does not recognize the causal relationship between the division of labor and the creation of capital that Mises notes and that we here found to suggest a solution to the interlocking compatibilities of the production structure that we refer to as the “specialization deadlock.” In fact, it appears Rothbard in Man, Economy and State fails to recognize the great importance of the division of labor for production and capital theory as well as for the evolution of society. This chapter attempts to show, in line with Mises’s view (Mises 1998 [1949]; Salerno 1990) as well as Rothbard’s later and more astute understanding (Rothbard 1991), how the importance of the division of labor hardly can be exaggerated, but that it in fact can be used to explain the process of capital creation. Democrats attempted to provoke AG Matt Whitaker during a committee hearing, but they only succeeded at making themselves look bad. | Mises.org | https://www.newswars.com/the-division-of-labor-is-at-the-very-core-of-economic-growth/ | 2019-02-11 16:53:17+00:00 | 1,549,921,997 | 1,567,548,955 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
353,306 | newswars--2019-04-10--Does Economic Stability Contribute to Growth | 2019-04-10T00:00:00 | newswars | Does Economic Stability Contribute to Growth? | During the period 1920 to 1960, we can observe that the annual growth rate of production was more volatile than between the period 1961 to February 2019. During the first period the maximum growth rate stood at 62% and the minimum growth rate at minus 33.7%. Between 1961 to present, the maximum growth rate stood at 13.4% and the minimum growth rate at minus 15.3%, (see chart). One is tempted to conclude from this that this raises the likelihood that fiscal and monetary policies are currently more successful than in the past in stabilizing the economy. For most economic experts the role of central authorities is to make the so-called economy as stable as possible. What do they mean by economic stability? Economic stability refers to an absence of excessive fluctuations in the overall economy. An economy with constant output growth and low and stable price inflation is likely to be regarded as stable. An economy with frequent boom-bust cycles and variable price inflation would be considered as unstable. According to popular thinking, stable economic environments in terms of stable price inflation and stable output growth acts as a buffer against various shocks. This makes it much easier for businesses to plan. In this way of thinking in particular, price level stability is the key for so-called economic stability. For instance, let us say that a relative strengthening in people’s demand for potatoes versus tomatoes took place. This relative strengthening is going to be depicted by the relative increase in the prices of potatoes versus tomatoes. Now to be successful, businesses must pay attention to consumers’ wishes as manifested by changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Failing to abide by consumers’ wishes will lead to the wrong production mix of goods and services and will lead to losses. Hence, in our case, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, businesses are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes. On this way of thinking, if the price level is not stable then the visibility of the relative price changes becomes blurred and consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions. This leads to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Unstable changes in the price level obscure changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Consequently, businesses will find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable. Based on this way of thinking it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will bring price stability i.e. a stable price level. By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that at present policy makers must aim at keeping price inflation at 2%. Any significant deviation from this figure constitutes deviation from the growth path of price stability. Observe that Fed policy makers are telling us that they have to stabilize the price level in order to allow the efficient functioning of the market economy. Obviously, this is a contradiction in terms since any attempt to manipulate the so-called price level implies interference with markets and hence leads to false signals as conveyed by changes in relative prices. By means of setting targets to interest rates and by means of monetary pumping it is not possible to strengthen economic fundamentals, but on the contrary, it only makes things much worse. Here is why. Let us say that the so-called price level is starting to exhibit a visible decline in terms of growth momentum. To prevent this decline the Fed starts to aggressively push money into the banking system. Because of this policy the price level stabilizes after a time lag. Should we regard this as a successful monetary policy action? The answer is categorically no. Given that monetary pumping sets in motion the diversion of wealth from wealth generating activities to non-wealth generating activities obviously this leads to the weakening of the wealth generation process and to economic impoverishment. Note that the economic impoverishment has taken place despite price level stability. Also, note that in order to achieve price stability the Fed had to allow an increase in the growth momentum of the money supply. The fluctuations in the growth momentum of money supply is matter here. It is this, that set in motion the menace of the boom bust cycle regardless of whether the price level is stable or not. While increases in money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this need not always be the case. Prices are determined by real and monetary factors. If the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors, then it is possible that no visible change in prices might take place. In other words, while money growth is buoyant prices might display moderate increases. Clearly, if we were to pay attention to the so-called price level and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy. On this, Rothbard wrote, in America’s Great Depression: At the root of price stabilization policies is the view that money is neutral. Changes in money only have an effect on the price level while having no effect whatsoever on the real economy. In this way of thinking changes in the relative prices of goods and services are established without the aid of money. For instance, if one apple exchanges for two potatoes then the price of an apple is two potatoes, or the price of one potato is half an apple. Now, if one apple exchanges for one dollar then it follows that the price of a potato is $0.5. Note that the introduction of money does not alter the fact that the relative price of potatoes versus apples is 2:1 (two-to-one). Thus, a seller of an apple will get one dollar for it, which in turn will enable him to purchase two potatoes. In this way of thinking, an increase in the quantity of money leads to a proportionate fall in its purchasing power i.e. a rise in the price level. While a fall in the quantity of money results in a proportionate increase in the purchasing power of money i.e. a fall in the price level. All that, according to this way of thinking, does not alter the fact that one apple is exchanged for two potatoes, all other things being equal. Let us assume that the amount of money has doubled and as a result, the purchasing power of money has halved, or the price level has doubled. This means that now one apple can be exchanged for $2 while one potato for $1. Note that despite the doubling in prices a seller of an apple with the obtained $2 can still purchase two potatoes. We have here a total separation between changes in the relative prices of goods (how many apples exchanged per potatoes) and the changes in the price level. Therefore, it would appear that the only problem with inflation is that it obscures the visibility in the movements of the relative prices of goods thereby causing a misallocation of resources. Other than that, inflation is harmless. Why this way of thinking is problematic? When new money is injected there are always first recipients who benefit from this injection. With more money at their disposal, the first recipients can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged. As money starts to move around the prices of goods begin to rise. Consequently, the late receivers benefit to a lesser extent from the initial monetary injections or may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods. Increases in money supply lead to a redistribution of real wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money to the earlier recipients. Obviously, this shift in real wealth alters individuals’ demands for goods and services and in turn alters the relative prices of goods and services. Changes in money supply sets in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, changes in money supply cannot be neutral as far as relative prices of goods are concerned. The whole idea of the general purchasing power of money and hence the price level cannot, be even established conceptually. When $1 is exchanged for one loaf of bread, we can say that the purchasing power of $1 is one loaf of bread. If $1 is exchanged for two tomatoes then this also means that the purchasing power of $1 is two tomatoes. The information regarding the specific purchasing power of money does not however allow the establishment of the total purchasing power of money. It is not possible to ascertain the total purchasing power of money because we cannot add up 2 tomatoes to 1 loaf of bread. We can only establish the purchasing power of money with respect to a particular good in a transaction at a given point in time and at a given place. Now, the Fed’s monetary policy, which aims at stabilizing the price level, by implication, affects the growth rate of money supply. Since changes in money supply are not neutral, this means that central bank policy amounts to tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources. As a result, a policy of stabilizing prices leads to over-production of some goods and under-production of some other goods. This is, however, not what the stabilizers are telling us. For they believe that the greatest merit of stabilizing changes in the price level is that it allows free and transparent fluctuations in the relative prices, which in turn leads to the efficient allocation of scarce resources. True economic stability is not about keeping price fluctuations stable but rather keeping price fluctuations free from interference. Only in an environment free of government and central bank’s tampering with the economy can free fluctuations in relative prices take place. This in turn is going to allow businesses to abide by the wishes of consumers (i.e. will permit an efficient allocation of scarce resources). Fluctuations in prices are going to mirror changes in the relative supply-demand conditions. For most economists, the key to healthy economic fundamentals is price stability. A stable price level, it is held, leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals. It is not surprising that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to pursue policies that will generate price stability. However, by means of monetary policies, the Fed’s objective of stabilizing the price level actually undermines economic fundamentals. The fact that the annual growth rate of US industrial production was less volatile during 1961 to 2019 versus 1920 to 1960 is not something to be proud about. It reflects relatively more suppressed side effects of the central bank and the government tampering with the economy. It would appear that the ever-growing interference of government and the central bank with the working of the markets is moving the US economy towards the growth path of persistent economic impoverishment and drastically lower living standards as time goes by. Here’s why politicians were no match for Candice Owens because she’s more authentic. | Mises.org | https://www.newswars.com/does-economic-stability-contribute-to-growth/ | 2019-04-10 16:51:01+00:00 | 1,554,929,461 | 1,567,543,371 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
355,889 | newswars--2019-08-12--GDP Growth Isnt the Same Thing as Economic Growth | 2019-08-12T00:00:00 | newswars | GDP Growth Isn’t the Same Thing as Economic Growth | To gain insight into the state of an economy, most financial experts and commentators rely on a statistic called the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The GDP framework looks at the value of final goods and services produced during a particular time interval, usually a quarter or a year. This statistic is constructed in accordance with the view that what drives an economy is not the production of wealth but rather its consumption. What matters here is the demand for final goods and services. Since consumer outlays are the largest part of the overall demand, it is commonly held that consumer demand is the key driver of economic growth. All that matters in this view is the demand for goods, which in turn will give rise almost immediately to their supply. Because the supply of goods is taken for granted, this framework ignores the whole issue of the various stages of production that precede the emergence of the final good. However, in order to manufacture a car, there is a need for coal to be employed in the production of steel, which in turn will be employed to manufacture an array of tools. These in turn are used to produce other tools and machinery and so on, until we reach the final stage of the production of a car. The harmonious interaction of the various stages of production results in the final product. Within the GDP framework, the aspect of funding economic activity never emerges. In this framework goods emerge because of people’s desires. In the real world, it is not enough to have demand for goods – one must have the means to accommodate people’s desires. The means are various final goods that are required to sustain various individuals in the various stages of production. The key source for the means of sustenance is individuals’ real savings. For instance, John the baker produces ten loaves of bread and consumes two loaves of bread. The unconsumed eight loaves of bread constitutes real savings. John the baker could exchange the saved eight loaves of bread for the services of a technician in order to improve his oven i.e. the improvement of his infrastructure. With the help of an improved infrastructure, John could lift the production of bread – increase the economic growth. Note that the eight saved loaves of bread sustain the life and wellbeing of the technician while he is working to enhance the oven. Observe that real savings is the determining factor as far as future economic growth is concerned. If a strengthening in economic growth requires a particular infrastructure while there is not enough real savings to make such an infrastructure –the desired strengthening in the economic growth is not going to emerge. The GDP framework is hostile to savings given that in this framework more savings weakens consumption and weakens the so-called Keynesian multiplier. The GDP framework gives the impression that it is not the activities of individuals that produce goods and services, but something else outside these activities called the “economy.” However, at no stage does the so-called “economy” have a life of its own independent of individuals. The so-called economy is a metaphor—it does not exist. By aggregating the values of final goods and services together, government statisticians concretize the fiction of an economy by means of the GDP statistic. However the GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption. For instance, if a government embarks on the construction of a pyramid, which adds nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as a factor that contributes to economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real savings from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth. There are serious problems regarding the calculation of real gross domestic product (GDP). To calculate a total, several things must be added together. To add things together, they must have some unit in common. However, it is not possible to add refrigerators to cars and shirts to obtain the total of final goods. Since the total real output cannot be defined in a meaningful way, obviously it cannot be quantified. To overcome this problem, economists employ total monetary expenditure on goods, which they divide by an average price of those goods. There is, however, a serious problem with this. Suppose two transactions were conducted. In the first transaction, one TV set is exchanged for $1,000. In the second transaction, one shirt is exchanged for $40. The price or the rate of exchange in the first transaction is $1000/1TV set. The price in the second transaction is $40/1shirt. In order to calculate the average price, we must add these two ratios and divide them by 2. However, $1000/1TV set cannot be added to $40/1shirt, implying that it is not possible to establish an average price. On this Rothbard wrote in Man, Economy, and State: The employment of various sophisticated methods to calculate the average price level cannot bypass the essential issue that it is not possible to establish an average price of various goods and services. Accordingly, various price indices that government statisticians compute are simply arbitrary numbers. If price deflators are meaningless so is the real GDP statistic. Even government statisticians admit that the whole thing is not real. According to J. Steven Landefeld and Robert P. Parker from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Now, since it is not possible to quantitatively establish the status of the total of real goods and services, obviously various data like real GDP that government statisticians generate should not be taken too seriously. The whole idea of GDP gives the impression that there is such a thing as the national output. In a market economy, however, wealth is produced by individuals and belongs to them independently. Goods and services are not produced in totality and supervised by one supreme leader. This in turn means that the entire concept of GDP is devoid of any basis in reality as far as the market economy is concerned. It is an empty concept. According to Mises in Human Action the whole idea that one can establish the value of the national output, or what is called the gross domestic product (GDP) is somewhat far-fetched: So what are we to make out of the periodical pronouncements that the economy, as depicted by real GDP, grew by a particular percentage? All we can say is that this percentage has nothing to do with real economic growth and that it most likely mirrors the pace of monetary pumping. Since GDP is expressed in dollar terms, it is obvious that its fluctuations will be driven by the fluctuations in the amount of dollars pumped into the economy. From this, we can also infer that a strong real GDP growth rate most likely depicts a weakening in the process of real wealth formation. Once it is realized that so called real economic growth, as depicted by real GDP, mirrors fluctuations in the money supply growth rate it becomes clear that an economic boom has nothing to do with real economic expansion. On the contrary, such a boom is about real economic contraction since it undermines the pool of real wealth – the heart of real economic growth. (Note that boom is generated by the increase in the money supply growth rate, which gives rise to various bubble activities that undermine the process of wealth generation). It is no wonder that in the GDP framework, the central bank can cause real economic growth, and most economists who slavishly follow this framework believe that this is so. Much so-called economic research produces “scientific support” for popular views that, by means of monetary pumping, the central bank can grow the economy. It is overlooked by all these studies that no other conclusion can be reached once it is realized that GDP is a close relative of the money stock. One is tempted to ask, why it is necessary to know the growth of the so-called “economy”. What purpose can this type of information serve? In a free unhampered economy, this type of information would be of little use to entrepreneurs. The only indicator that any entrepreneur would rely upon is profit and loss. How can information that the so-called “economy” grew by 4 percent in a particular period help an entrepreneur generate profit? What an entrepreneur requires is not general but rather specific information regarding the demand for his specific product, or products. The entrepreneur himself has to establish his own network of information concerning a particular venture. Things are quite different, however, when the government and the central bank tamper with businesses. Under these conditions, no businessman can ignore the GDP statistic since the government and the central bank react to this statistic by means of fiscal and monetary policies. The entire army of economists is busy guessing whether the central bank will lower, or raise, interest rates. By means of the GDP framework, government and central bank officials generate the impression that they can navigate the economy. According to this myth, the “economy” is expected to follow a growth path outlined by omniscient officials. Thus, whenever the growth rate slips to below the outlined growth path, officials are expected to give the “economy” a suitable push. Conversely, whenever the “economy” is growing too fast, the officials are expected to step in to cool off the “economy’s” growth rate. If the effect of these policies were confined only to the GDP statistic then the whole exercise would be harmless. However, these policies tamper with activities of wealth producers and thereby undermine people’s well-being. Likewise, by means of monetary pumping and interest rate manipulation, the Federal Reserve doesn’t help generate more prosperity, but rather sets in motion “stronger GDP” and the consequent menace of the boom-bust cycle—i.e., economic impoverishment. | Mises.org | https://www.newswars.com/gdp-growth-isnt-the-same-thing-as-economic-growth/ | 2019-08-12 20:34:50+00:00 | 1,565,656,490 | 1,567,534,378 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
356,068 | newswars--2019-08-22--Real Savings Are the Key for Economic Growth | 2019-08-22T00:00:00 | newswars | Real Savings Are the Key for Economic Growth | As long as the pool of real wealth is expanding, easy monetary policy will appear to “work,” and loose monetary policy is likely to be incorrectly held as generating economic growth. Once, however, the pool becomes stagnant or starts declining, the “music stops” and no amount of central bank monetary pumping is going to “work.” On the contrary, the more aggressive the central bank’s stance in attempting to revive the economy, the worse things are likely to get. The reason is this: easy monetary policy strengthens the exchange of nothing for something thereby weakening the process of real wealth generation — the heart of economic growth. Real wealth building can only occur as a result of expanding production and saving. However, as long as the pool of real wealth is expanding, loose monetary policy can boost the overall demand. This however, is likely to weaken over time the process of real wealth generation and is likely to result in the lowering of individuals’ living standards. This is because loose monetary policy diverts wealth away from the most productive activities. Bubbles result and true economic growth slows. Once the pool of real wealth begins to decline it will not be possible to strengthen the overall demand and any attempt to boost the demand by means of easy monetary policies is going to make things much worse. Examples that come to mind in this regard are Zimbabwe and Venezuela. One could argue that, irrespective of the reasons for the emergence of idle resources, the role of authorities and in particular the central bank is to pursue policies that will make it possible for a greater use of these resources. In truth, however, employment of idle resources requires an expansion in the pool of real wealth to engage those resources. This requires an increase in real savings. For instance, John the baker who produces 10 loaves of bread uses 2 loaves for his personal consumption the other 8 loaves are his real savings. He can now exchange these 8 saved loaves for the services of a technician in order to improve his oven, i.e., to enhance his infrastructure. With the better infrastructure, John the baker will be able to produce more bread, i.e., an increase in his economic growth is going to emerge. With a greater production of bread, all other things being equal, John could now save more and could afford to expand further his infrastructure. Thus if his production has increased to 20 loaves of bread from 10 loaves and his consumption is still 2 loaves, John now saves 18 loaves of bread versus the 8 loaves saved previously. This in turn enables him to expand further his infrastructure and this leads to the employment of more resources including some idle resources. Without the increase in real wealth and in turn in real savings, there will not be sufficient means to facilitate the employment of idle resources. A loose monetary policy that is aimed at boosting demand will not do the trick, for an increase in the demand cannot replace real savings that are required to recruit such resources. Note that the central bank does not have real savings to support the formation of real wealth. (Individuals in the various stages of production require bread and various goods to maintain their life and wellbeing not pieces of paper we label as money.) Some commentators are of the view that through loose monetary policies on the part of the central bank the economy can take off on its own, just as adding a little water to a pump (i.e., priming the pump, enables water to be pumped out of a well). This metaphor is misleading since, as we have seen, without the expansion in real savings no expansion in economic activity can take place. Again, pushing more money and, with it, credit unbacked by real wealth, cannot replace the non-existent capital goods that are required for the expansion of wealth that in turn could absorb the unemployed labor and capital. Hence, more of the same cannot make things better — on the contrary, it is going to result in the strengthening of the economic impoverishment. It is not possible to generate something out of nothing as various popular ideas led us to believe. The key for a sustained economic growth is not by boosting demand for goods but by strengthening the process of real wealth generation. The key for this is the increase in real savings. The increase in real savings provides the support for various individuals in the various stages of production. Without this support no expansion in the infrastructure and hence the increase in the production of final goods required to support individuals life and wellbeing can take place. Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies joins The Alex Jones Show to expose the Big Tech methods being used to meddle in elections and brainwash the public. | Mises.org | https://www.newswars.com/real-savings-are-the-key-for-economic-growth/ | 2019-08-22 18:59:55+00:00 | 1,566,514,795 | 1,567,533,762 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
360,866 | newsweek--2019-01-22--Xi Jinping China Facing Political Struggle Amid Donald Trumps Trade War and Sluggish Economic Grow | 2019-01-22T00:00:00 | newsweek | Xi Jinping: China Facing Political Struggle Amid Donald Trump's Trade War and Sluggish Economic Growth | Chinese President Xi Jinping has told Communist Party officials to be wary of threats to the regime’s political and ideological security as Beijing responds to new and concerning economic data. Speaking at a study session for top party leaders on Monday, Xi—effectively made president for life in 2018—also said the party must guard against the influence of the internet on young people to ensure the survival of “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” the state-backed Xinhua news agency reported. Read More: China grants Ivanka Trump five trademarks as White House continues trade negotiations with Beijing His appearance at the event coincided with the release of worrying economic data for China, which showed its 2018 economic growth was the weakest in almost 30 years. Performance was driven down by sluggish domestic spending and investment, while the economy was forced to grapple with a raft of new tariffs from President Donald Trump’s trade war. The Communist Party has enforced one-party rule in China since 1949. Leaders have largely been able to offset any demands for greater personal and political freedom by using the country’s impressive economic performance, which has enabled the world’s most populous nation to create its second-strongest economy. But slowing economic growth could undermine this balance. Increasing unemployment and falling living standards present a threat to the country’s social cohesion, and thus the ruling party, The Guardian suggested. Xi said the party’s focus should be on young people and the ideological battles taking place online. “Now the main front of the ideological struggle is on the internet, and the main audience of the internet is young people,” he said. “Many domestic and foreign forces are trying to develop supporters of their values and even to cultivate opponents of the government,” the president warned. The president also announced a raft of new measures that will help stabilize the country’s economy. Xi said party officials would be “highly vigilant” against “black swans”—unpredictable negative economic events—and “grey rhinoceroses”—known risks ignored until it's too late to avoid them. According to Reuters, Xi said the government would help small businesses with financing issues and support companies if required to protect jobs. He also indicated that China would work to safeguard its interests and workers overseas amid what he called a “turbulent international situation.” But companies with a lot of debt, which Xi called “zombie firms,” would be dissolved and their workers resettled. The government will also take steps to stabilize the country’s real estate market and ensure a thorough evaluation of financial markets before enacting any policies that may impact them. Xi warned that technological advances also pose a threat to the party and society. He vowed to introduce new legislation regarding artificial intelligence, gene editing, autonomous vehicles and drones to properly manage the impact of such fields. Li Datong, a former journalist and critic of Xi, told The Guardian, “There is no political security. There is only regime security.” He suggested regime officials “see the risks of rebellion. As the economy becomes worse, people from all walks of the society can become opponents.” China’s public security minister, Zhao Kezhi, said last week authorities must be on the lookout for any “color revolutions”—i.e. mass political pro-democracy movements. He said police must “stress the prevention and resistance of color revolutions and firmly fight to protect China’s political security.” | null | https://www.newsweek.com/xi-jinping-china-trade-war-donald-trump-economic-growth-political-ideological-1299665?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-01-22 11:04:13+00:00 | 1,548,173,053 | 1,567,551,307 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
363,378 | newyorker--2019-02-04--The False Choice Between Economic Growth and Combating Climate Change | 2019-02-04T00:00:00 | newyorker | The False Choice Between Economic Growth and Combating Climate Change | In 1974, the economist William Nordhaus described the transition from a “cowboy economy” to a “spaceship economy.” In the former, he wrote, “we could afford to use our resources profligately,” and “the environment could be used as a sink without becoming fouled.” But, in the spaceship economy, “great attention must be paid to the sources of life and to the dumps where our refuse is piled.” He added, “Things which have traditionally been treated as free goods—air, water, quiet, natural beauty—must now be treated with the same care as other scarce goods.” Toward the end of his landmark paper, “Resources as a Constraint on Growth,” Nordhaus discussed the possible adverse effects of energy consumption, most notably the “greenhouse effect.” From a “rough calculation,” he found that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would increase by more than forty per cent in the next sixty years. “Although this is below the fateful doubling of CO2 concentration,” he wrote—scientists had already predicted that such a doubling could cause the polar ice caps to melt catastrophically—“it may well be too close for comfort.” He was prescient. We are now dangerously on track to hit his estimate, four hundred and eighty-seven parts per million, by 2030. In the United States, after three years of decline, carbon-dioxide emissions increased by an estimated 3.4 per cent in 2018, according to a report released earlier this month by the Rhodium Group, a private climate-research firm. The authors blame two main factors: a particularly cold winter and fast economic growth. In the past two decades, the only greater annual gain in emissions was in 2010, when the economy was rebounding from the Great Recession. Historically, emissions have aligned with the ebb and flow of the economy. In 2018, economic growth was driven by a higher demand for energy, trucking and air travel, and industrial activity. Companies were manufacturing more stuff, including steel, cement, and chemicals. The carbon intensity of the power sector, meanwhile, did not decline fast enough to offset all those demand increases. As has been common since Nordhaus’s 1974 paper, the report seems to pit controlling climate change against a growing global economy. The picture could have been much different. Nordhaus went on to publish a series of foundational studies on the economics of climate change. In 1992, he created an integrated economic and scientific model that could be used to determine the most efficient ways to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. His work—and that of many other economists who followed his lead—showed that a low tax on carbon, set to rise slowly over time, could be enough to keep emissions at reasonable levels, saving us from climate change at little, if any, cost. A “spaceship economy” could thrive if governments made sure that companies paid an appropriate price for the environmental damage they caused—what would come to be called the social cost of carbon. Companies that were most easily able to reduce their level of pollution would be incentivized to make the greatest reductions, and to invest in cheaper and better pollution-reduction systems.The dirtiest activities would be the most costly. The tax would promote innovations in new forms of power generation and, eventually, a widespread adoption of clean-energy technologies. The way to break the chain was to reimagine how we fuel the global economy. “It’s absolutely the case that emissions and growth can be decoupled,” Marshall Burke, an assistant professor in Stanford University’s Department of Earth System Science, told me. He pointed to research plotting how thirty-five countries, including the United States, did, in fact, experience economic growth in the past fifteen years while reducing their emissions—and not solely due to recessions. But the decline was not nearly enough. “The technology is available to have faster economic growth while reducing over-all emissions,” Trevor Houser, the head of Rhodium Group’s energy and climate team, and one of the authors of the report, told me. But the switch to nuclear and renewables needs to happen more rapidly. “It takes policy. It won’t happen through markets alone,” Houser said. In October, Nordhaus and another economist, Paul Romer, won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for, respectively, “integrating climate change” and “technological innovations” into “long-run macroeconomic analysis.” The timing of the announcement from Sweden was painfully ironic. Hours earlier, the United Nations had released its dire report warning that, if climate change’s worst impacts were to be avoided, the nations of the world had about a decade to revolutionize the energy economy. “The policies are lagging very, very far—miles, miles, miles behind the science and what needs to be done,” Nordhaus said after receiving the prize. “It’s hard to be optimistic . . . We’re actually going backward in the United States, with the disastrous policies of the Trump Administration.” The Obama Administration had, in its final years, partially incorporated concepts that Nordhaus had helped to develop, such as putting a price on the economic harm that results from every additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. The price was set at forty-five dollars a ton, and used in both regulatory cost-benefit analyses, which undergirded new fuel-efficiency standards, and the Clean Power Plan, which would have propelled a faster retirement of coal-powered electric plants and a broader transition to renewables. Just as such policies were “beginning to bear fruit,” Houser said, “that whole framework was dismantled.” Under Trump, the social cost of a ton of carbon is as little as one dollar. As emissions keep growing, and climate change advances, there is less and less time to make the necessary cuts. “The pace we needed to decline was already much larger than what was happening,” Houser told me. “Now we have to go even faster to meet our Paris Agreement target by 2025”—on average, a 2.6-per-cent reduction in annual energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions in the next seven years. “That is considerably faster than at any point in history,” he said. And it will need to go even faster if declines in other greenhouse gases, including methane and hydrofluorocarbons—which endure in the atmosphere for much shorter amounts of time than carbon dioxide but are much more potent—do not keep pace. A modest carbon tax of the sort Nordhaus proposed decades ago—one that was then palatable to conservatives—will therefore no longer bring us anywhere near the Paris Agreement targets. But it’s one of many weapons in the arsenal that policymakers need to employ. “The real challenge is finding ways to reduce emissions and maintain economic growth on the timeline demanded by the nature of climate change,” Kenneth Gillingham, an associate professor of economics at Yale University, told me. But, as much as the costs of climate mitigation will undoubtedly increase, the question is whether the benefits of mitigation exceed those costs. “It’s a straw man—and terrible economics—to just point out the costs while ignoring the benefits,” Burke said. He and two co-authors published a paper in Nature last May that shows that the economic benefits of mitigation are going to be much larger than previously believed. Cooler temperatures would help maintain and grow productivity, and reducing carbon emissions means reducing air pollution—specifically particulate matter, or soot—which brings immediate health benefits. They found that keeping global warming to one and a half degrees Celsius (which is nearly impossible at this point), as opposed to two degrees Celsius, would potentially save more than twenty trillion dollars around the world by the end of the century, and significantly reduce global inequality. Beyond two degrees, they wrote, “we find considerably greater reductions in global economic output.” If nations met their commitments under the Paris Agreement, the world would still see the average global temperature rise by two and a half to three degrees Celsius, which, according to Burke’s paper, would result in a fifteen-to-twenty-five-per-cent reduction in per capita output by 2100. “To just complain about the costs of this transition and ignore the benefits, as is common in the discussion from this Administration,” Burke said, “is some pretty poor cost-benefit analysis from an Administration that prides itself on economic savvy.” As a small but growing coalition of congressional Democrats, led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have outlined as part of their Green New Deal, transforming the energy sector—and, really, the entire economy, in a just and more equitable way—will require some sort of carbon tax (preferably a “fee and dividend” approach, which distributes tax revenues as rebates directly to citizens), and also new regulations and huge investments. “We can decarbonize the electric sector at a fairly low cost,” Gillingham told me. “That’s where some of the cheapest emissions reductions are to be found.” Extensive government subsidies could hasten the spread of renewables—specifically, solar, wind, and batteries—and offset any rise in emissions elsewhere. As Gillingham said, “We might want to be careful about fighting climate change by preventing people from staying warm in the winter. If a winter is really cold enough, emissions increases are to be expected.” Still, there are ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels in heating; utilities, for instance, can create incentive programs so that homeowners have a motivation to replace their boilers with electric heat pumps. Houser told me that total emissions are expected to remain flat in 2019. Economists and other market observers predict that over-all economic growth will be slower, and the full impact of recent cuts to coal-plant capacity (2018 was a near-record year) has not yet been recorded. Still, in the absence of major policy changes—which is mostly dependent on a new President who makes climate policy a top and urgent priority—there is almost no chance that the U.S. will achieve the average emissions cuts necessary to meet the Paris targets by 2025. Houser told me that our only hope would be extremely favorable market and technological conditions. “If, over the next couple of years, no more nuclear power plants retired”—more than a dozen are scheduled to retire in the next seven years—“wind, solar, and battery prices fall far faster than the currently most optimistic projections estimate, it is possible that we could come pretty close to meeting the Paris Agreement targets,” he said. States, cities, and private organizations would also have to pick up a tremendous amount of slack from Washington. Even warmer winters would help. “Everything would really have to light up in the right direction,” Houser said. “It’s also, of course, possible that, if there was a massive global recession, we’d see a significant decline, too. But that’s not the reason we want emissions to decline.” | Carolyn Kormann | https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-false-choice-between-economic-growth-and-combating-climate-change | 2019-02-04 22:32:12+00:00 | 1,549,337,532 | 1,567,549,726 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
371,342 | newyorkpost--2019-02-24--Trump pitches economic growth for North Korea before meeting with Kim | 2019-02-24T00:00:00 | newyorkpost | Trump pitches economic growth for North Korea before meeting with Kim | In a series of tweets before his meeting with Kim Jong Un, President Trump suggested North Korea would be willing to ditch its nuclear weapons because of the economic benefits that would come with the move. “Chairman Kim realizes, perhaps better than anyone else, that without nuclear weapons, his country could fast become one of the great economic powers anywhere in the World. Because of its location and people (and him), it has more potential for rapid growth than any other nation!” Trump posted on Twitter on Sunday. He is meeting with Kim in Vietnam on Tuesday and Wednesday, a follow up to their first summit last summer in Singapore. Trump credited Chinese President Xi Jinping with helping keep lines of communications open with Kim because it’s in his best interest. “The last thing China wants are large scale nuclear weapons right next door. Sanctions placed on the border by China and Russia have been very helpful,” Trump wrote. “Great relationship with Chairman Kim!” The president also raised the possibility that he and Kim would be able reach a landmark deal. “Very productive talks yesterday with China on Trade. Will continue today!,” he wrote, highlighting the talks his administration is having with Chinese officials on trade. “I will be leaving for Hanoi, Vietnam, early tomorrow for a Summit with Kim Jong Un of North Korea, where we both expect a continuation of the progress made at first Summit in Singapore. Denuclearization?,” Trump concluded. Meanwhile, state media in North Korea accused Democrats and the US intelligence community of trying to derail the talks. “The Democratic Party of the U.S. and other opponents to the negotiations move overtly and covertly to disrupt them as supported by skepticism backed by all sorts of groundless stories and misinformation even at such a crucial moment as now,” state news agency KCNA said in an editorial, according to Reuters. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, testifying before a congressional panel last month, said Kim’s regime won’t give up its nuclear arsenal. “We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities, and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities,” Coats said. “Our assessment is bolstered by our observations of some activity that is inconsistent with full denuclearization.” Coats said Kim sees the nukes as necessary for “regime survival.” | Mark Moore | https://nypost.com/2019/02/24/trump-pitches-economic-growth-for-north-korea-before-meeting-with-kim/ | 2019-02-24 15:02:56+00:00 | 1,551,038,576 | 1,567,547,511 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
919,212 | theseattletimes--2019-12-24--Lebanese help each other as economic crisis crushes lives | 2019-12-24T00:00:00 | theseattletimes | Lebanese help each other as economic crisis crushes lives | BEIRUT (AP) — Panic set in on a WhatsApp group used to organize Lebanese protests when one member said he intended to kill himself because he can’t provide for his kids. The desperate call came on the heels of the suicide of a father of two that had stunned the public and raised alarm over how dire Lebanon’s economic conditions have become. So Mohamed Shkeir, one of dozens of members in the group, sprang into action. The 23-year-old architect student along with friends launched a campaign appealing for donations — for the man and for others suffering. They posted an ad on social media and, to show transparency, created a spreadsheet to track the money. As Lebanon’s protest movement enters its third month, the economic pinch is hurting everyone. Layoffs are increasing, salary cuts are the norm, banks are capping withdrawals and prices are quickly rising. The euphoria that marked the first days of the protests is being replaced with gloom. With the entrenched political class failing to chart a way out, Lebanese are resorting to what they’ve done in previous wars and crises: they rely on each other, not the state. “We got to a situation where people are not able to buy food for their kids or pay their rent,” Shkeir said. The despondent friend “said he had no money and what is the revolution doing about it and asked why the politicians are not paying attention,” Shkeir said. They were able to convince him not to kill himself, though he refused to take any donations. Shkeir and his group continued their campaign, giving money, food, clothes and supplies to 58 families so far this month, including one family reduced to using candles because they can’t afford electricity. Over recent years as Lebanon’s economy worsened, people turned to familiar ways to cope, like mosque and church charities or helping each other, forgiving debts or handing out food. Those means have already been getting stretched thin. The protests — and the 24-hour news cycle focused on them — have brought a surge of help by rallying public attention to the suffering. Campaigns to collect food, winter clothes and helplines for people in economic and emotional distress are popping up everywhere, intensified by the Christmas spirit. Stores have offered discounts and set up boxes for donations of clothes or money. Ads on TV urged Lebanese to pack bags of donations instead of suitcases for travel. Another urged Lebanese in the diaspora coming home to visit to bring “medicines, clothes and goodies” to give, because “Lebanon needs help.” Some restaurants have offered to deliver free food, and bakeries put out bread for anyone who needs. A yoga studio organized classes to fundraise for the needy. WhatsApp groups and Instagram pages shared addresses of local small businesses for shoppers to use for Christmas gifts. “We are all in this together,” said one tagline. A group of web developers created an app, Khayyak or Your Brother, to coordinate between those who want to help and those in need. “Don’t lose hope, you are not alone,” the advertisement for the app said. The efforts are in part driven by the famed entrepreneurial spirit that helped Lebanese get through numerous previous crises, including a 15-year civil war and several wars with Israel that wrecked the infrastructure and economy. But the protests have also created a unique experience — “something for everybody,” whether they support or oppose the revolt, said Mia Atwi, a clinical psychologist. “People feel more that they are all suffering the same thing, the rich and the poor … a common kind of loss,” she said. Atwi is co-founder of Lebanon’s Embrace, a mental health organization operating the national suicide prevention helpline. The helpline now receives 100 calls a week, up from up to 10 before reports of suicides or attempted suicides first erupted three weeks ago. Atwi attributed the jump to the spike of media and public attention to the issue of suicide, something she said has saved lives. Calls even come from rural areas, not just Beirut as they did in the past. Still, the government hasn’t given her organization a toll-free number, despite paying $25,000 a year for the four-digit helpline. Many campaigns have sprung out of the protest movement. Weekly clothes donations and distributions were set up in the downtown Beirut squares at the epicenter of the demonstrations and near the Central Bank, which protesters accuse of corruption and fueling the economic crisis. “We only have each other” proclaims the campaign’s hashtag, a snub of the political class and the state. Rim Majid, a 21-year old student, quit university in Beirut to participate in “everything revolution.” After hearing of news of the man’s suicide in early December, she set up a griddle at a downtown protest site to make free manousheh, a traditional Lebanese flatbread. Next to the griddle is a donation box with the man’s name. Someone donated enough wheat for a week of baking. “The suffering existed before, but now we are going through a crisis, one that will only get worse,” she said. The help isn’t only monetary. During a discussion one evening at a protest tent, a concerned woman asked: “What are the revolutionaries going to do when those who pay mortgages for their homes are unable to?” A young participant suggested the protesters could physically block the bank and the police from evicting people. For Shkeir, the charity spirit reflects the principles of the protests — the rejection of an entire political elite seen as corrupt and of Lebanon’s sectarian power-sharing system. Shkeir said his group’s donation campaign makes sure to transcend sectarian and political divisions and offers an alternative to the patronage that politicians use to cement their power. The campaign has members from Christian, Sunni and Shiite areas. At least three donors came to them instead of established charities because, he said, they wanted to avoid donating along sectarian or political lines. Shkeir had once planned to migrate like many others driven out by Lebanon’s economic problems. The protests convinced him he has no other place to be but home, he said. In the last two months, he said, he met people from across different classes and sects he never imagined talking to. “Our relations are built on humanity and national unity,” he said. “Our friendships are built on helping people.” | SARAH EL DEEB | https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/lebanese-help-each-other-as-economic-crisis-crushes-lives/?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=Referral&utm_campaign=RSS_all | Tue, 24 Dec 2019 22:18:26 -0800 | 1,577,243,906 | 1,577,275,350 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
1,028,448 | thetorontostar--2019-08-24--Lebanese president says Beirut will overcome economic crisis | 2019-08-24T00:00:00 | thetorontostar | Lebanese president says Beirut will overcome economic crisis | BEIRUT - Lebanon’s president said Saturday his country will emerge from its difficult economic conditions by making decisions that boost production, and a top politician said politicians will be called for a meeting “to discuss the challenges.” Michel Aoun’s comments came a day after Fitch Ratings downgraded Lebanon’s long-term foreign currency issuer default rating to CCC from B-. Also on Friday, Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings affirmed its long- and short-term foreign and local currency sovereign credit ratings for Beirut at B-/B, saying the country’s outlook remains negative. The international rating agency’s downgrade is another blow to the small Arab country’s struggling economy, which suffers one of the world’s highest debt ratios, high unemployment and little growth. Lebanon’s economy has been suffering from the war in neighbouring Syria that saw more than a million refugees flee to Lebanon putting pressure on the country’s crumbling infrastructure. Aoun said in remarks at his summer residencethat Lebanon’s economic crisis has accumulated for several years, not just the last few. Aoun took office in 2016. His comments were released by his office. Later in the day, leading politician Walid Jumblatt, a Druze leader, told reporters after meeting with Aoun that the “the president will call all officials in the country for a meeting so that we take our responsibilities in facing these challenges.” Jumblatt said Aoun is taking the matter very seriously and “sees this rating as a danger.” Jumblatt added that “as officials we should take some measure that are unpopular because if we don’t take these measures we might have worse ratings.” The new ratings came after Moody’s downgraded Lebanon’s issuer ratings to Caa1 from B3 while changing the outlook to stable from negative in January. Get more of the Star in your inbox Never miss the latest news from the Star. Sign up for our newsletters to get today's top stories, your favourite columnists and lots more in your inbox Sign Up Now | The Associated Press | https://www.thestar.com/news/world/middleeast/2019/08/24/lebanese-president-says-beirut-will-overcome-economic-crisis.html | 2019-08-24 16:03:03+00:00 | 1,566,676,983 | 1,567,533,535 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
1,077,441 | usnews--2019-11-09--UK Conservatives Warn of Economic Crisis Under Labour, Citing Disputed Dossier | 2019-11-09T00:00:00 | usnews | UK Conservatives Warn of Economic Crisis Under Labour, Citing Disputed Dossier | LONDON (Reuters) - British finance minister Sajid Javid said on Sunday the opposition Labour Party's "reckless" spending plans would trigger an economic crisis within months if it won the Dec. 12 election, citing a contested dossier published by his Conservative Party. Labour strongly dismissed the report, which said it would increase spending by 1.2 trillion pounds ($1.5 trillion) over the next five years, calling it fake news. The future path of Britain's economy, the world's fifth largest, has been at the center of the election campaign in recent days, with both parties pledging higher spending, but arguing over the scale of investment needed and how to pay for it. "These are eye-watering levels of spending - 1.2 trillion (pounds) - it will be absolutely reckless and will leave this country with an economic crisis within months," Javid told the BBC on Sunday. The Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and currently ahead in opinion polls, said the figure was based on Labour's manifesto for the 2017 election and estimates of more recent policy pledges. But Javid refused to put a price tag on his own party's plan for government, saying it would fully account for new spending when the party manifesto is published. Labour has also pledged to explain how it would pay for its program for government. "This ludicrous piece of Tory fake news is an incompetent mish-mash of debunked estimates and bad maths cooked up because they know Labour’s plans for real change are popular," said Labour's would-be finance minister, John McDonnell. Costs for other policies were based on an immediate start, whereas Labour has said they would be phased in over several years. Johnson, whose minority government has had to rely on support from political allies, called the early election in an attempt to break a parliamentary impasse over Brexit. "Labour will tax the rich to pay for things everyone needs and deserves, like decent housing, healthcare and support for our children," McDonnell said. In a separate interview for the Sunday's Independent he said the party's manifesto would be "the most radical ever" and include a pilot program for a universal basic income. Separate polls for the Mail on Sunday and Observer newspapers both put the Conservatives on 41% support and Labour on 29%, while a Sunday Times poll put the Conservatives on 39% and Labour on 26%. "The number one thing they point to is this paralysis in decision making, and that is coming from what was a very dysfunctional parliament," Javid said when asked about the Moody's report. Britain's public debt currently stands at around 1.8 trillion pounds, more than 80% of economic output - though below equivalent amounts in the United States, Japan and France. | null | https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-11-09/uk-conservatives-put-15-trillion-price-tag-on-labour-opposition-plans | Sat, 09 Nov 2019 23:37:02 GMT | 1,573,360,622 | 1,573,390,643 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
1,107,467 | windowoneurasiablog--2019-03-13--Economic Crisis Talk of War Making Russias Demographic Situation Worse Nikolayev Says | 2019-03-13T00:00:00 | windowoneurasiablog | Economic Crisis, Talk of War Making Russia’s Demographic Situation Worse, Nikolayev Says | Staunton, March 12 – The demographic numbers for Russia in January 2019 are in, Igor Nikolayev says, and they show that the country’s “demographic pit is becoming a chasm,” the result in the first instance of the economic crisis and the Kremlin’s talk of war and one that is hitting ethnic Russians harder than anyone else, Igor Nikolayev says. Russian officials seek to blame this as a echo of the 1990s when low birthrates meant that fewer future mothers were born, but that is a trend that was knowable in advance and should have given pause to the upbeat claims of several years ago. Now, however, Nikolayev says, it is clear that the chief culprits are the economic crisis and the talk of war. On the one hand, with falling incomes, people are less willing to take on the additional responsibilities that having children impose and those in other countries do not see the same opportunities in Russia that they saw earlier and thus are not coming in the first place or going home or elsewhere instead or remaining. And on the other, all the talk about Russia being “a besieged fortress” and war being a very real possibility hardly creates the kind of conditions in which potential parents are going to think about having children. Even if they want them, they seem likely to put off having babies until the situation clarifies itself. Last year, according to Rosstat, “the size of the population of the country fell by 93,500. Such an absolute decline had not happened in Russia since 2008 when the population fell 10,300.” Not only were there fewer births and more deaths, some the result of the aging population, but immigration was insufficient to cover the decline in Russia itself. Figures provided by the central ZAGS register for January 2019 are even worse: “the number of children born in January 2019 fell by 10.4 percent compared to January 2018.” The natural decline of the population for one month alone increased from 30,308 in January 2018 to 44,307 in January this year, Nikolayev says. What all this means, the economist continues, is that the demographic situation in 2019 will “significantly worsen.” Another indication of that is this: “In January 2018, there were 49,500 marriages; but in January 2019, there were only 31,185, a decline of 36.4 percent. “ Of course, children are born out of wedlock as well, “but all the same …” The government talks about the aid it is giving to parents, but this is insufficient, Nikolayev argues. Unless the economic situation improves and unless the government stops talking about war and about Russia being at risk of being destroyed, Russians are not going to have more children. They are going to have ever fewer – and the population will fall. | paul goble ([email protected]) | http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2019/03/economic-crisis-talk-of-war-making.html | 2019-03-13 00:04:00.001000+00:00 | 1,552,449,840 | 1,567,546,422 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
1,060,380 | unian--2019-02-18--Ukraine needs US10 bln in investment annually to accelerate economic growth Finance Minister | 2019-02-18T00:00:00 | unian | Ukraine needs US$10 bln in investment annually to accelerate economic growth – Finance Minister | # Ukraine needs US$10 bln in investment annually to accelerate economic growth – Finance Minister 16:40, 18 February 2019 [ Economy ](https://economics.unian.info/) __355 Effective privatization of state property and a better business climate are required to attract such investment, Markarova said. ## UNIAN Web subscription Get a complete information picture of the day by [subscribing](http://subscribe.unian.info/subscribe/) to UNIAN’s news feeds. For more information, please call: +38 (044) 354-28-06 [email protected] If you see a spelling error on our site, select it and press Ctrl+Enter | null | https://economics.unian.info/10450377-ukraine-needs-us-10-bln-in-investment-annually-to-accelerate-economic-growth-finance-minister.html | 2019-02-18 14:40:00+00:00 | 1,550,518,800 | 1,567,548,193 | economy, business and finance | economic sector |
26,689 | bbc--2019-05-03--Venezuela crisis The political battle and the people caught in the middle | 2019-05-03T00:00:00 | bbc | Venezuela crisis: The political battle and the people caught in the middle | Violence has once again broken out on the streets of Venezuela. But just what has happened to the country, politically and economically, to cause such anger and division? The sun hadn't yet risen but Venezuelans were wide awake. A little before 6am on Tuesday, Juan Guaidó went live via social media from outside La Carlota military base in Caracas to call the country to action. "The moment is now," said the opposition leader, flanked by members of the security forces. "The first of May begins now," referring to a large anti-government demonstration planned for the following day. It was a risky move but in the end neither one thing nor the other: the uprising didn't unseat Mr Maduro or necessarily weaken his grip on power - and whatever Mr Guaidó hoped the day would bring clearly didn't come to pass, either. Yet it was another sign that President Maduro can still expect moments of resistance and conflict from an opposition determined to see the back of him. But beyond this fight, there is a population exhausted and angry at a collapsing economy and a lack of basic services. Amid the political brinksmanship, I was reminded of that collective exhaustion at the status quo, specifically of a few precious hours, a few weeks before the latest crisis, when running water returned to a handful of homes in La Vega. As the news spread around the sprawling shantytown in western Caracas, residents made their way down from distant corners to the fortunate few brick shacks - plastic bottles and buckets in hand - to fill up before it was shut off again. One neighbour, Ramelia Silva, struggling to carry her load as she corralled her grandchildren up the steep hillsides, showed me water which was yellowish and smelled foul. "It's not fit for human consumption," Ramelia acknowledged. "We should only use it for washing and in the bathroom." However, in the middle of a water crisis, she said that just wasn't realistic. "How long will it go on?" she asked angrily. "We can't keep living like this." Community leader Jairo Perez says he's tried to warn of an impending public health crisis but many families are too desperate to listen. La Vega has been without a dependable water supply for over a year, he says, and the recent electricity blackouts have made matters worse. "I have warned the government, I've sent reports to NGOs that we work with and I keep repeating: an epidemic is on its way. We're on the verge of a secondary public health epidemic because this water should not be consumed. A couple of days later, and weeks before the recent uprising, I put Ramelia's basic point to Guaidó during a moment between parliamentary sessions at the National Assembly: how long before anything changes in Venezuela? "I hope very soon," was his reply, denying the opposition had either miscalculated or squandered its momentum. Beyond his enigmatic remark, though, there was little sign of the dramatic twist to come. At that point, the idea of him commanding rebel troops in clashes with their loyalist counterparts seemed unlikely. But Venezuela, especially at present, specialises in the unexpected. After declaring himself president in January, Guaidó was immediately recognised by the United States and more than 50 other nations. Washington extended its sanctions from the Maduro inner circle to the all-important energy industry. By early March, people in Guaidó's team spoke confidently of being close to victory, of having passed the halfway point in a three- or four-month process to reach the presidential palace, Miraflores. "He'll be gone any day now," was their prevailing sentiment. By mid-April, those same advisors had radically revised that view. They spoke instead in more conservative terms of "something" happening "before the end of the year". It's still not clear if this latest uprising was the sum total of that "something" or if there is more to come. Given the story so far, most Venezuelans expect further drama ahead. In essence, Guaidó has two options to taking power: via the streets or the military. Or some kind of simultaneous combination of the two, the elusive "civic-military pact" which Maduro's predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chávez, so prided himself on. Beyond street protests the other main actor in the Venezuelan conflict is the military. This week wasn't the first time Guaidó made a direct plea to the Venezuelan military to switch sides. At the height of the tension in late February, with a convoy of humanitarian aid poised at the border with Colombia, a few hundred soldiers did jump ship in a number of much-publicised defections. Yet the vast majority of rank-and-file troops stayed loyal, as did the top brass. That happened again on this latest occasion and both times, it has undoubtedly been a disappointment to the opposition. Furthermore, if recent Venezuelan history has taught anything, it's that the military holds the key to Miraflores. Without them, taking power is virtually impossible. So, if things reach a breaking point in Venezuela, always a difficult thing to measure, where would the military's ultimate loyalty lie? With Maduro personally, with the "Bolivarian Revolution" begun by Hugo Chávez or with the people calling for change? "With Benjamin Franklin," quips economist and opposition deputy, Angel Alvarado, referring to the US president whose face appears on the $100 bill. "The army doesn't have any ideology. There are some soldiers whose heart is to the left or the right, of course. But I think on the whole the army just wants to maximise their profits." In Venezuela, the military has been given control of many key sectors of the economy. "Food production, mining, the oil sector, agriculture, anywhere there is money and rents to be made, you will find the military," claims Alvarado. Maintaining that monopoly is paramount to them, he argues. "The problem is not hyperinflation and it's not the humanitarian emergency," argues Alvarado. "It's the collapse of the economy which started in 2007." He accuses Hugo Chávez of having indebted the country by billions of dollars which was only covered by a high oil price. Once that price began to drop in 2009, and a policy of nationalisation and expropriation damaged crucial sectors like agriculture, the dependence on oil-exports worsened. Today, with far fewer dollars available for imports, the economic situation is unsustainable. "I think we are in a tipping point right now," he says, and that after the electricity outage, oil production has dropped to around 500,000 barrels per day. With nowhere to export Venezuela's oil, Alvarado adds: "I think Maduro is out of money." At a bar popular with Maduro loyalists in the town of Charallave, employees and union representatives of the state-owned cement company are sat at plastic tables drinking cold beer after work. The bar is one of the few with lights on, running off a generator during one of the town's scheduled power cuts. The workers don't hold President Maduro responsible for the chaos, sticking to the party-line about sabotage of the electrical grid and coordinated attacks by Washington and Juan Guaidó. "We're being punished because we're not a servile government to US interests," said one member of the group. "If a change comes it must be for better, not for worse. Not to allow the opposition to take everything we've built over the years," echoed another, amid clapping and shouts of "Viva Maduro!". Political loyalties aside, they're right to identify the clear international dimension to the situation in Venezuela. Washington has repeatedly said that "all options are on the table" when it comes to Venezuela, including the military one. Barring the most radical, few welcome the idea of foreign troops on Venezuelan soil. The US is putting the squeeze on three main socialist allies: Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. "The Troika of Tyranny" as National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has dubbed them. President Donald Trump has accused Cuba of placing troops into Venezuela, something robustly denied by Havana. Whatever happens next, Venezuela and Cuba know to expect nothing but hostility while Mr Trump is in the White House. In April, Venezuela's foreign minister, Jorge Arreaza, called a news conference after a trip to several nations sympathetic to the Maduro government, including Turkey and Syria, where he heard from Bashar al-Assad about his experience of "resistance". And, in a very deliberate message to Washington, Mr Arreaza underlined that Venezuela "will continue military-technical cooperation with Russia". With Russia vocally backing President Maduro at every turn, Venezuela is being drawn into a battle between the superpowers, a proxy conflict more reminiscent of the 1980's than 2019. Before leaving La Vega, community leader Jairo Perez, took me to a vantage point high above the shantytown, pointing out each of the smaller neighbourhoods below by name. He knows this poor district of Caracas intimately. It's where he grew up, where his family is and, as far as he's concerned, where he'll die. Yet even long-standing residents like Jairo have never seen it like this. The shortages and dire needs of his community remind him of images he's only seen on television about post-conflict nations. "We're like a country at war but there's no war," he reflects. Not, at least, a conventional one. | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48030691 | 2019-05-03 23:12:45+00:00 | 1,556,939,565 | 1,567,541,283 | politics | political crisis |
32,559 | bbc--2019-11-12--Bolivia crisis: Conflict fills political vacuum after Morales | 2019-11-12T00:00:00 | bbc | Bolivia crisis: Conflict fills political vacuum after Morales | "Yes to democracy, no to dictatorship," chanted Evo Morales' opponents as they stood for another day at the barricades blocking the roads of the country's capital. Mr Morales may no longer be in power but people here still want to preserve Bolivia's democracy. They want an interim leader - and that's expected on Tuesday - as well as fresh elections. But most of all, people here seem tired. They want change. "He only supported people who live in the country, not us," says Elsa Andrade, dressed in a full traditional skirt known as a pollera and a brown bowler hat. She has a red, green and yellow Bolivian flag draped over her shoulders. "What's he done for us? Nothing. It's all promises, promises." Further up the road, a group of people wearing hard hats and their faces covered are manning a barricade that leads up to Mr Morales' home and office, known as the "Great Palace of the People". The glass-fronted block with indigenous symbols was seen by many as a garish - and expensive - vanity project. It towers over the smaller, older buildings of central La Paz. • Why protesters are on the streets worldwide • Bolivia: What you need to know Demonstrator Marco says they're stopping government officials from accessing the building. Every protester has their face covered on this barricade. They say their cause isn't a violent one - they are here to protect shops and people. But they don't want to reveal their identity to government loyalists. Marco says Mr Morales had his chance and threw it away. The country's first indigenous leader may have given a voice to millions of Bolivians, but he lost his support with what many felt was an increasingly undemocratic way of ruling. The last straw being accusations of electoral fraud. "Evo Morales could have left through the front door if he had respected what people were saying," says Marco. "But unfortunately he tried to remain in power and that made people not want him anymore." Up in El Alto, a city that sits high above La Paz in the Andes, life felt like it had stopped. The cable car that connects the two cities was paralysed, its cabins bobbing in the air in silence. And a normally bustling market place was deserted, stalls shut for fear of looting. Dania was one of the only shopkeepers willing to take a risk. She needs the money, she says. A supporter of Evo Morales, she says his resignation was nothing short of a coup. "You have to look at what he's done," she says. "He's put Bolivia on the map. But some people don't value that. Unfortunately, we Bolivians have been very ungrateful." Crossing the market, Lucy Choque makes her way to work through the burning rubber tyres that were set alight overnight. She just wants the whole thing to be over. "We are all afraid, it doesn't matter which side we are on - one party or another," she says. "We're afraid of what's going to happen. I don't agree with the opposition's moves because it's causing instability. Everyone is calling for conflict." With Mr Morales now headed towards Mexico, the chapter of the longest-standing president currently in Latin America is now closed. But the next chapter in Bolivia's political history is very unclear. | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-50384735 | Tue, 12 Nov 2019 04:11:45 GMT | 1,573,549,905 | 1,573,560,473 | politics | political crisis |
32,560 | bbc--2019-11-12--Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico | 2019-11-12T00:00:00 | bbc | Bolivia crisis: Evo Morales accepts political asylum in Mexico | Evo Morales has accepted an offer of political asylum in Mexico a day after resigning as president of Bolivia amid election fraud protests. In a tweet, he said it hurt to be leaving Bolivia but he would return with more "strength and energy". Meanwhile, Bolivia's military commander ordered troops to back up police who have clashed with Morales supporters. Some 20 people were reported injured in the clashes. Mr Morales earlier urged his supporters to resist the "dark powers" that had forced him to step down. He also tweeted a photo of what he described as "my first night after leaving the presidency forced out by the coup [organised by opposition leader Carlos] Mesa and [opposition activist Luis Fernando] Camacho with the help of the police". The deputy head of the Senate, Jeanine Áñez, has said she will take over as interim president until new elections are held. • Why protesters are on the streets worldwide Mr Morales, a former coca farmer, was first elected in 2006. He has won plaudits for fighting poverty and improving Bolivia's economy but drew controversy by defying constitutional term limits to run for a fourth term in October's election, which is alleged to have been rife with irregularities. Up in El Alto, a city that sits high above La Paz in the Andes, life felt like it had stopped. The cable car that connects the two cities was paralysed, its cabins bobbing in the air in silence. And a normally bustling market place was deserted, stalls shut for fear of looting. Dania was one of the only shopkeepers willing to take a risk. She needs the money, she says. A supporter of Evo Morales, she says his resignation was nothing short of a coup. Crossing the market, Lucy Choque makes her way to work through the burning rubber tyres that were set alight overnight. She just wants the whole thing to be over. What did Mexico say? Mr Ebrard announced the decision to grant Mr Morales asylum at a press conference. Mexico has a left-leaning government and has supported Mr Morales. Mr Ebrard earlier described events in Bolivia as a "coup", citing the military's involvement in Mr Morales' resignation. Pressure had been growing on Mr Morales since his narrow victory in last month's presidential election. On Sunday, events moved swiftly. First, the Organization of American States, a regional body, announced its audit of the election had found "clear manipulation" and called for the result to be annulled. In response, Mr Morales agreed to hold fresh elections. But his main rival, Carlos Mesa - who came second in the vote - said Mr Morales should not stand in any new vote. What really seemed to tip the balance was the intervention of the chief of the armed forces, Gen Williams Kaliman, who urged Mr Morales to step down in the interests of peace and stability. Announcing his resignation, Mr Morales said he had taken the decision in order to stop fellow socialist leaders from being "harassed, persecuted and threatened". He also called his removal a "coup". Reports say Mr Morales made the announcement of his resignation from El Chapare, a coca-growing rural area of Cochabamba and a bastion of support for him and his Mas party. What has the reaction been? Opponents of Mr Morales have been celebrating across Bolivia, setting off fireworks and waving national flags, while his supporters clashed with police in the cities of La Paz and El Alto, according to local media reports. Argentines and Bolivians also took to the streets of Buenos Aires on Monday to protest against his resignation. US President Donald Trump on Monday described the resignation as "a significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere". The Russian foreign ministry said a "wave of violence unleashed by the opposition" had not allowed the "presidential mandate of Evo Morales to be completed". The Cuban president, Miguel Díaz Canel, tweeted that what happened was "a violent and cowardly coup d'etat against democracy in Bolivia by the right". Socialist-led countries Nicaragua and Venezuela also expressed solidarity with Mr Morales. Spain expressed its concern over the role of Bolivia's army, saying that "this intervention takes us back to moments in the past history of Latin America". What happens now? Ms Áñez's announcement that she would take over temporarily came after Vice-President Álvaro García, Senate leader Adriana Salvatierra and House of Deputies' leader Victor Borda had all resigned, leaving her next in line. "I assume this challenge with the only objective to call new elections," she said. "This is simply a transitional phase." The legislative assembly is expected to meet later on Tuesday to decide whether to confirm her as interim president. With Mr Morales's party in control of both the Senate and the House of Deputies it is not clear if she will get the necessary backing from legislators. Under Bolivia's constitution, whoever takes over as interim president has 90 days to call fresh elections. | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-50383608 | Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:00:04 GMT | 1,573,574,404 | 1,573,560,470 | politics | political crisis |
37,519 | bbcuk--2019-03-11--Brexit Vote for improved deal or face political crisis | 2019-03-11T00:00:00 | bbcuk | Brexit: Vote for 'improved deal' or face 'political crisis' | The Cabinet Office minister says the prime minister has secured "legally binding" changes to her Brexit deal. In a statement, David Lidington told the House of Commons: "There will be a fundamental choice: To vote for the improved deal or to plunge this country into a political crisis." Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer has questioned whether any changes have been made to the withdrawal agreement. | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47532015 | 2019-03-11 22:53:03+00:00 | 1,552,359,183 | 1,567,546,744 | politics | political crisis |
98,562 | cnbc--2019-03-01--US adds 6 to Venezuela sanctions list amid political crisis | 2019-03-01T00:00:00 | cnbc | US adds 6 to Venezuela sanctions list amid political crisis | The U.S. is adding six high-ranking Venezuelan security officials on its international sanctions list as it steps up pressure on the government of President Nicolas Maduro. The six include officials with the National Guard and police blamed for their roles in blocking humanitarian aid convoys into Venezuela. They were announced by the Treasury Department on Friday. The sanctions freeze any assets the people may have under U.S. jurisdiction and prevent anyone in the U.S. from conducting financial transactions with them. It's part of a campaign to pressure Maduro to step down and turn over power to opposition leader Juan Guaido. The U.S. recognized Guaido as interim president last month. Maduro was re-elected last year in an election widely viewed as illegitimate, but the security services have remained loyal. | null | https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/01/us-adds-6-to-venezuela-sanctions-list-amid-political-crisis.html | 2019-03-01 15:15:00+00:00 | 1,551,471,300 | 1,567,546,922 | politics | political crisis |
121,247 | crikey--2019-05-29--Political polling is having an existential crisis | 2019-05-29T00:00:00 | crikey | Political polling is having an existential crisis | Pollsters now face a serious challenge in restoring their credibility, and there is no indication this can be accomplished with existing methods. In the wake of its most unambiguous failure at a federal election since at least 1980, Australia's polling industry is licking its wounds. The Nine/Fairfax papers announced last week that the Ipsos poll series will be put on ice. Those pollsters who do return to the field shortly will face catcalls -- whether they persist in recording a Labor lead we now know doesn't exist, or only now start detecting a Coalition lead that eluded them through the entirety of the past parliamentary term. | William Bowe | https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/05/30/federal-election-polling-crisis/ | 2019-05-29 23:53:31+00:00 | 1,559,188,411 | 1,567,539,797 | politics | political crisis |
127,090 | dailyheraldchicago--2019-05-30--Mideast peace plan hopes dim amid Israeli political crisis | 2019-05-30T00:00:00 | dailyheraldchicago | Mideast peace plan hopes dim amid Israeli political crisis | JERUSALEM -- President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday to push the Trump administration's long-awaited plan for Mideast peace, just as Israel was thrust into the political tumult of an unprecedented second election in the same year. Kushner and U.S. special envoy Jason Greenblatt stopped in Israel as part of a Middle East tour to rally support for the administration's upcoming economic conference in Bahrain, which the White House bills as the first portion of its peace plan. The U.S. is hoping to draw Arab states with deep pockets to participate in the workshop, which envisions large-scale infrastructure work and investment in the Palestinian territories. In brief joint remarks, Kushner touted American-Israeli cooperation, saying, "The security of Israel is something that is critical to the relationship between America and Israel and also very important to the president, and we appreciate all of your efforts to strengthen the relationship. ... It's never been stronger." But public attention was dominated by Israel's political crisis. Netanyahu attempted to play down concerns that the Israeli parliament's dramatic dissolution would further postpone the U.S. peace plan rollout. "You know, we had a little event last night," he said. "That's not going to stop us." At the White House, President Trump, a close ally of Netanyahu, weighed in expressing dismay at the prime minister's failure to form a governing coalition. Calling Netanyahu a "great guy," Trump said he feels "very badly" that the country has to face another election because there is "enough turmoil" in the region. Israel's reopened election season presents another stumbling block for Trump's Mideast peace process, which the Palestinians, citing the administration's pro-Israel bias, have rejected out of hand. The Trump administration had hinged the plan's unveiling on Netanyahu's victory in elections last month. Now, it seems the proposal will have to wait for the outcome of another tumultuous election cycle, after which Trump's own race for re-election will be kicking into gear. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is facing indictment on a series of corruption charges, with his first hearing set for October. His legal troubles throw his long rule into question, along with the feasibility of a future peace plan. Traveling this week to Jordan and Morocco, Kushner and Greenblatt strove to drum up support for the economic conference in Bahrain, scheduled for June 25-26. Neither state has announced plans for participation. After more than two years of work, Kushner's team still has not unveiled its political vision. But glimpses of the plan hint it will focus heavily on so-called economic peace while sidelining or ignoring the longstanding Palestinian goal of independence. The two-state solution continues to enjoy the broad support of the international community. Meeting with the U.S. presidential advisers, Jordan's King Abdullah II stood by his country's commitment to the two-state solution, exposing a rift with the administration and raising doubts about how Trump's team will win over skeptical Arab states. Dennis Ross, the veteran Middle East negotiator, says the plan's outlook has dimmed, considering the "many unknowns" that may indefinitely defer its rollout. Specifically, if Netanyahu pivots even farther to the right on the campaign trial, appealing to voters by promising to annex West Bank settlements again, "the political climate will only get more difficult ... it will make it harder for Arab leaders to accept anything." But, he said, Trump has attached particular importance to this peace agreement, and is eager for an accomplishment. If the administration manages to ditch the stigmatized tagline of "economic peace," and sells the Bahrain workshop as a step toward "economic stabilization" with the help of wealthy Gulf states, the constant deferral of the plan's thornier political portion, such as the status of contested Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees, could work in its favor. "It might be difficult for the Palestinians to reject reconstruction and development projects given the financial crises destabilizing the West Bank and Gaza right now," said Ross. At this early point, the cash-strapped Palestinian leadership "would be saying no only to the improvement of the terrible economic conditions in Gaza and the West Bank ... that could be helped without their having to give anything up politically." Still, the Palestinians say they will not attend the Bahrain meeting, rejecting the parameters of the conference and the role of the U.S. as mediator. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his autonomy government in the West Bank cut off ties with the White House after Trump recognized contested Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017. Israel captured east Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it to its capital. Though Trump said his declaration did not determine the city's final borders, the Palestinians saw the move as unfairly favoring Israel. U.S. cuts in aid, and the closure of the Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington, further deepened their suspicions. | null | http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20190530/news/305309913/ | 2019-05-30 15:58:00+00:00 | 1,559,246,280 | 1,567,539,774 | politics | political crisis |
127,961 | dailyheraldchicago--2019-07-05--Both sides in Sudan political crisis hail power-sharing deal | 2019-07-05T00:00:00 | dailyheraldchicago | Both sides in Sudan political crisis hail power-sharing deal | KHARTOUM, Sudan -- Leaders of Sudan's pro-democracy movement, which drove longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir from power in April, have welcomed a power-sharing agreement with the ruling military council as a victory for their "revolution." The Sudanese Professionals' Association, which has spearheaded protests calling for civilian rule, released a statement Friday saying that both parties had agreed to form a joint sovereign council to lead the country's transition. It said the council will include five civilians representing the protest movement and five military members. An eleventh seat will go to a civilian chosen by both parties. Of the agreement, the statement said: "Today, our revolution has won and our victory shines." The emerging deal could break weeks of political impasse since the military crackdown on protesters left over a hundred killed last month. | null | http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20190705/news/307059981/ | 2019-07-05 17:25:00+00:00 | 1,562,361,900 | 1,567,536,834 | politics | political crisis |
132,345 | dailymail--2019-05-03--US troops should stay out of Venezuelas violent chaotic political crisis says military expert | 2019-05-03T00:00:00 | dailymail | US troops should stay out of Venezuela's 'violent, chaotic political crisis', says military expert | US troops should stay out of Venezuela's 'violent, chaotic political crisis' as armed intervention would fail, a military expert has claimed. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis said he fears President Trump is threatening to get involved in the embattled South American country. Violence again took hold when thousands marched in protest of President Nicolas Maduro on Tuesday and Wednesday as security forces fired tear gas on them. But Caracas was reportedly in 'relative calm' as of Thursday. Mr Davis, a veteran, who served in the US Army for 21 years, wrote for Fox News: 'The last thing America should do is involve itself – especially militarily – in Venezuela's violent, chaotic political crisis and humanitarian disaster. 'Yet disturbing early signs from Washington indicate that's exactly what the Trump administration is threatening to do.' Mr Davis, who is a defense fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities, noted that more than 50 countries recognized Mr Guaido as interim president but warned of Mr Maduro's military and economic backing from Russia and Cuba. He claimed the US would fare no better than it had been in previous interventions including, Iran in 1953, South Vietnam and Cuba in 1963, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 2011. The former soldier said there was a pattern emerging throughout these conflicts. In recent days, at least four people died during protests following calls by opposition leader Juan Guaido for a military uprising. Two people were shot in La Victoria and two were hit by gunfire in the capital city of Caracas. Another 230 people have been reported injured and 205 were detained during the clashes - and Mr Guaido's call for an uprising to oust Mr Maduro has gone unheeded. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted after the uprising on Tuesday that the US 'fully supports' Mr Guaido's actions. Mr Davis said he did not know if this meant Mr Pompeo would support Mr Guaido militarily, but warned: 'Sending American troops into Venezuela would put us in dangerous territory. 'And if we take non-military actions against the Maduro regime we may be setting many Venezuelans up for tragedy.' 'Under no circumstances should President Trump listen to his more hawkish advisers and give any serious consideration to sending US military personnel to fight for one side in a Venezuelan civil war. 'It is a losing proposition with virtually no chance of a positive outcome, either for Guaidó's supporters or for the American people.' On Twitter today, he added: 'If we want to help Venezuela, we must resist urge to use force; the US military does not exist to support one foreign country's politician over another - and if we did, we'd end up killing some of the Venezuelan people we seek to help; - it's a lose-lose proposition.' Mr Maduro called on Thursday for the armed forces to oppose 'any coup plotter' after the failed military uprising by forces supporting opposition leader Juan Guaido. 'Yes, we are in combat, keep morale high in this fight to disarm any coup plotter,' Maduro said at a televised event with the military high command in which he appeared surrounded by soldiers. The military must be prepared to combat 'traitors', he added, while accusing the opposition of seeking to provoke bloodshed in Caracas as part of Guaido's bid to take power. Maduro's defiant words came as Venezuela's top court ordered the arrest of opposition figure Leopoldo Lopez today. He sought refuge in the Spanish embassy since claiming to have been freed from house arrest two days ago by rebel military personnel. Lopez, who was imprisoned in 2014 and transferred to house arrest three years later, made a sensational public appearance alongside opposition leader Guaido on Tuesday as the National Assembly president tried to incite a military uprising against Mr Maduro. Later that day Lopez sought refuge in the Chilean embassy with his wife and daughter before moving to the Spanish embassy. The Supreme Court accused Lopez, 48, of 'flagrantly' violating the terms of his house arrest. Lopez was sentenced to 14 years in prison in 2014 after he was accused of having incited violent protests against Maduro, which left 43 people dead. Initially, two people were reported to have been killed in the uprising - including a 27-year-old woman named locally as Jurubith Rausseo Garcia, who was shot in the head in Caracas on Wednesday - and more than 100 have been injured. Yoifre Hernandez, 14, was hit by gunfire during Wednesday's clashes in Caracas, while 16-year-old Yosner Graterol suffered a gunshot wound during unrest in the northern town of La Victoria on Tuesday, lawmakers and family members said. Jurubith Rausseo, 27, died on Wednesday after being hit by a 'bullet in the head,' the non-governmental Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict said on Twitter, condemning her 'murder'. Another person was killed in the northern Aragua state on Tuesday. Mr Guaido had promised a 'military uprising' against Mr Maduro starting on Tuesday, claiming he had lost the support of the armed forces, but it largely failed to materialise and instead descended into two days of street clashes. Should Mr Guaido's plot fail it will mean embarrassment for the US and its allies which had heavily backed him, and mark a victory for Russia and China which have been supporting Mr Maduro. | null | https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6988643/US-troops-stay-Venezuelas-violent-chaotic-political-crisis-says-military-expert.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490 | 2019-05-03 15:00:25+00:00 | 1,556,910,025 | 1,567,541,250 | politics | political crisis |
139,823 | democracynow--2019-11-13--A Coup? A Debate on the Political Crisis in Bolivia That Led to Evo Morales's Resignation | 2019-11-13T00:00:00 | democracynow | A Coup? A Debate on the Political Crisis in Bolivia That Led to Evo Morales's Resignation | This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to the deepening political crisis in Bolivia. On Sunday, Bolivian President Evo Morales resigned in what he described as a coup, shortly after the Bolivian military took to the airwaves to call for his departure. On Tuesday, Morales flew to Mexico, where he has received asylum. On Tuesday night, right-wing Senator Jeanine Áñez declared herself Bolivia’s new president despite a lack of a quorum in the Congress to approve her ascension to that post. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Jeanine Áñez held a Bible when announcing her claim to the presidency, declaring, “The Bible returns to the presidential palace.” Evo Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism party is refusing to recognize the new president, calling her claim illegal and decrying Morales’s resignation as a military coup. AMY GOODMAN: Last month, President Morales was re-elected for a fourth term in a race his opponents claim was marred by fraud. He ran for a fourth term after contesting a referendum upholding term limits. Morales stepped down soon after accepting the Organization of American States’ call for new elections. On Tuesday, Morales spoke in Mexico. AMY GOODMAN: Morales’s departure has sparked demonstrations and clashes across Bolivia. In La Paz Tuesday, his supporters took to the streets. AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we host a debate on the political crisis in Bolivia. In La Paz, we’re joined via Democracy Now! vidoe stream by Pablo Solón, former ambassador to the United Nations under President Evo Morales until 2011. He’s former chief negotiator on climate change for Bolivia. And in Amherst, Massachusetts, we’re joined by Kevin Young, assistant professor of history at University of Massachusetts Amherst. He’s the author of Blood of the Earth: Resource Nationalism, Revolution, and Empire in Bolivia. Young is also the editor of Making the Revolution: Histories of the Latin American Left. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin in Bolivia with Pablo Solón. Do you describe what happened as a coup? PABLO SOLÓN: I think it’s very complicated to say it’s a coup, because I think there was a popular rebellion, because this issue started in 2016, when Evo Morales didn’t recognize the result of a referendum that said that he couldn’t run for a new re-election. If he would have respected that referendum, he would have finished his third term as probably the best president in Bolivia. But he didn’t do that. He forced that the Constitutional Tribunal did a statement saying that it was a human right to run for new elections. And then we have the elections of the 20th of October, where there was definitely fraud. We have so many evidences here, so many reports from different institutions, not only OAS saying it, that, of course, the population went to the streets. It was massive, and it has lasted for 20 days. So, to say this is a coup d’état planned by the White House, the right-wing forces, fascist forces, I think it’s to make a caricature of what is really happening. Now, who’s going to take advantage of the situation are going to be right-wing forces, is going to be the imperialists of North America. But who created this crisis, I think, was this addiction to power that Evo Morales and his party began to have during the last years. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to ask Kevin Young to deal with the same issue of whether this was a coup or not, and also to deal with the reality that the majority in the Congress is still of the — is the political party of Evo Morales. So, to what degree can whoever becomes president be able to move forward with a political agenda, given the enormous strength still of the Evo Morales forces in the country? KEVIN YOUNG: A coup has a simple and straightforward definition. It’s the unconstitutional removal of a sitting president before that president’s term in office is up. And in the case of Bolivia, Evo Morales is the elected president. His term isn’t due up until January 21st of 2020. And in this case, on Sunday, you had the lead commander of the Bolivian Armed Forces directly intervening and ordering Evo out of office. So that’s a coup. And I think that’s pretty straightforward. That shouldn’t be controversial. What makes this coup particularly dangerous is that it is being supported by the most racist and reactionary elements in Bolivian society, as well as by the United States. Now, all of that being said, the overall political situation in Bolivia is complex. All of the opposition is not the same. The opposition is not monolithic. There are opposition protesters who are much more progressive. Many indigenous groups, working-class Bolivians have become very disillusioned with Evo’s government and have turned against it. So, those voices are important to recognize. We shouldn’t be painting the entire opposition with the same brush or insinuating that it’s all some conspiracy by the United States. But at the same time, it is important to recognize, as well, that almost half of the Bolivian population voted for Evo Morales on October 20th. And whether you think that’s 47%, as the government said, or maybe it’s only 46 or 45%, the fact remains that almost half of Bolivians still supported Evo on October 20th. And those voices also need to be counted and recognized. They may have criticisms of the government — many of them do, and I know some of them — but they’re not supporting the coup, because they fear that a right-wing government is really going to roll back some of the progressive gains that have been made in the last 13 years. And in an immediate sense, they’re fearful of right-wing violence in the streets, which is happening and which is targeting particularly indigenous Bolivians. Now, what’s going to happen with the Congress? Because despite the fact that many MAS legislators and officials have resigned, sometimes under threat of violence from the right, it is still true that a majority of the Congress is controlled by the MAS party. They have signaled — they have said that they are interested in finding a constitutional resolution to the crisis. Now, what exactly that’s going to look like is still very unclear. It’s not clear what new elections are going to look like or under what conditions they’re going to be held. The MAS party is somewhat in disarray the last several days. So, we really don’t know what’s going to happen at this point. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Pablo Solón, I wanted to ask you about this issue of — Evo Morales had agreed, as a result of the protests in the streets and the recommendation of the Organization of American States, to hold new elections. So, shouldn’t the opposition have at least waited until his term was up, until new elections were held, before attempting to remove him completely? And also, the issue of the military. The military, on the one hand, said they were not going to intercede when the police officers began rebelling against the government, but then has interceded to join the police in now attempting to quell protests of Morales supporters. PABLO SOLÓN: OK. So, the first thing, Evo Morales called to new elections — well, he said he was going to call to new elections. And he said he was going to change the Electoral Court, which meant that he agreed that the Electoral Court was involved in some case of fraud in the elections of the 20th of October, because, I mean, Evo Morales didn’t say, “I call with elections, and I respect this Electoral Court.” No, “I will change it,” because the evidence were too big. There was fraud. And, of course, you had, in the population — not the right-wing forces — the population said, “Watch out. Your saying that, new elections with a new Electoral Court, means that there was fraud.” And fraud is something that you cannot accept. It’s a crime. So, you cannot say, “OK, well, you know, there was fraud. Now I’m going to call for a new elections. Nothing happened in Bolivia. Now I guarantee you that everything is going to be OK.” It’s impossible. And what happened then? Did the military do a coup and went out to the streets that day and force Evo Morales? No, they said, “We are not going to go out to the streets. The situation is terrible. People don’t accept new elections after you are recognizing that there was fraud.” That is what they said. “And we suggest that you resign.” And they didn’t went out to the streets. And Evo Morales, why did he resign? My point of view is he resigned because he was not able to sustain this idea that the elections of the 20th of October were clean. And if they weren’t clean, he was involved, because you cannot do that fraud without the involvement of the government. So, he resigned, and he went to El Chapare, because he thought that his resignation was going to create an uprise, because it’s true, what the other person says, he has the support of more than 40% of the population. And he was suspecting that there would be an uprise, and then his sector would mobilize. But then what happened? There was that mobilization, but that mobilization was a mix of supporters of MAS but also of vandalic groups that began to assault, burn. There were more than 70 buses of the public service system here in La Paz that were burned, drugstores. And it was the night — the night of Sunday and Monday was terror in many cities. And the police, the police stations began to be attacked by this combination of MAS — of supporters of the political party of the government, what’s called MAS, and this vandalic group. So, the police was not able to stop this. Neighborhoods began to organize to defend themselves, not only in rich areas, but also in poor areas. At that moment, the police said, “We need to have the support of the military to stop this, this violence, these vandalic groups.” And you had the military coming out. I’m not in favor of that, but those are the facts. And then you had the military coming to the streets. And you have seen they have intervened, and in places where there are vandalic groups, huge violence. But, for example, yesterday, you had the big mass demonstration from El Alto. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Can we bring in Kevin Young? Your response to the description of Pablo Solón of what’s been going on? KEVIN YOUNG: Sure. So, I do want to briefly address the question of the October 20th elections. There is this widespread narrative that’s been uncritically embraced in the media in the United States that there was a fraud in the October 20th elections. And that’s largely based on the preliminary audit of the Organization of American States, which was released this past weekend, which does contain allegations of widespread irregularities. On the other hand, we have the authoritative report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which last week released a detailed study of the October 20th election and found that there was no evidence of fraud, or at least if there were irregularities, there was no evidence that they were decisive in determining the outcome. Now, is it possible that there were irregularities? Absolutely. I’m not denying that. But as you said, Juan, on November 10th, earlier in the day, Evo Morales actually offered to hold new elections, as a major concession to the protesters. He even offered to replace the entire electoral monitoring body. And I don’t see that — I disagree with Pablo here. I don’t see that as necessarily an admission of fraud. I see it more as a concession that was intended to keep the peace. But the fact is that the opposition, most of them, didn’t want new elections because they doubted that they could beat Evo at the ballot boxes. They wanted a coup. And that’s exactly when the military steps in and orders Evo to leave. Now, I agree with Pablo that the situation on the streets is extremely concerning. There is violence being committed, not only by the right, but also by many MAS supporters who are, justly, terrified of what’s going to happen. So, the situation is complex. It shouldn’t be reduced to simple good versus bad, or left versus right. But that doesn’t change the fact that this was a coup. It’s a complex situation, and it’s a coup with some popular support, but it’s still a coup. AMY GOODMAN: Pablo Solón, are you concerned about, you know, the woman who has just declared herself president saying she’s bringing the Bible back into government; opposition protesters kidnapping Mayor Patricia Arce, the mayor loyal to Morales, forcibly cutting her hair, dousing her with red paint, parading her through the streets? And then you have, for example, Luis Fernando Camacho, who is the far-right multimillionaire, who arose, many say, out of fascist movements in Bolivia, saying, “Pachamama will never return to the palace. Bolivia belongs to Christ.” PABLO SOLÓN: Well, first, let me answer. You are not right. Before the OAS, we had here in Bolivia reports. We were able to see different reports from the voting places where they were — where they changed signatures. They changed figures, numbers. PABLO SOLÓN: OAS didn’t created this because of them. They had to see the evidence that we have here. And you have other reports before the OAS report. Second thing, when you — PABLO SOLÓN: One of the — excuse me. I mean, because you say it is a coup. A coup means the military went out to the streets. Why did Evo Morales, when Evo Morales resigned, said this is a coup from the police and the civil? He didn’t want to mention the military. Now, going to your question — AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to go to that question in Part 2 of this discussion. AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank Pablo Solón, former ambassador to the U.N. under President Evo Morales until 2011, and Kevin Young, professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. | [email protected] (Democracy Now!) | http://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/13/bolivia_evo_morales_coup_debate | Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:41:19 -0500 | 1,573,652,479 | 1,573,693,092 | politics | political crisis |
160,928 | eveningstandard--2019-01-23--Danny Dyeraposs latest view on the state of UK political crisis aposTheyaposve got to put off | 2019-01-23T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Danny Dyer's latest view on the state of UK political crisis: 'They've got to put off Brexit' | Danny Dyer has waded into the Brexit debate again saying “they’ve got to put it off again.” The actor also lashed out at David Cameron again, adding “the man who called this on and left us a day later should be held account for it. Where is he?” It’s not the first time the actor has hit out at the former prime minister. His expletive laden speech on the one-off programme Good Evening Britain went viral on social media after he labelled Mr Cameron a “t***.” Speaking at the National Television Awards, Mr Dyer said: “We still don’t understand what on earth Brexit means. “I think they’ve got to put it off again. I don’t know. It’s either we just leave with ‘no deal’ which is what I think a lot of people voted for because we were told it would be alright. So it’s like ok we’re going to leave, we’re just going to leave everything, we’ll pay them a bit of money and we’re going to own everything, our sovereign and all this sort of stuff. “It’s clearly not the case. So why have you put this vote in front of us? When we’ve got a government that just can’t really deal with it. That were never really up for it. “So it’s just astonishing that these people have let us down as much as they have really.” The actor was praised on social media after his previous appearance on Good Evening Britain in which he accused Mr Cameron of scuttling off. One fan tweeted: “I’d vote for Danny Dyer #MrDDyer for PM after his inspirational political analysis on #GoodEveningBritain #GEB.” Another wrote: “Danny Dyer has said exactly what the rest of us have been thinking Theresa May just hand it over to Dyer here. We’ll actually get somewhere #DannyDyer.” | Sophie Williams | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/theyve-got-to-put-off-brexit-danny-dyers-latest-view-on-the-state-of-uk-political-crisis-a4046341.html | 2019-01-23 13:17:00+00:00 | 1,548,267,420 | 1,567,551,164 | politics | political crisis |
192,485 | eveningstandard--2019-12-12--A Kind of People review: Knotty state-of-the-nation drama helps to understand our political crisis | 2019-12-12T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | A Kind of People review: Knotty state-of-the-nation drama helps to understand our political crisis | By providing a knotty state-of-the-nation drama the night before our festive general election, the Royal Court has done the equivalent of leaving out a plate of mince pies on Christmas Eve. Not quite so appetising, though: Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti offers a damning indictment of fragmented communities in a society coursing with barely-concealed racism. In Michael Buffong’s production, Gary and Nicky’s (Richie Campbell and Claire-Louise Cordwell) council flat is a second home to a diverse, makeshift community, where friends come and go so often they have their own keys. Here, Anjum (Manjinder Virk) explains why she decided to wear a hjiab, her husband Mo (Asif Khan) dances unself-consciously in the kitchen, Gary’s sister Karen (Petra Letang) helps herself to prosecco and Mark (Thomas Coombes), nursing some strong Andrew Lincoln in Love Actually vibes (topical), is just there all the time. Cracks emerge when Gary and Mark’s lonely – and pretty racist – manager, Victoria (Amy Morgan), joins them one night. She can’t handle her drink, nor a bit of self-analysis about the way she treats black people; it opens an uncomfortable can of worms. Bhatti’s writing is often very witty – at one point last night, Letang (the standout in a sharp ensemble) had to stop because her lines couldn’t be heard above the audience’s laughter. But when it drills into deeper issues, it can feel like a set of mouthpieces parroting political points at each other. In these politically volatile times, it might feel a bit masochistic to watch a play about how broken things are. But Bhatti makes perceptive points that politicians putting themselves forward today should listen to: patronising the working class by telling them what they’re doing wrong is probably how we ended up in a political crisis in the first place. Click here to buy London theatre tickets with GO London Tickets | Jessie Thompson | https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london/theatre/a-kind-of-people-review-royal-court-theatre-gurpreet-kaur-bhatti-a4311761.html | Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:45:00 GMT | 1,576,165,500 | 1,576,154,014 | politics | political crisis |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.