Economic, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

Bilateral relations between America and Russia…

RUSSIA ISN’T WHAT IT ONCE WAS

At the pinnacle of the Cold War, leaders from both Russia and America would meet on fairly equal terms to bargain over the fate of the world. If either titan refused to meet the other, that generally signalled a cast chill over humanity.

Yet, the idea that Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin remain genuine peers today is a delusion and remnant left over from the era of superpower confrontation. For all the bombastic rhetoric emanating from the Kremlin, the inescapable reality is that America possesses a widening advantage over Russia on every possible measure of national power: from economic strength to its military might.

The decision by Mr Obama to cancel a proposed summit with Mr Putin in Moscow next month, ostensibly because of the furore surrounding Russia’s decision to grant the US fugitive and whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum status, was both inevitable and eminently sensible. Washington’s justified response to the posturing of a weaker rival was credible because Mr Snowden offered himself as a convenient antagonist to needle the United States.

The White House, of course, has not escaped criticism from some quarters at home. Some are asking why, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union managed to hold summits even during the depths of the Cold War – when the divide separating the rival superpowers was even greater – why President Obama, who has regularly stood by his faith and doctrine in resetting relations with Russia, could not have gone through with the September Summit?

Any historical comparison, though, is false; the Cold War ended almost 22-years ago, and America has always been perceived as the silent victor. But as Mr Obama has rightly pointed out, the Kremlin acts as if it continues, almost reflexively, to take the opposite point of view to Washington on every conceivable problem of the moment. Putin’s nationalistic approach to a domestic audience may play well at home with some, but one may wonder whether the Russian President has even noticed how much the world has changed since the demise of the Soviet Union in December 1991 when the red flag with the hammer and sickle was hauled down for the last time from the Kremlin towers.

No one should doubt that the global balance of power is turning against the West, but Russia cannot be classified as being among the world’s rising powers. For one, the country’s population is in remorseless decline. Poor health, alcoholism and emigration are steadily reducing the number of Russian citizens. The UN has forecast that by 2050 the country will have lost some 36 million people, reducing its overall population to 107 million – Uganda, a country whose territory is less than 2 per cent the size of Russia, has a population not much above 103 million.

Compare and contrast America, with a populace of more than 300 million people – or even Britain, which now has the fastest growing population in Europe. The UK adds about 400,000 people every year, which is close to the annual rate at which Russians are dying off. While some Britons remain uneasy over the scale of immigration on these islands, it is true that fewer people make a weaker economy.

And another reason for Russia’s long-term decline is due to its actual economic health. Today, the American economy remains eight times bigger than Russia’s. Remarkably, too, is that Russia’s gross domestic product is still 30 per cent smaller than Britain’s. Its economic strength has been artificially inflated by high oil prices and the vast energy reserves it has at its disposal. Despite that, Russia’s customers are increasingly turning to shale gas from fracking, and future oil prices will become an uncertain indicator for economic health.

Whilst it is true that Russia can act as an obstructionist on a range of international issues (Syria being one such example) one should seek to understand whether Mr Putin is deliberately irritating the U.S. rather than being a competitive rival to the West.

Today, military might and the size of a country’s nuclear arsenal count far less than its economic prowess, its entrepreneurialism, competitiveness and how central it is to the global trading system. With neither the EU nor China having the desire to send fleets and armies to the opposite ends of the earth, the United States remains the autonomnous military superpower having achieved that position largely by default. Despite Mr Putin’s bluster, Russia no longer has the capacity it once had in challenging America as a superpower.

Economically, Russia is a mid-sized power, with a GDP that is barely a 10th of that of the US. Russia is often quoted for its corruption, its scant respect for the rule of law and its continued dependence on raw materials, particularly oil and gas.

Had September’s summit gone ahead, Mr Obama would have been on a hiding to nothing as Vladimir Putin’s obstructionist style would have seen to that. Such summits are not spontaneous, one-off occasions, but are carefully choreographed and prepared; usually communiqués are worked out well in advance. Presently, however, apart from the evident dislike between the two men, the differences appear unbridgeable – on Syria’s continuing bloody civil war, missile defence and Mr Putin’s internal repression, to name but a few of the issues. Moscow’s granting of asylum status to Edward Snowden would have been the last straw. Had Mr Obama attended the summit in Moscow and returned empty-handed, as was all but certain, he would have been pilloried at home by Republicans as being weak and over-trusting.

With bilateral relations as low as they are, it isn’t inconceivable to say they will remain that way so long as Mr Putin is on the world stage.

Standard
Banking, Britain, Business, Economic, Finance, Financial Markets, Government, Society

Bank of England Governor turns fire on bankers…

BANK REFORM

The bank governor is determined to prevent a Japan-style economic crisis in the UK.

The new Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has launched a stinging attack on ‘socially useless’ bankers and has called for a ‘change of culture’ in the industry.

The former Golden-Sachs executive, who succeeded Lord King as governor of the Bank of England last month, hit out at self-obsessed bankers who are, he says, detached from reality.

The Canadian has also defended the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a move that looks set to see rates remaining at 0.5 per cent for at least another three years.

Mr Carney expressed ‘tremendous sympathy’ for savers who have ‘done the right thing’ but insisted drastic action was needed to ‘secure the recovery’ and prevent a Japanese-style economic crisis in Britain.

This followed his announcement last week that the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) will not raise rates from o.5 per cent until unemployment falls to 7 per cent or lower. Unemployment is currently running at 7.8 per cent and is not expected to reach the new threshold until the end of 2016.

Turning his fire on the banking industry, Mr Carney said:

… There has to be a change in the culture of these institutions.

He said that ‘finance can absolutely play a socially useful and economically useful function’, but added it must focus on ‘the real economy’. The Bank governor said banking is ‘socially useless’ when it becomes ‘disconnected’ from the economy and society and ‘only talks to itself’.

Mr Carney, who is also chairman of global banking watchdog the Financial Stability Board, added:

… A lot of what we are doing internationally is to strip out this type of behaviour.

The Canadian said the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a tactic known as ‘forward guidance’ by central banks – would boost the economy by ‘more than half a percentage point of GDP’ over the next three years.

Amid a fierce backlash from savers he insisted low rates were required to ensure the economy finally recovers from the biggest boom and bust in history.

‘The best way to get interest rates back to normal levels is to have a strong economy,’ he said. ‘We’re in the very early stages of a recovery from the weakest period on record.’

He said Japan made two mistakes after its recession in the early 1990s – failing to fix the banking system and pulling back from measures to stimulate the economy too quickly.

… As a consequence, almost a quarter of a century later, interest rates are still at rock bottom levels in Japan… We don’t want to make those mistakes here in the UK.

COMMENT

Mark Carney’s predecessor, Lord King, started a hard line on the need for banks to reform their cultural practices, by being useful contributors to society and by insisting that they strengthen their balance sheets so they no longer expose the taxpayer to excessive risk.

In some recesses of the banking sector, the appetite for running their operations on wafer-thin levels of capital remained undiminished by the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen.

Some in the City of London had hoped that Mr Carney would administer a snub to King by letting off bankers more lightly.

Given the governor’s role as chairman of the Financial Stability Board, and his personal championing of higher leverage ratios whilst at the Bank of Canada, that always seemed improbable – and so, thankfully, it has proved.

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has defended the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a move that looks set to see rates remaining at 0.5 per cent for at least another three years.

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has defended the decision to peg interest rates to unemployment – a move that looks set to see rates remaining at 0.5 per cent for at least another three years.

In his first public pronouncement on the subject Mr Carney made it crystal clear that he, no less than King, wants the banks to start serving the real economy instead of just themselves. He made a point of praising King’s work in improving bank balance sheets and of name-checking Andrew Bailey, who heads the Prudential Regulation Authority, the body that controversially forced Barclays and Nationwide to raise more capital.

The governor’s backing for the moves to make these two financial institutions formulate credible plans to increase their base capitals can longer be in question.

The great myth put about by the banking lobby is that higher levels of capital automatically constrain their ability to lend to households and firms and so hold back growth at a time when the economy is weak.

Whilst this seems to be a notion that has been swallowed wholesale by some in the Treasury and the Department of Business, it is not true.

Banks can improve their capital position by retaining earnings, scaling down bonuses and cutting back on other types of less socially useful business.

The new rules will, over the long-term, increase lending to the real economy, not harm it, and will give us safer and more secure banks, which can only be good for stability and growth.

Undoubtedly, there are plenty of questions over Mr Carney’s big idea of forward guidance, from the impact it will have on savers and on pensions, the risks to inflation and the distinct absence of a clear message due to the get-out clauses.

But on bank reform and conditions for capital holdings, Mr Carney should be applauded.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government, Society

Zero-hours employment contracts should be reformed, not outlawed…

ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS

In 2008 there were around 100,000 people employed on ‘zero-hours’ contracts offering them no guarantee of day-to-day work. That number has steadily risen since. In the last few days the Office for National Statistics upped its previous estimate by a quarter to 250,000. Other sources have quoted the figure nearer to one million, which equates to more than 3 per cent of the labour market.  Such employer tactics are not just restricted to sectors with sharply fluctuating demand such hospitality; the NHS, Amazon and large retail outlets such as sportsdirect.com also use them.

Employers benefit from arrangements under which they have a contingent workforce on call but must pay only when it is active. Some employees will appreciate the flexibility too, earning at times sums of money that may help them in their work-life balance, particularly as zero-hour contracts fluctuate with the seasons. More importantly still, in times of economic and financial uncertainty, when companies might otherwise not be hiring, it is better to have unpredictable and unsociable hours than no job at all. For small firms, in particular, such adaptability by having a flexible workforce will be a crucial factor for survival.

The problem, though, is that too often zero-hours contracts are a licence for employer exploitation. Commonly registered complaints include employees being required to be permanently available, despite there being no certainty of work. Many staff are also displeased with no entitlement to standard benefits such as maternity pay, sick pay or pension contributions. Holiday pay is another contentious area, although some firms offer discretionary holiday payments for some staff employed on zero-hours.

There is also an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of individual departmental managers, who may allocate hours or withdraw them according to personal preference. In theory, at least, workers may turn down work, but most assume – probably rightly – that such a refusal would mean no further offers, with little or no hope of redress.

As estimates of the working-based concept inexorably rise, there have been calls for zero-hours contracts to be banned. The Business Secretary, Vince Cable MP – who is reviewing the situation – is resisting such moves. He is right to do so. The issue is not so much the contracts themselves, but more as to how and why they are used.

Consider a case in point: social care. Social care has long been disproportionately reliant on zero-hours contract arrangements because government funding is way too low to pay anything but meagre wages. As the population ages, and more people are expected to live longer into retirement, the situation will only worsen. By banning them, is to allow the specifics of one, very particular sector to skew a policy affecting all.

There are things, however, that should be done. The first priority for the Business Secretary will be to establish the true scale of the issue, and there is a strong case for reform. For instance, staff required to be always ‘on call’ should be compensated given the inconvenience involved. Basic employee rights should also be enforced. It might also be argued that businesses above a certain size, such as 50 employees, should be required by law to provide a minimum number of hours. For larger companies, what excuse do they have for passing on risks they can well afford?

It should come as no surprise that the number of zero-hours contracts has risen significantly since the recession of 2008. Economic stagnation has forced many firms to cut their workforces, but have required a degree of flexibility in the knowledge that expansion and growth would return. But as the outlook improves, it is essential that staff are given more typical terms. If the current spike in zero hours terms is no cyclical occurrence but, instead, is an emergence of a new and insecure, low-paid workforce, then the price of flexibility being asked of people will be too high.

Standard