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
Arts, History, Philosophy, Science, Society

Quantum Leaps: ‘Galileo Galilei’…

1564-1642

In both his life and through the imprisonment which he was forced to endure in the years leading up to his death, Galileo more than any other figure personified the optimism and struggle of the scientific revolution. He was responsible for a series of discoveries which would change our understanding of the world, while struggling against a society dominated by religious dogma, bent on suppressing his radical ideas.

Galileo Galilei, was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution.

Galileo Galilei, was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution.

…A Mathematician

Although he was initially encouraged to study medicine, Galileo’s passion was mathematics, and it was his belief in this subject which underpinned all of his work. One of his most significant contributions was not least his application of mathematics to the science of mechanics, forging the modern approach to experimental and mathematical physics. He would take a problem, break it down into a series of simple parts, experiment on those parts, and then analyse the results until he could describe them in a series of mathematical expressions.

One of the areas in which Galileo had most success with this method was in explaining the rules of motion. In particular, the Italian rejected many of the Aristotelian explanations of physics which had largely endured to his day. One example was Aristotle’s view that heavy objects fall towards earth faster than light ones. Through repeated experiments rolling different weighted balls down a slope (and, legend has it, dropping them from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa!), he found that they actually fell at the same rate. This led to his uniform theory of acceleration for falling bodies, which contended that in a vacuum all objects would accelerate at exactly the same rate towards earth, later proved to be true. Galileo also contradicted Aristotle in another area of motion  by contending that a thrown stone had two forces acting upon it at the same time; one which we now know as ‘momentum’ pushing it horizontally, and another pushing downwards upon it, which we now know as ‘gravity’. Galileo’s work in these areas would prove vital to Isaac Newton’s later discoveries.

…The Pendulum

Galileo’s earliest work involved the study of the pendulum, inspired by observing a lamp swinging in Pisa cathedral. Following further experiments, he concluded that a pendulum would take the same time to swing back and forth regardless of the amplitude of the swing. This would prove vital in the development of the pendulum clock, which Galileo designed and was constructed after his death by his son.

…Through The Telescope

One of the inventions Galileo is often mistakenly credited with today is the invention of the telescope. This is not true; there had been numerous early prototypes that had been mostly developed in Holland before him, and a Dutch optician called Hans Lippershey applied for a patent on his version in 1608. Galileo did, however, develop his own far superior astronomical telescope from just a description of Lippershey’s invention, and quickly employed it to make numerous discoveries. A strong advocate of the Copernican view of planetary motion, Galileo’s initial findings published in the Sidereal Messenger (1610) provided the first real physical evidence to back up this interpretation. As well as discovering craters and mountains in the moon, sunspots and the lunar phases of Venus for the first time, he also noted faint, distant stars which supported the Copernican view of a much larger universe than Ptolemy had ever considered. More importantly, he discovered Jupiter had four moons which rotated around it, directly contradicting the still commonly held view, including that of the Church, that all celestial bodies orbited earth, ‘the centre of the universe.’

…Galileo and Copernicus

Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican, in which the Ptolemaic view was ridiculed, attracted the attention of the Catholic Inquisition when it was published in 1632. Threatened with torture, Galileo renounced the Copernican System. His work was placed on the banned ‘Index’ by the Church where it remained until 1835, and he was subject to house arrest for life. But the tide of scientific revolution Galileo had helped instigate proved too powerful to hold back.

After being forced to renounce his heliocentric view of the Earth, Galileo said:

… Nevertheless, it turns!

Standard