Connect with us
Economy Building Economy Building

Economy

From “Information” Society to “Self-Sufficient’ Society

Avatar photo

Published

on

We have not seen the World War III yet but after this pandemic, it is not difficult to make reliable projections about what would happen after that. Despite the huge amount of experiences of the world civilizations we simply went back to the social rules of the hunting and gathering societies. We literally became hoarders. Now we need to find a way to reach our “civilization” level just 3 months ago. We need to fast-forward a couple of thousands of years and get back to the end of 2019 in a couple of months.

Societies all around the world have structured ways of regulating and managing social life which are called social institutions, like the education system, health care system, economic system, etc. All of these social institutions are a result of previous experiences and future projections. They are not fixed and they constantly change based on new realities. COVID-19 is now our current reality. Our definition of “normal” will change indefinitely. Nothing will get back to “normal” as we used to know it. Just like the politicians, we all know that if the current stage of “curfew” continues for couple of months the whole social and economic system will eventually collapse. That is the reason why we see the urge to re-open businesses despite the high probability of tsunami-like waves of spread. Now we are trying to find a way to keep the “people” and the “economy” alive at the same time, but unfortunately “keeping the economy alive” looks like winning the war. A new study suggests that relaxing business closures and stay-at-home rules could cost 13,000 lives in Texas and 12,000 lives in Georgia by September 1. But it will also preserve $3.4 billion in statewide income in Texas, and $1.7 billion in Georgia. New York’s tougher restrictions will save 5,000 lives, but cost $2.4 billion in lost income.

The economy has been the driving force of our modern capitalist system. We defined ourselves by our wealth. We looked for easy ways to increase our wealth and climb the social class ladder as quickly as possible. We have been so obsessed with the idea of making a huge amount of money without breaking a sweat. We always fell for the get-rich-quick schemes like our modern inventions of stock markets, lottery, and other “financial” investment tools. Lots of people got really rich with these tools at the expense of the others who lost a lot. You can also think about these schemes at societal level as the exploitation and the colonization of other societies, which are the manifestations of imperialism.

We created this ideal of living in a bigger house and riding an expensive car which resulted in the habit of spending more and more. Even though we strive for this huge amount of products, we assigned the production duty to the “cheap” third world countries like China and Mexico. Instead of producing real/tangible products we focused on the “service” sector, because this is what the economic rules have been telling us; maximize your profits with minimum investment. They mass produced and we mass consumed. The idea of spending constantly as a “consumer” and even buying unnecessary things because they were “cheap” drove us into this “ideal consumer” who forgot to save for hard times.

When you combine the driving economic force of get-rich-quick capitalist system with the “ideal” consumer personality you would produce individuals who would not invest in the industrial production sector. We have forgotten that the production sector, not the service sector would create real, tangible goods. Without those goods our economic system thus our society would become extremely fragile especially when things do not go as planned; see COVID-19!!! It is now clear that the current means of production will not take us to a better stage. Too much reliance and dependence on other countries to provide essential parts of the supply chain brought us to this point.

To get a clear picture of what our economic backbone looks like, let’s look at the Fortune’s list of 10 largest businesses in the US in 2019. There are no “real” production businesses on this list. You can also understand why we are paying a ridiculous amount of monies for health coverages. We just see lists of business moguls with an unprecedented amount of wealth. We are the richest country in the “free” world with one of the worst wealth distribution system. On one hand you can see the extreme accumulation of wealth and on the other hand there are literally millions of people struggling to pay their bills and mortgages amid pandemic. You can’t simply explain the failure of these millions of people from a Weberian Protestant Ethics perspective. This mass misery is not a sign of predestination, this is exactly a system failure.

RankCompany NameSectorIndustry
1WalmartRetailingGeneral Merchandisers
2Exxon MobilEnergyPetroleum Refining
3AppleTechnologyComputers, Office Equipment
4Berkshire HathawayFinancialsInsurance: Property and Casualty (Stock)
5Amazon.comRetailingInternet Services and Retailing
6UnitedHealth GroupHealth CareHealth Care: Insurance and Managed Care
7McKessonHealth CareWholesalers: Health Care
8CVS HealthHealth CareHealth Care: Pharmacy and Other Services
9AT&TTelecommunicationsTelecommunications
10AmerisourceBergenHealth CareWholesalers: Health Care

Source: https://fortune.com/fortune500/, 05.07.2020

Even China, which can be called as the “world’s production capital”, has the same non-productive entities at the top of their wealthiest list. They are even worse than the U.S. Five of their top 10 entities, which are among the top 50 in Fortune’s Global 500 list, are just state-owned financial institutions. I believe this also explains how China easily buys “assets” all around the world. There isn’t even a single “technology” company in this list. I can’t categorize China as a “free” society and obviously their wealth distribution system is worse than ours – if there is any.

RankCompany NameSectorIndustry
1Sinopec GroupEnergyPetroleum Refining
2China National PetroleumEnergyPetroleum Refining
3State GridEnergyUtilities
4China State Construction EngineeringEngineering & ConstructionEngineering, Construction
5Industrial & Commercial Bank of ChinaBanksBanks: Commercial and Savings
6Ping An InsuranceFinancialsInsurance: Life, Health (stock)
7China Construction BankBanksBanks: Commercial and Savings
8Agricultural Bank of ChinaFinancialsBanks: Commercial and Savings
9SAIC MotorMotor Vehicles & PartsMotor Vehicles & Parts
10Bank of ChinaFinancialsBanks: Commercial and Savings

Source: https://fortune.com/global500/, 05.07.2020

It has generally been accepted that the new information society is based on services rather than industrial production. At the very early times of modern internet which started to link global commercial networks and enterprises during the 1990s, Castells predicted a future society that he labeled as network society or information age. In his very influential trilogy of books, he speculated that by the development of information technology and rising dependency on networks, the time of traditional industrial society was fading away and a new type of economy was emerging. In this new type of economy, which he labeled as “informational economy”, he argued the competitiveness of individuals, companies, and even nations will be dependent on technology, networks, and information rather than the level and power of tangible productivity and manufacturing economy.  

I see the information sector as our newest get-quick-rich scheme where there is no real/tangible industrial production. Even as the richest country in the world with the most advanced technologies,we will not be able to survive under these economic conditions for very long.Supposedly “producing” this many things and still suffering from lack of vital goods?!?!?! There is something fundamentally wrong in this equation and it is the lack of producing real/tangible products.

Societies have institutions to meet their needs and governments are the most organized entities that are responsible for every other institution in the society, hence it is the government’s responsibility to regulate the new social order in the post-information society. If we are not a self-sufficient society, then we are not economically independent. The coming society should eventually be a self-sufficient society which would be a hybrid of production (industrial) and information societies with different regulations and taxation systems. We now understand that, in terms of economic rules, one size does not fit all and the governments now need to focus on more equity instead of equality.

The government should work on a new tax reform which will enable different taxing regimes for different sectors. An industrial production company should not be subject to the same tax regime with a service-based company. The information society will collapse if the COVID-19 threat continues for another year. Italy, which is one of the G7 member states, is now on the brink of financial collapse.Italy’s credit rating downgraded to just one step above “junk” by Fitch. This is not a joke and even the most powerful nations are being hit so hard by the ongoing pandemic. Finally, think about all of the financial institutions that are “keeping” your life savings, like the retirement plans and the insurances. It would be a devastating collapse if things do not get back to “normal” soon.

Ismail Dincer Gunes, Ph.D. Faculty Member at Sul Ross State University in USA Dr. Gunes is an expert in Criminal Justice with over 14 years of experience at the Turkish National Police Force from 1996 to 2010. He got his Master’s degree in Criminal Justice in 2001 and his Ph.D. in Sociology in 2008 both at University of North Texas. He got his Associate Professorship in Sociology in 2011. Dr. Gunes has numerous publications and presentations in Sociology, Criminal Justice, and other related fields. Currently he is serving as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Homeland Security & Criminal Justice and Training Coordinator of H. Joaquin Jackson Law Enforcement Academy both at Sul Ross State University.

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Free-Market Capitalism and Climate Crisis

Avatar photo

Published

on

st

Free market capitalism is an economic system that has brought about tremendous economic growth and prosperity in many countries around the world. However, it has also spawned a number of problems, one of which is the climate crisis. The climate crisis is a global problem caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. These externalities are chiefly a consequence of day to day human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and conventional agriculture. The climate crisis is leading to rise in temperatures, sea levels, and more erratic weather patterns-The floods in Pakistan and depleting cedars of Lebanon are vivid instances for these phenomena, which are having a devastating impact on the planet.

One of the main reasons that free market capitalism has contributed to the climate crisis is that it prioritizes short-term economic growth over long-term environmental sustainability. Under capitalism, companies are primarily motivated by profit and are not required to internalize the costs of their pollution. This means that they are able to pollute without having to pay for the damage that they are causing. Additionally, the capitalist system is based on the idea of unlimited growth, which is not sustainable in the long-term. As long as there is an infinite demand for goods and services, companies will continue to produce them, leading to ever-increasing levels of pollution and resource depletion.

Another pressing issue that free market capitalism is recently going through is that it does not take into account the externalities of economic activities. Externalities are the unintended consequences of economic activities, such as pollution and climate change. Under capitalism, companies are not required to pay for the externalities of their activities, which means that they are able to continue polluting without having to pay for the damage that they are causing. In her book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs Climate” Naomi Klein argues that the current system of capitalism is inherently incompatible with the urgent action needed to address the Climate crisis.

To address the climate crisis, it is necessary to put checks and balances over the free market capitalism and/or make a way towards a more sustainable economic system. This can be done through a number of different effective policies, such as:

Carbon pricing: This can be done through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, which would make companies pay for the carbon emissions that they are producing. In the article “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” authors suggest that revenue-neutral carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to reduce the carbon emissions.

Increasing renewable energy investments: an increment in the investments in clean energy technologies, such as solar and wind power, can result in the reduction in  the use of fossil fuels.

Regulating pollution: Governments can regulate pollution to limit the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere.

Encouraging sustainable practices: Governments can encourage sustainable practices, such as recycling and conservation, to reduce the use of resources.

It is remarkable that evolving Capitalism can be harnessed to address the climate change. The private sector has the resources and innovation to develop and implement new technologies and sustainable practices, but they need the right incentives and regulations to do so. Finding the balance between economic growth and environmental protection must be a priority for capitalists.

The free market capitalism has been the driving force behind global economic growth, but at the same time, it has contributed to the ongoing climate crisis. The solution to this problem is not to reject capitalism, but rather to reform it to the societies’ suitable demands. Government should consider providing a level playing field so as to make the probable transition from fossil-based energy systems to Green energy technologies possible. The capitalists should not consider short-termism over long term environmental sustainability. Government intervention to put a price on carbon emissions, invest in renewable energy, regulate pollution, and encourage sustainable practices is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis and build a sustainable future for all. However, here is the catch:  Is achieving net-zero-carbon emissions by mid-century a probable target? The answer is quite uncertain, however it is critical point to strive for in the face of  escalating Climate Crisis.

Continue Reading

Economy

Egypt’s “Too Big to Fail” Theory Once Again at Test

Published

on

Authors: Reem Mansour & Mohamed A. Fouad

In the wake of 2022 FED’s hawkish monetary policy, the Arab world’s most populous nation, Egypt, saw an exodus of about USD20bn of foreign capital.  A feat that exerted pressure on the value of its pound against the dollar slashing it by almost half.  This led to USD12bn trade backlog accumulating in Egypt’s ports by December 2022.

Meanwhile, amidst foreign debt nearing USD170bn, inflation soaring to double digits, and a chronic balance of payment deficit, Egypt became structurally unfit to sustain global shocks; the country saw its foreign debt mounting to 35% of GDP, causing the financing gap to hover at USD20billion. 

While it may seem all gloom and doom, friends from the GCC rushed to inject funds in the “too big to fail” country, sparing it, an arguably, ill-fate that was well reflected in its Eurobond yields spreads and credit default swaps, a measure that assesses a sovereign default risk. 

For the same reason in early 2023, the IMF sealed a deal worth of USD3bn, with the government, which unlocked an extra USD14bn sources of financing from multilateral institutions, and GCC sovereign funds, to fill in a hefty portion of the annual foreign exchange gap, albeit  a considerable amount averaging USD6bn per annum is yet to be sourced from portfolio investments.  

With the IMF stepping in, the Egyptian government agreed on a structural reform program that requires a flexible exchange rate regime, where the Egyptian pound is set to trade within daily boundaries against the US dollar, rationalize government spending, especially in projects that require foreign currency; and most importantly the program entails stake-sales in publicly owned assets, paving the way for the private sector to play a bigger role in the economy.

In due course, through its sovereign fund, Egypt planned initial offerings for shares in companies worth about USD5-USD6bn, and expanded the sale of its shares in local banks and government holdings to Gulf investment funds. 

Through the limited period of execution of these reforms, the EGP hit a high of 32 against the greenback, and an inflow of portfolio investments amounting to USD1bn took place, according to the Central Bank of Egypt. 

Simultaneously, Citibank International, cited a possible near end of the devaluation of the Egyptian pound against the US dollar.  Also, in a report to investors, Standard Chartered recommended to buy Egyptian treasury bills, and pointed to the return of portfolio flows to the local debt market in the early days of January, 2023. Likewise, Fitch indicated the ability of the Egyptian banking sector to face the repercussions of the depreciation of the pound, and that the compulsory reserve ratios within Egyptian banks are able to withstand any declines in the value of the pound because they are supported by healthy internal flows of capital.

While things seem to be poised for a recovery, the long term prospects may lack sustainability.  The Egyptian government needs to accelerate its plans to shift gears towards a real operational economy capable of withstanding shocks and dealing with any global challenges. Egypt, however has implicitly held the narrative that the country is ‘too big to fail”. This is largely true to the country’s geopolitical relevance, but even this has its limitations when the price to bail far outweighs the price to fail.

Former President George W. Bush’s administration popularized the “too big to fail” (TBTF) doctrine notably during the 2008 financial crisis. The Bush administration often used the term to describe why it stepped in to bail out some financial companies to avert worldwide economic collapse.

In his book “The Myth of Too Big To Fail” Imad Moosa presented arguments against using public fund to bail out failing financial institutions. He ultimately argued that a failing financial institution should be allowed to fail without fearing an apocalyptic outcome. For countries, the TBTF theory comes under considerable challenge.

In August 1982, Mexico was not able to service its external debt obligations, marking the start of the debt crisis. After years of accumulating external debt, rising world interest rates, the worldwide recession and sudden devaluations of the peso caused the external debt bill to rise sharply, which ultimately caused a default. 

After six years of economic reform in Russia, privatization and macroeconomic stabilization had experienced some limited success. Yet in August 1998, after recording its first year of positive economic growth since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was forced to default on its sovereign debt, devalue the ruble, and declare a suspension of payments by commercial banks to foreign creditors.

In Egypt, although the country remains to face a number of challenges, signs remain relatively less worrying than 2022, as global sentiment suggests that leverage will be provided in the short-term at least. Egypt’s diversified economy, size and relative regional clout may very well spare the country the fate of Lebanon. However, if reforms do not happen fast enough, the TBTF shield may become completely depleted.

Hence, in order to avoid an economic fallout scenario a full fledged support to the private sector’s local manufacturing activity and tourism is a must.  Effective policies geared towards competitiveness are mandatory, and tax & export oriented concessions are required to unleash the private sector’s maximum potential and shift Egypt into gear.

Continue Reading

Economy

Sanctions and the Confiscation of Russian Property. The First Experience

Avatar photo

Published

on

After the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, Western countries froze the assets of the Russian public and private sector entities which had been hit by blocking financial sanctions. At the same time, the possibility that these assets could be confiscated and liquidated so that the funds could be transferred to Ukraine was discussed. So far, only Canada has such a legal mechanism. It will also be the first country to implement the idea of confiscation in practice. How does the new mechanism work, what is the essence of the first confiscation, and what consequences can we expect from the new practice in the future?

Loss of control over assets in countries that impose sanctions against certain individuals has long been a common phenomenon. The mechanism of blocking sanctions has been widely used for several decades by US authorities. A similar methodology has been adopted by the EU, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and some other countries. Russia and China may also resort to these tactics, although Moscow and Beijing rarely use them. In the hands of Western countries, blocking sanctions, however, have become a frequent occurrence. Along with the ban on financial transactions with individuals and legal entities named in the lists of blocked persons, such sanctions also imply the freezing of the assets of persons in the jurisdiction of the initiating countries. In other words, having fallen under blocking sanctions, a person or organisation loses the ability to use their bank accounts, real estate and any other property. Since February 2022, Western countries have blocked more than 1,500 Russian individuals in this way. If you add subsidiary structures to them, their number will be even greater. The volume of the property of these persons frozen abroad is colossal. It includes at least 300 billion dollars in gold and foreign exchange reserves.

This is not counting the assets of high net worth Russian individuals worth $30 billion or more which have been blocked by the G7 countries. However, the freezing of property does not mean its confiscation. Although the blocked person cannot dispose of his assets, it formally remains his property. At some point, the sanctions may be lifted, and access to property restored. In practice, restrictive measures can be in place for years, but theoretically, the possibility of recovering assets still remains.

After the start of the special military operation (SMO), calls began to be heard in Western countries to confiscate frozen property and transfer it to Ukraine. Confiscation mechanisms have existed before. For example, property could be confiscated by a court order as part of the criminal prosecution of violators of the sanctions legislation. However, such mechanisms are clearly not suitable for the mass confiscation of property. Blocking sanctions are a political decision that do not require the level of proof of guilt that is required in the criminal process. To put it bluntly, the hundreds of Russian officials or entrepreneurs put on blocking lists for supporting the SMO did not commit criminal offenses for which their property could be subject to confiscation. The sanctions have spurred the search for such crimes in the form of money laundering or other illegal operations. But the amount of funds raised in this way would be a tiny fraction of the value of the frozen assets. To implement the idea of confiscation of the frozen assets of sanctioned persons and the subsequent transfer of the proceeds for them, Ukraine needed a different mechanism.

Canada was the first country to implement such a mechanism. The 2022 revision of the Special Economic Measures Act gives Canadian authorities the executive power to order the seizure of property located in Canada which is owned by a foreign government or any person or entity from that country, as well as any citizen of the given country who is not a resident of Canada (article 4 (1)). The reason for the application of such measures may be “a gross violation of international peace and security, which has caused or may cause a serious international crisis” (Article 4 (1.1.)). The final decision on confiscation must be made by a judge, to whom a relevant representative of the executive branch sends a corresponding petition (Article 5.3). Furthermore, the executive authorities, at their own discretion, may decide to transfer the proceeds from the confiscated property in favour of a foreign state that has suffered as a result of actions to violate peace and security, in favour of restoring peace and security, as well as in favour of victims of violations of peace and security, or victims of violations of human rights law or anti-corruption laws (art. 5.6).

The first target of the new legal mechanism will be the Canadian asset of Roman Abramovich’s Granite Capital Holding Ltd. The value of the asset, according to a statement by Canadian authorities, is $26 million.

Roman Abramovich is on the Canadian Blocked List, i. e. his property is already frozen, and transactions are prohibited. Now the property of the Russian businessman will be confiscated and, with a high degree of probability, ownership will be transferred to Ukraine. This is a relatively small asset (from the standpoint of state property), but the procedure itself can be worked out. Further confiscations may be more extensive.

The Canadian experience can be copied by other Western countries. In the US, work on such a mechanism was announced back in April 2022. although it has not yet been adopted at the legislative level. In the EU, such a mechanism is also not finally fixed in the regulatory legal acts of the Union, although Art. 15 of Regulation 269/2014 obliges Member States to develop, inter alia, rules on the confiscation of assets obtained as a result of violations of the sanctions regime. The very concept of violations can be interpreted broadly. So, for example, Art. 9 of the said Regulation obliges blocked Russian persons to report to the authorities of the EU countries within six weeks after blocking about their assets. Violation of this requirement can be regarded as a circumvention of blocking sanctions.

There are several consequences of the Canadian authorities’ initiative.

First, it becomes clear that the confiscation rule is not dormant. Its use is possible and is a risk. This is a serious signal to those Russians and Russian companies that have not yet come under sanctions, but own property in the West. It can be not only frozen, but also confiscated. This risk will inevitably be taken into account by investors and owners from other countries, which could potentially be the target of increased Western sanctions in the future. Among them are China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others. It is unlikely that the confiscation of Russian property will lead to an outflow of assets of these countries and their citizens from Canada and other Western jurisdictions. But the signal itself will be taken into account.

Second, the Russian side is very likely to take retaliatory measures. Western companies are rapidly withdrawing their assets from Russia. The representation of Canadian business in the Russian Federation was small even before the start of the operation in Ukraine. If the practice of confiscation becomes widespread, then the Russian side can roll it out in relation against the remaining Western businesses. However, so far, Moscow has been extremely hesitant to freeze Western property. While the US, EU and other Western countries have actively blocked Russians and their assets, Russia has mainly responded with visa sanctions. The confiscation could overwhelm Moscow’s patience and make the retaliatory practice more proportionate.

Finally, the practice of confiscation modifies the very Western idea of sanctions. It currently implies, among other things, that the “behavioural change” of sanctioned persons would result in the lifting of sanctions and the return of property. The freezing mechanism was combined with this idea. However, the confiscation mechanism contradicts it. Sanctions now become exclusively a mechanism for causing damage.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Finance10 mins ago

Astana hosts 18th Iran-Kazakhstan Joint Economic Committee meeting

The 18th meeting of Iran-Kazakhstan Joint Economic Committee meeting was held on Thursday in Kazakhstan’s capital Astana, at the end...

World News2 hours ago

The importance of Iran’s membership in the SCO

The members of Majlis (the Parliament) have approved the emergency of the plan of Iran’s commitments to achieve the position...

World News4 hours ago

Sabah: ‘The Americans have deceived themselves, the Europeans and Ukraine’

The US is repeating the same mistakes as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Now – in Ukraine. So it...

South Asia6 hours ago

Saudi-Chinese Friendship: Should India be Concerned?

Saudi Arabia hosted the grand China-Arab summit in December last year and leaders of the two nations deliberated on future...

Southeast Asia8 hours ago

China’s assurance of Rohingya repatriation between Myanmar-Bangladesh

We now have new hope thanks to news reports that were published in the Bangladeshi dailies on Tuesday and contained...

Science & Technology10 hours ago

Deployment of 5G Technology: Scrutinizing the Potential Menace & Its Repercussions globally

5G, or fifth generation, is the latest generation of mobile telecommunications technology. It promises faster internet speeds, lower latency, and...

Europe12 hours ago

Serbia must reject the ultimatum regarding Kosovo

The President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic on January 20th  had a meeting with the Western negotiating team about the solution...

Trending