Connect with us


The Root of Debt Crisis of Red Capitalism



The liquidity crisis recently experienced by one of the largest developer companies in China, Evergrande, is the fruit of the long journey of socialism-style capitalism in China or in Carl E Walter and Fraser J. T Howe’s terms “Red Capitalism“.  The policy of financial distortion and repression carried out by the Chinese monetary authority to stem the negative impact of the 2008 global financial crisis not only has an impact on increasing the portion of credit to China’s GDP (more than 200 percent), but also give birth to new vulnerabilities in the country’s financial system due to the growing role of the party and the government (central and local) in determining credit allocation. As a result, banking financing decisions actually move away from the principles of financial professionalism which increase the potential for damage to China’s financial system

On the one hand, the 2008 global financial crisis caused the capital market and other financial products less attractive to Chinese domestic investors. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the capital control policy implemented by the monetary authority has made it very difficult for financial institutions and investors to place their capital in various investment opportunities abroad. As a result, property become an easy target not only for conventional banks, but also for household investors, financial institutions, and shadow banking, even for local governments who are always required to increase their contribution to state revenues by means of land transfers to developer companies.

Not enough with that, the local government has finally participated in issuing various types of debt securities to obtain an abundance of capital and are directly involved in various construction projects so that sources of regional income are increased. Even though they offer yields below the profitability level, the majority of these bonds have to be purchased by banks (mostly SOEs), both local and national, with the guarantee of the central government with concessions that debt securities from local governments can be used to obtain loans from the Central Bank of China or the PBOC.

The impact on the property and real estate market is a drastic increase on the demand side. Inevitably, contractors and developers work hand in hand with conventional banking plus shadow banking to exploit the construction and property sectors. As a result, China’s national banking system, which is dominated by state-owned banks, suddenly entered the ranks of the world’s giant banks with very fat asset values, but little opportunity to capitalize on assets in the domestic financial market due to the financial repression policies implemented by the monetary authorities. Distorted low  interest rates, the trauma of the capital market due to the Suprime Mortgage crisis in US, and the less liquid state debt market have proven to have narrowed investment opportunities to the construction and property sectors, which has been causing the property and housing bubble bigger on the one hand, but boosting its contribution on the Chinese GDP on the other hand, which is around 25-30 percent of GDP

As Hyman Minsky reminded, debt-based capitalism is capitalism that is supported by boom and bust dynamics. In the early days of the bubble, demand will increase, the value of the asset will increase consistently, until the upper limit where the price is no longer representative of the underlying asset, which then makes all market participants aware that the bubble is ready to burst. What happened today in China is not without precedent. Japan experienced it first in the 1990s, namely the corporate debt bubble and falling property values ​​that made Japan’s economic fortunes shrink by more than 1500 trillion yen and Japan’s aggressive economic growth suddenly stopped. However, the recession in Japan did not immediately become endemic at the regional, let alone global level, because as Richard Koo (2014) wrote, firstly, the market for products made by Japanese companies at the global level was not disrupted, in fact the prospects were getting bigger aka the business was still very promising. And secondly, because of that, companies could immediately adjust their balance sheets by maximizing profits on the one hand and reducing debt burdens on the other.

As a result, the Japanese financial market suddenly froze because the number of borrowers fell drastically, while banking liquidity continued to increase due to increasing installment payments and decreasing loans. The only way for Japan to avoid freezing its financial markets is to bombard the financial markets with sovereign bonds. This is the reason why Japan has a huge debt to domestic savers. Japan owes its debt to its people not because Japan lacks income, but because Japan must implement countercyclical policies to keep the real sector running. The state must use abundant (but unproductive) banking liquidity to build infrastructure and various social service facilities so that GDP does not decline negatively due to the freezing of financial markets. In other words, government debt securities are a transmission channel from banks to the real sector via the government’s countercyclical policies. Thus, banks can continue to lend funds to customers (the government) and get yields from the abundance of liquidity they have.

So, for China, which has a less liquid financial market, the question is what if the Evergrande’s default actually makes banks withdraw from providing risky loans based on property and housing projects which causes China’s financial markets to freeze too? Will China flood its financial markets with sovereign debt or government bond like Japan and  United States? There is no sign of which direction China will move yet. Chinese banks have been willing to bet risks in the property sector because of guarantees and encouragement from the government and the China Communist Party (CCP). If the government and political party still want China’s national banking sector to penetrate and manipulate credit into the construction sector, then that is what will happen, aka the financial market will continue to move, of course in an increasingly fragile financial system. Even though Xi’s government has imposed strict restrictions on the property and construction sectors financing from the start, Xi still seems very cautious for two reasons. First, the role of construction in China’s economic growth is still large and second, there are still many party elites involved in determining the disbursement of bank credit to the construction sector (party’s elites vast interest).

However, there was a precedent that proves that in 2008, China did not follow the steps of developed countries such as United States, Japan, and the European Union which poured stimulus (tax money) into the financial system, but instead further undermined the policy of financial repression in order to strengthen banking penetration to investment sector, especially construction and property. It’s just that this policy is risky for China’s economic growth. China’s intention to rebalance its GDP structure could be disrupted. Allowing massive credit flows will make it difficult for the household consumption sector to grow because the level of public saving must be mediated by banks to return to investment, not consumption. And again China will be stuck in the status quo position of economic growth which is supported by investment and exports, not consumption. In other words, China or Xi Jinping’s administration should choose whether to continue with the style of “party pet capitalism” or Red Capitalism in financial system in which the party will intervene based on the political risks that will be experienced by the party or instead calculate economically and financially the continued risk of the property and hausing sector debt bubble crisis for the sustainability of China’s future economic growth? If China chooses the former, then future economic growth will be at stake. But if choosing the second one and reform the financial system, then the CCP must be willing to accept the diminution of its role in determining China’s economic movements, aka accept the full role of the market. Let’s see

Continue Reading


Reskilling Revolution: Leaders Preparing 1 Billion People for Tomorrow’s Economy



Investing broadly in the skills of the future for both today’s and tomorrow’s next-generation workforce could add an additional $8.3 trillion in increased productivity to the global economy by 2030.

The Reskilling Revolution initiative, a coalition of 50 CEOs, 25 ministers and 350 organizations committed to realizing these gains for their economies, societies and organizations, marked two years of progress at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2022 in Davos today. Their work will benefit over 100 million workers on their journey towards reaching 1 billion people by 2030 with better education, skills and economic opportunity.

Accelerating the Reskilling Revolution

Global inequities in lifelong learning and childhood education, a pandemic that closed schools and workplaces and rapid technological change are highlighting the need to double down on reskilling, upskilling and the future of learning. The Reskilling Revolution initiative, launched at the World Economic Forum’s 50th Annual Meeting in January 2020, is working to provide 1 billion people with better education, skills and economic opportunity by 2030.

At its heart is a commitment from over 50 CEOs to inspire global business leadership on the upskilling, reskilling and human capital investment agenda. By working together with a growing network of national-level country accelerators launched to date in 12 countries – Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Georgia, Greece, India, Oman, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, with knowledge support from Denmark, Finland, Singapore and Switzerland – the Reskilling Revolution has mobilized a multistakeholder community of over 350 organizations across 12 countries and is on track to benefit 100 million people on its journey towards 1 billion.

“In an era of multiple disruptions to the labour market – the pandemic, supply chain changes, the green transition, technological transformation – the one ‘no regret’ investment all governments and business can make is in education, reskilling and upskilling. It is the best pathway to expanding opportunity, enhancing social mobility and accelerating future growth,” said Saadia Zahidi, Managing Director, World Economic Forum.

Enabling Education 4.0

Two years into its work the initiative will expand beyond adult reskilling and upskilling and integrate a focus on education for children and youth. These efforts will be taken forward by a new Education 4.0 Alliance, bringing together 20 leading education organizations at the Forum’s Annual Meeting 2022.

A new report from the project, Catalysing Education 4.0 Investing in the Future of Learning for a Human-Centric Recovery, focuses on preparing today’s generation of school-age children with better collaborative problem-solving that could add $2.54 trillion – over $3,000 per school-age child – from this one skill alone.

The report, developed with support from the LEGO Foundation and in consultation with leading education experts from the public, private and educational sectors, finds that investment in the skills of the future for primary and secondary school learners would create an additional $489 billion in Europe, $458 billion in South Asia, $333 billion in East Asia, $332 billion in Latin America, $266 billion in the Middle East, $235 billion in North America, $179 billion in sub-Saharan Africa, and $163 billion in Central Asia.

Meanwhile, China ($356 billion), the United States ($218 billion), Brazil ($143 billion), Mexico ($80 billion) and Italy ($72 billion) are the five countries standing to gain the most, while the benefits relative to the size of their economies today would be greatest in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.

To unlock this education transformation, the Education 4.0 initiative will focus on three key investment areas: new assessment mechanisms; adoption of new learning technologies; and empowerment of the teaching workforce.

Expanding the Accelerator network

Complementing the Skills Accelerators, the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting also featured the official launch of the first school-age focused Education 4.0 Accelerator, a national-level public-private collaboration platform for action. The Education Accelerators – complementing a network of successful Closing the Skills Gap Accelerators – aim to mainstream technology-enhanced learning experiences, implement new measurement mechanisms, empower educators and mobilize investment in the sector.

Bangladesh will be the first country to pioneer this new model in Asia. Dipu Moni, Minister of Education, Bangladesh, said: “Bangladesh is committed to ensuring high-quality education for all children and youth. We are delighted to partner with the World Economic Forum to launch the first Education Accelerator in South Asia and to be part of this global network to advance the Education 4.0 agenda.”

Continue Reading


Sanctions against Russia: do they have any point?



It’s hard to recall a day since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine when there was no mentioning about new sanctions being imposed against Russia. On May 9th, the EU announced that it had almost finished preparations for the sixth package of sanctions, and rumors on the Internet are already mentioning the seventh.

What are sanctions?

In brief, sanctions are a list of political and economic decisions applied by states and organizations in order to protect national interests, international law, and defense from threats to international peace and security. As a rule, they are temporary and are removed when the cause/threat has been eliminated.

According to the EU’s official website, “Restrictive measures (sanctions) are an essential tool in the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP), through which the EU can intervene where necessary to prevent conflict or respond to emerging or current crises. In spite of their colloquial name ‘sanctions’, EU restrictive measures are not punitive. They are intended to bring about a change in policy or activity by targeting non-EU countries, as well as entities and individuals, responsible for the malign behaviour at stake.”[1]

How many sanctions have been imposed against Russia in total?

On May 8th, the Chairman of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Volodin shared a post on his Telegram channel that “10 128 sanctions have been imposed against our country. More than against any other state in the entire history of their existence.”[2] From this number, 2,754 were introduced in the period from 2014 (the Crimean issue) and before the beginning of the special operation in Ukraine.[3] The rest – more than seven thousand – were introduced in a short three-month period. According to The Castellum.AI, a service which takes a record of sanctions and updates weekly, as of May 9, their number has already exceeded 7,600, making Russia the state with the largest number of sanctions imposed. For comparison: 3,161 sanctions have been imposed against Iran, 2,608 – against Syria, and 2,077 – against North Korea.[4] Other states can “boast” with the list containing less than 1,000 sanctions. Thus, in a short period of time, Russia not only got on the list of sanctioned countries, but also topped it.

The sanctions have affected almost every sector of Russia – from individuals, which list already counts numbers in the hundreds, to the spheres of energy, economy, trade… The enumeration can go on for a long time. It can be said that there is practically not a single area left that wasn’t affected by sanctions: for example, one of the articles published by the Atlantic Council had the heading “What’s left to sanction in Russia?” And yet, at almost all the examples given, it is mentioned that sanctions have already been imposed in this area.[5]

So is there anything else that can be included in the sanctions lists? The question itself is good, but alas – it will take quite a long time to search for the answer: sanctions are already everywhere.

So is there any point in sanctions?

This is quite an interesting question, although in this situation it would be more accurate to say that sanctions have not only a point, but also consequences.

As it was mentioned above, sanctions are usually temporary, but Russia has been living with almost 3,000 sanctions imposed against it for more than 8 years. Has it brought any tangible results in influencing Russia? No. Have those who introduced them achieved the result what they had introduced those sanctions for? No. Have these sanctions been lifted? No. Therefore, is there any point in imposing them on Russia? The answer is still the same – no, because as it can be observed,  these sanctions are in the list of existing ones, and Russia still continues to exist, quite successfully adapting to them. And there are a lot of sanctions – 2,754 (for the period before the Ukrainian issue), but the thing is that the country against which they were introduced does not complain about its size and capabilities either.

There is a point in sanctions, and first of all – for Russia.

Following numerous bans on the export of various kinds of products, as well as the departure of many companies operating in various fields, the Russian government introduced a number of measures to support different areas, and which have already started to show positive results. According to Rosstat, several sectors of the Russian economy showed positive dynamics as soon as measures were introduced (compare to the same period of 2021): the mining industry grew by 7.8%, energy, heat and gas supply – by 1.5%, water supply and waste disposal – by 7.2%.[6] There is also an increase in the food sector – by 1.1%, and medical production increased by as much as 46.8% compared to March 2021, and turned out to be 9.1% higher than in February 2022. As Rosstat data shows, according to a preliminary estimate of the country’s GDP for the 1st quarter 2022, there is a positive growth of 103.5% compared to the same period last year.[7] The Economist noted that “as imports slide and exports hold up, Russia is running a record trade surplus.”[8] The Institute of International Finance estimates that “in 2022 the current-account surplus, which includes trade and some financial flows, could come in at $250bn (15% of last year’s gdp), more than double the $120bn recorded in 2021”. As a result, the world sees that rather than damaging Russia, sanctions are contributing to its strengthening. [9]

The consequences of the sanctions, however, were faced not only by Russia and Belarus (which also got quite an amount of them because of good relations with Russia), but also by the rest of the world, including even the part that had nothing to do with this issue. And the consequences of those 7 thousand+ recently imposed sanctions are especially severe.

Some countries are already complaining about food shortages, as their supplies have been seriously reduced due to sanctions. People are dissatisfied with the increase of prices for various products and goods, but this is caused by the increase of fuel prices – which people are also dissatisfied with. Shocks and turmoil in the social and economic sectors started to affect the political situation both within countries and their international policies, as they have to choose whether to join the sanctions or try to stay away.

Why “try”?

Even at the first weeks of the conflict, the United States were seen trying to put pressure on states to either join the sort of “sanctions coalition” or stay away, preventing any attempts to help Russia. As it turned out, one of these countries was China: back in April 2022, the US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said that the sanctions imposed against Russia should give China (and President Xi personally) an idea of the consequences that it could face in case of providing assistance to Russia: “<it> gives President Xi, I think, a pretty good understanding of what might come his way should he, in fact, support Putin in any material fashion.”[10] If there was an attempt to put pressure on China, which is far from being the last figure in the international arena, then what can be said about other states – especially European ones?

Hungary is now becoming one of the stumbling blocks, as it refuses to support sanctions with regard to the embargo on fuel imports. According to Prime Minister Viktor Orban, it will be equal to an atomic bomb dropped on the Hungarian economy, since it simply will not have time to adapt – it will take at least five years and a large number of investments. Nevertheless, he noted that Hungary is ready for negotiations – if the proposals are consistent with the interests of the state.[11] However, according to information, a video conference between Ursula von der Leyen and Viktor Orban, held on Monday last week, did not lead to a compromise, thus delaying the adoption of the sixth – the heaviest, according to EU representatives – package of sanctions.[12] Against this background, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki expressed the opinion that the sixth package of sanctions could be adopted in a reduced form, since “we must observe unity in the EU.”[13]

So…what can be expected in the future?














Continue Reading


Anglo-American Axis Needs Common Market, not Common Alliance



With the eruption of the war in Ukraine, and considering the post-war situation, the alliance system in the West and its future should be something worthy of concern.

Anglo-American Axis is a concept that I proposed well before Brexit, and such an axis has already been fully formed today. With Brexit, the United Kingdom is now no longer part of the continental European alliance. It has instead re-aligned with the United States, and reverted to being a maritime nation that it used to be.

Such an axis would not be moved by the independence inclination of France, the wish of Germany to become the leader, nor the ambition of Turkey to be a regional hegemon. It cares even less about countries like Israel, Iran, and India. What the Anglo-American Axis focuses is to control the high ground of fundamental values, so that it can win the historic future as long as civilization continues to progress. Wars in other regions do not carry much significance to it. For NATO to play a role, it must negotiate conditions with the United States. It is not the Anglo-American Axis that needs NATO, but that NATO needs the Anglo-American Axis.

The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the former members of the Commonwealth, have formed the largest single market in the world, with a coordinated monetary policy for the U.S. dollar and British pound. Such a market can consider certain African and South American countries, as long as they remain stable, and this usually means some “friendly dictatorships with open economies”, similar to Chile in the past.

Civilization is a dynamic force. Although many have studied monetary issues and finance, they fail to link these with civilization. In fact, these are appendages of civilization, and they are products of it. Humanity will inevitably move towards civilization.

Continue Reading