Has Tsipras Lost Already?

Faced with a popular Greek opposition party, Syriza, which demands that Europe either reduce Greece’s debts or watch Greece walk out of the eurozone, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has not blinked and therefore has neutralized the bargaining position Syriza hoped for.

Greece’s creditors – in the main, the governments of northern European Union countries, the IMF and the World Bank – are unfazed by Greek threats.

There are still creditors tied to Greece, but they have changed. Greece’s creditors are governments and international organizations, and not banks and pension funds, nor companies whose downfall would immediately affect millions of citizens in predominantly northern European countries,

The original rescue operation was a huge bailout – but in the form of quick money that was used to pay off Greek debts to German, French, and Dutch financial institutions.

At the beginning of the crisis, a Greek default would have seen banks and pension funds in the tank, resulting in renewed panic on financial markets still reeling from the credit crisis. Now the risk of contagion – with banks in Italy, Spain, and Ireland crashing like dominoes stones as investors flee – has largely subsided.

Instead, Greece now owes billions of euros to EU countries, the IMF, and the World Bank, among others. These creditors do not easily default. The hit they would take would be one they could bear. Meanwhile, a default and an exit from the European Union wouldn’t help Greece at all..

The first thing Greece would have to do it it exited the euro and the EU is organize stringent capital controls to prevent Greeks from moving their euros to other countries, which would effectively end any economic activity still going on in the country.

Second, Athens would have to quickly introduce a new currency,  which would immediately crash against the other main currencies.

For  Greek bonds, a new level below junk status would have to be invented. Within 24 hours Greece would be a financial pariah, paying huge interest rates and risk premiums, while its existing loans would balloon, as most loans outstanding to its foreign creditors would still have to be paid in euros. Greece would be Europe’s Zimbabwe, with the local economy in tatters; rampant inflation; and mass unemployment.

So Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras stood on the ledge,  Merkel folded her arms, smiled told him to go ahead and jump.  And now Merkel wonders whether Tsipras understands that he may call himself Greece’s new prime minister after Jan. 25, but he still won’t be the one holding any power.

Merkel and Tsipras

China Needs New Math

William Pesek:  As goes the US go go China’s exports.

The improving U.S. economy has brought some welcome cheer to officials in Beijing, which reported an unexpectedly high 9.7 percent jump in December exports.  If those numbers continued in months ahead, they’d also be good news for a global economy that’s running short on viable growth engines.

China will probably have to loosen monetary policy soon in order to ensure that GDP growth stays above last year’s target of 7.5 percent (it’s currently around 7.3 percent).

Already worryingly high compared to where Japan was 25 years ago when its own bubble burst, China’s GDP ratio  will only rise further with additional stimulus. The more China gins up growth in 2015, the more irresponsible lending it will have to service in the decade ahead.

The math simply doesn’t work out. Even if China could somehow return to the heady days of 10 percent-plus GDP growth, its debt mountain would by then be nearly unmanageable.

From Japan to Argentina to Greece, recent decades offer many examples of governments thinking 1 + 1 = 3. It took Japan more than a decade after its bubble burst in 1990 to create the Resolution and Collection Corporation, modeled after America’s Resolution Trust Corporation, to dispose of bad loans. China can’t afford to wait that long to head off a full-blown crisis. It’s one thing for a $24 billion economy like Argentina to blow up; it would be quite another if the world’s second-biggest plunged into turmoil.

Yet for all the official talk about curbing borrowing and adjusting to a new normal of lower growth, Xi’s government still hasn’t shown the stomach necessary to bring China’s debt problems out into the open and deal with them. Even one of the first defaults on an offshore bond by a Chinese developer last week ended happily. Kaisa Group missed a $23 million interest payment, but quickly received a waiver from HSBC.

What should China be doing? First, clamp down more firmly on new borrowing, particularly to the state sector. While that would roil credit markets and crimp growth, it’s vital to gaining control of the financial system. Next, conduct a truly transparent audit of public debt and the shadow banking system.

Finally, China needs to create a mechanism to collect and write down bad assets. Only by doing so can Beijing prod wobbly banks to act openly and quickly to repair balance sheets. There are many ways China could go — a Japan or a Sweden-like purge and bank recapitalization. The point is to address its math problem frontally. However cheery, trade and GDP figures are the wrong numbers to focus on.

Xi's Purge?

Hun Sen’s Rule of Cambodia?

Sebastian Strangio writes:  In late November, Cambodia’s government offered the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) some concessions. One was that the parliament would formally recognize the CNRP’s president, Sam Rainsy, as leader of the opposition, with a “rank equal to the prime minister.”

Most Cambodians know only Hun Sen who marks his 30th anniversary in power. In that time, the Cambodian leader has been one of the world’s great political Houdinis, passing unscathed through repeated cycles of his country’s turbulent history.

Hun Sen now faces perhaps the greatest challenge of his career: to win back Cambodian voters without undermining the tycoons who have bankrolled his long reign. Does an aging strongman have the energy for another rebranding before elections due in 2018? Whatever happens, Cambodia’s singular leader has made it clear he isn’t going anywhere. After the January 2014 garment protest crackdown, Hun Sen showed no remorse for those killed, warning that he would meet further protests with even bigger demonstrations of his own. “If Hun Sen comes out to do something,” he said, “it’s not going to be small.”

Hun Sen’s remarkable career has tracked the tumults of modern Cambodia. Throughout the 1970s Hun Sen fought for those “Khmers Rouges,” or Red Khmers, as Sihanouk dubbed them. After taking power in April 1975, the Khmer Rouge established a network of brutal labor camps in the Cambodian countryside, which led to the death of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians — nearly a quarter of the population.

After 2013’s election, Hun Sen promised change. Ministries have been reshuffled; reforms have been launched in education and environmental policy. At the same time, the government has ruled out any possibility of a new administration. After opposition supporters and unions took to the streets in December 2013 calling for Hun Sen’s resignation, security forces fired at striking garment workers on Phnom Penh’s outskirts on Jan. 3, 2014, leaving five dead. Politicians and protesters have since been hauled into court on spurious charges.   Hun Sen of Cambodia

Hun Sen of Cambodia

Guilty Credit Suisse Exempt?

Since the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, the US  government has been of the big banks, for the big banks and yes, by the big banks.  Vast sums of money have been obtained by the very few. Many citizens have been hurt. More importantly, instead of helping businesses, small and large, which drive the US economy, these banks now spend most of their time on high risk derivative plays which include owning warehouses to store commodities until their price goes up and manipulating markets.

The tide is slowly turning with the alliance in the Senate of Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and Jeff Merkley.

While US regulators and the Department of Justice have been reluctant to take American-owned banks to task, propelled by the climate of the times, they have begun to go after foreign banks.

Last spring, after a dramatic session before the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations where Senators McCain and Levin let loose on the top manamagement of Swiss-based Credit Suisse, the Department of Justice followed with the announcement of a plea bargain that at last included the acceptance of a criminal charge of aiding and abetting tax evasion in addition to a large fine.  Most observers had noted up until this point that banks were being fined, but the fines  were ‘the cost of doing business.”  Only criminal indictments would deter their behavior, it was thought.

Criminal indictments have serious consequences.  Credit Suisse managed billions of dollars in pension funds in the US. Under law, a convicted felon can not manage these funds.  Credit Suisse is a convicted felon.  But they quickly applied for an  exemption.

While it is true that the Department of Labor has regularly granted exemptions to banks over the past fifteen years, this time the route to exemption was not going to be smooth.  Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and two other representatives called for a hearing.

Waters said:”Every commenter urged the DOL to enforce the law, and not grant Credit Suisse an exemption, with one exception: Credit Suisse. The Credit Suisse letter actually asks for even greater latitude in pension management. In the face of this comment record, bolstered by letters from senior members of Congress , from committees responsible for banking and pension fund oversight, it will be a miscarriage of the regulatory process if the DOL grants Credit Suisse a pass from this penalty without a hearing. Unfortunately, the DOL habitually grants such exemptions — 23 straight times in previous cases. We hope the comment record changes this streak.”

The hearing is to be held in Washington on January 15th.  The question is: Will the bank lobby or the American people win?  Let us hope that the DOL focuses on what Credit Suisse can do that no other bank can do. (Nothing.)  Why a guilty plea to criminal activity should be over looked?  How pension funds can be protected when the administrator is not governed by American law?  When are we going to scratch firms from the “Too Big To Ban” list?

Credit Suisse by Martin Guhl

 

 

Piketty’s Ripples and Waves?

Jusstin Fox writes:  CEO of Aetna Life Insurance  Mark T. Bertolini asked executives at his company to read Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the 21st Century.” Then he announced that the company will raise the wages of its lowest-paid workers to at least $16 an hour and cut their health-care bills

One way to look at this is as a reaction to the improving economy — and a sign that serious upward wage pressure may finally start showing up in employment statistics.  Aetna’s business is becoming more dependent on selling coverage to individuals, meaning customer service has to improve. But there’s also that Piketty thing:

It’s not just about paying people, it’s about the whole social compact. Why can’t private industry step forward and make the innovative decisions on how to do this?

Yeah, why can’t it? The standard answer for quite a while now has been that in a competitive global economy, companies can’t afford to pay workers more than they’re worth.

Earlier economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo depicted the setting of wages as a social decision as much as an economic one. Ricardo believed that the income distribution depended on the “habits and customs of the people.”

Most likely it’s a mix. Productivity plays an undeniable role, but so do those habits and customs, which can change. The minimum wage research of the past few years indicates ndicate that there’s at least some room on the margin for using non-market means to push incomes upward.

Then there’s the matter of whether higher wages themselves do economic good. Henry Ford’s 1914 announcement that he was going to double the wages of his assembly line workers is an oft-cited case study. The story goes that he did this so his employees could afford to buy the cars they were making.

Mainstream economists were never entirely comfortable with this reasoning, but some came up with another justification for what Ford did: the “efficiency wage.” As Daniel Raff and Larry Summers this:

These theories have in common that over some range a firm can increase its profits by raising the wage it pays its workers to some level above the market-clearing one. A variety of mechanisms, turning on the role wage increases might play in eliciting effort, reducing turnover, attracting better workers, and in improving morale, have been suggested to explain why profits might be an increasing function of wages.

The financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession have changed the tone of the discussion somewhat. As CEOs of major corporations go, Bertolini is a little different. He does yoga and believes in alternative medicine. He was the first straight board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. He says things like, “I have enough narcotics in my cabinet at home to put families through college.” Just because he’s going in this direction doesn’t mean his CEO peers will follow. Still, it is out of steps like these that big societal shifts are made.

Piketty's Waves

China Financing Oil?

Colin Chilcoat writes:  As the world’s number one energy consumer China is enjoying the low prices while they last. Never one to settle however, China is finding still more ways to take advantage of the dire straits gripping several oil producers.

China’s slowdown is real but the country still has plenty of money to play with that is taking it places the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) wouldn’t dare. Their reward? More oil of course. With tough conditions and greater access to raw commodities, China looks to turn the high risk into equal or greater returns.

Russia has turned to China for a bailout. China has obliged, agreeing to finance state-owned Rosneft’s debt in addition to opening a $24 billion currency swap program, which could expand further. For its part, China gets access to Russia’s tightly held upstream sector – in the form of the giant Vankor field – and fulfills its needs downstream with favorable long-term oil and gas deals.

China'sProductionConsumption

Source: EIA

Russia’s economic situation is by no means rosy, but the state of affairs in Venezuela is downright awful. Oil and gas revenues account for one quarter of the country’s GDP and approximately 95 percent of its export revenues. Not surprisingly, low oil prices have the country teetering on the brink of default. Since 2007, Venezuela has borrowed more than $50 billion from China – loans that prevent Venezuela from otherwise marketing about half of its current exports to the Asian nation, which total approximately 500,000 barrels per day.

While perhaps more cautious, China is ready to keep giving.  Venezuela and President Nicolas Maduro have received more than $20 billion in investment for economic, social, and oil-related projects. This arrangement precedes what Maduro hopes to be a more liquid $16 billion loan that could be more freely applied to its other debt obligations. Still, China sets the terms and it wants more oil in return – more than 100,000 bpd greater than current levels.

Elsewhere in South America, Ecuador has pinned its development hopes to the Chinese for better or worse.  In Argentina, Brazil, Peru, China is also fronting the bill and staking claim to the raw goods. The country’s high-interest, inflexible lending draws parallels to the multibillion-dollar payday loan industry in the US. In this scenario, the lender is caught in a circle of debt with no real impetus for change. That circle may continue for some as China is pledging $250 billion in investment in the region over the next decade. The country’s oil-based financing is still an unproven gamble – and lower prices increase the default risk – but it’s shrewd move for what will soon be the world’s largest consumer of oil.

China Takes Care of the Oil Price Problem

Fessing Up US Style

What happens when you ‘self-report’ improprieties?   Layne Christensen Company agreed to pay nearly $5 million in fines last year.  They self-reported employees’ bribes offered to help get business in Africa.  The fines were about half what they might have been if the companies themselves had not stepped forward.

Apparently one-third of all cases brought under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act have been the result of self-disclosure.  Across the globe, self-reporting is becoming more common.  There are now 41 signatories to the 1999 Ant-Bribery Convention.

The Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has stated that over the past fifteen years, that most international bribes are paid by large companies with the knowledge of senior management.

Most cases have resulted in settlement rather than convictions.  The wrong-doing was either to blatant to fight in court, or more hopefully, companies have decided to join the fight against corruption.

 Fessing up to Bribery

 

Financing Community College Education

Obama’s community college plan does not mention one program that has been successful and costs the government nothing.  When a large corporation like General Electric gives money to a community college and then prepares students to work for their company.  Students are not compelled to work for GE, but they are prepared to work for GE or like companies.

While community college drop out rates are high, such programs induce students to stay.  Getting a job is big motivitation to complete an associates degree and perhaps certification.

 In 2010, President Obama stated that jobs requiring an associate degree were expected to grow at twice the rate of positions that could be obtained without any college experience in the coming years. The President also said that if community colleges could not train a sufficient number of workers to fill open positions, the jobs would have to be filled by outsourcing.   To meet the needs of the workforce and prevent outsourcing, the President has correctly emphasized the role of community colleges.  His latest announcmenet misses the mark.
Job Training and Community Colleges

 

Around the world, it is the unemployement rate among young people that is staggeringly high.  Part of the problem is lack of preparation for available jobs.

 

Rara Terra Niche for China

Adam Minter writes:  Rare earths aren’t the world’s sexiest commodity. The 17 elements are notoriously difficult to extract from the ground and have brazenly obscure names. (Don’t make the classic rookie mistake of confusing yttrium with yttribium.) But what they lack in branding, they certainly make up for in utility and ubiquity: they’re essential to products as wide-ranging as wind turbines, smartphones, high tech weapon systems and a fishing reels.

Although the United States was once a major supplier of rare earths, China has been the world’s primary source since the 1990s.

As recently as 2013 China provided 86 pecent of the world’s rare earths supply and, especially over the past several years, Chinese officials have made no secret of their plans to use their accumulating monopoly power.

In 2009, a senior official in Inner Mongolia, home to China’s most productive rare earth mine, explaind how export controls on rare earths (dating back to 1999) were designed “to attract more Chinese and foreign investors into the region.

When it comes to rare earths, China sees no reason to separate economic goals from political ones.

By 2011, several foreign users of rare earths had relocaed production to China.  Fear and speculation served to drive up prices. For example, cerium — a rare earth often used in aluminum and iron alloys rose from $6 per pound in 2008 to a record of $77 per pound in August 2011.

Alternatives to Chinese rare earths quickly began cropping up, whether via recycling, new mines, alternative materials, or even smuggling. In July 2010, the Colorado-based Molycorp raised $393.8 million in an IPO, the proceeds of which went to re-opening a rare earths mine it had closed the previous decade.

By mid-2011, the combination of conservation, new mine, and alternative materials had produced a price crash from which the rare earth market has yet to recover.  This has forced China to change course:.

Rescinding the export quotas wasn’t a very significant concession.  Demand had fallen off so significantly that the quotas had ceased to be an issue. When the WTO ruled in March 2013 that China’s export controls on rare earths and other industrial metals violated its rules, China did not complain.

China has now consolidated the industry into two state-owned companies.  This should address two main problems in China’s market;  the proliferation of private mines and wildcatters who can and do supply smugglers.

It’s an open question whether Chinese industrial policy can maintain the country’s rare earths primacy — and a return to high rare earth prices — via consolidation.  Even if China doesn’t dominate rare earth mining, it continues to dominate rare earth processing (the dirty, dangerous, energy-intensive and expensive process of turning rare earths into something useful).

Even Molycorp, the company that was meant to be America’s great rare earths hope, sends some of its rare earths to China for processing.  China’s new rare earth conglomerates — which enjoy state-backing to cover their losses — seem likely to continue their dominance for years to come.

Rare Earth Mining in China

Should the EU Help Ukraine?

George Soros writes:  The sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and Europe for its interventions in Ukraine have worked much faster and inflicted much more damage on the Russian economy than anybody could have expected. The sanctions sought to deny Russian banks and companies access to the international capital markets. The increased damage is largely due to a sharp decline in the price of oil, without which the sanctions would have been much less effective.

In 1998, Russia ended up running out of hard currency reserves and defaulting on its debt, causing turmoil in the global financial system. This time the ruble has dropped by more than 50 percent, inflation is accelerating, and interest rates have risen to levels that are pushing the Russian economy into recession. The big advantage Russia has today compared to 1998 is that it still has substantial foreign currency reserves.

More than $120 billion of external debt is due for repayment in 2015. Although, in contrast to 1998, most of the Russian debt is in the private sector, it would not be surprising if, before it runs its course, this crisis ends up in a default by Russia. That would be more than what the US and European authorities bargained for. Coming on top of worldwide deflationary pressures that are particularly acute in the euro area and rising military conflicts such as the one with ISIS, a Russian default could cause considerable disruption in the global financial system, with the euro area being particularly vulnerable.

There is therefore an urgent need to reorient the current policies of the European Union toward Russia and Ukraine.   A two-pronged approach is suggested:  balance the sanctions against Russia with assistance for Ukraine on a much larger scale.

Sanctions are a necessary evil. They are necessary because neither the EU nor the US is willing to risk war with Russia, and that leaves economic sanctions as the only way to resist Russian aggression. They are evil because they hurt not only the country on which they are imposed but also the countries that impose them. The harm has turned out to be much bigger than anybody anticipated. Russia is in the midst of a financial crisis, which is helping to turn the threat of deflation in the eurozone into a reality.

By contrast, all the consequences of helping Ukraine would be positive. By enabling Ukraine to defend itself, Europe would be indirectly also defending itself. Moreover, an injection of financial assistance to Ukraine would help stabilize its economy and indirectly also provide a much-needed stimulus to the European economy by encouraging exports and investment in Ukraine. Hopefully Russia’s troubles and Ukraine’s progress would persuade President Vladimir Putin to give up as a lost cause his attempts to destabilize Ukraine.

If Europe rose to the challenge and helped Ukraine not only to defend itself but to become a land of promise, Putin could not blame Russia’s troubles on the Western powers. He would be clearly responsible and he would either have to change course or try to stay in power by brutal repression, cowing people into submission. If he fell from power, an economic and political reformer would be likely to succeed him. Either way, Putin’s Russia would cease to be a potent threat to Europe. Which alternative prevails will make all the difference not only to the future of Russia and its relationship with the European Union but also to the future of the European Union itself. By helping Ukraine, Europe may be able to recapture the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. That is why I am arguing so passionately that Europe needs to undergo a change of heart. The time to do it is right now. The Board of the IMF is scheduled to make its fateful decision on Ukraine on January 18. A Plan for Russia and the Ukraine 

Note: Soros has lost money in the Ukraine.

Aid to Ukraine?