#77 The Perils of 'Risk Free' Debt

The recent (ongoing) crisis in the so-called subprime market has highlighted the immense difficulties of managing an economy that relies heavily on borrowing in order to create spending. The US and, perhaps even more so, the global economy is seemingly in fine shape. In the States, however, this is in great part due to increased spending made possible through the use of debt. People have had easy access to borrowed money thanks to the historically low interest rate of the past few years.

As the interest rate gradually began to rise, however, paying back these loans has become increasingly difficult. The subprime mortgage crisis is not a sub - as the name might suggest - but rather a prime example of this. Since a subprime loan is a loan that is given to people with a bad credit record, who therefore don't qualify for market interest rates and must pay a much higher rate, it is naturally mostly the poorer people who make use of it. The large number of people with subprime mortgages suddenly found that with the decreasing value of their houses, they were unable to pay the mortgage. And if you can't even pay your mortgage, you surely won't be able to spend on much else, which would cause a problem for the economy.

This poses a dilemma, as the economy must continue to be boosted through spending, but not at all costs. People need to understand that borrowed money needs to be paid back; it is not free money. This should serve as a wake up call to American consumers that relying too heavily on debt is too great of a risk. Sadly, there are always - including now - strong voices advocating debt forgiveness. Surely it cannot be so that consumers are taught that accumulating debt to the point of being unable to repay it comes without consequences? The message that big trouble will arise with too much debt must be hit home hard, once and for all. Better now, while the economy is reasonably stable, than later, when debt will only accumulate further, causing a potentially cataclysmic economic downfall of unknown proportions if China's possible bubble were to collapse.

There is some good news on the horizon, however, in the Fed's failure to take serious steps (i.e. have the central bank lower its benchmark federal funds rate from 5.25 percent) to help those affected by the crisis. It appears that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is trying to "teach investors a lesson," namely that the Fed will not bail out their poor decisions. This is not to say that there is no help whatsoever. The Fed has already injected tens of billions of dollars into the banking system and lowered its discount rate (the charge on its loans to commercial banks). Furthermore, President George Bush announced a plan to help struggling subprime mortgage borrowers to keep their homes via changes to the tax code.

Let's hope that a fair balance is found between the honest need to help those hardest hit and teaching a very wrong and dangerous lesson. Sometimes it is best to set an example to future potential defaulters by acting very harshly (though some would say justly as well) towards those involved now.

#76 The Hypocrisy and Short Sightedness of the American Immigration System

This coming September, driven by an ambition to increase the bloc's economic competitiveness and facing a foreseeable aging of the population and labor shortages in the next decades (expected to peak by 2050), the European Commission legislators are prepared to present for approval a proposal for an implementation of a new system of temporary resident permits to be selectively allocated to highly-qualified non-EU residents. Since this proposal would necessitate an infamously difficult to attain unanimity between the 27 member states, it is reasonable to expect a significant phase of debate. Nevertheless, it is understandable that the adoption of such a system is merely a matter of time. The legislators behind the initiative relate the recommended system to the US Green Card scheme, even dubbing it “Blue Card,” for some peculiar reason disregarding a conceptual and substantial difference between the contemplated European system and the American one - a difference that, at a closer look and comparison, divulges the relative irrationality and farce of the current US general immigration system.

The paradox of the world’s most symbolically representative immigration country - a country which even George Bush declared is “a nation of immigrants” and that thrives on its entrepreneurial newcomers - is that it is presently the one missing an open-door qualified immigration system. Legally immigrating to the United States is not easier. In fact, it is unexpectedly harder than in many other, even historically non-immigrant, developed countries; i.e. a potentially economically productive and professionally qualified or entrepreneurial immigrant candidate would find virtually no open options to immigrate by self-initiative.

The aforementioned US Green Card is either available to somebody previously resident in the country and legally permitted to stay for a longer time, or is distributed on a lottery (!), i.e. random numbers basis to unrestricted applicants over 18 from around the world. Once one is aware of this fact, it makes sense that European legislators, despite their claims, ironically, can only be color context-wise inspired by the Green Card.

Other immigration-dependent countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand (and recently the U.K.) have a long time ago adopted points-based open-door qualified and business immigration systems - with slight variations - without first having potential immigrants find an offer of employment or without an employer required to fund the visa, classifying migrants on their skills, personal qualities, suitable age, work experience, achievements in the field, past earnings, even achievements of the applicant's partner, and potential contribution to the countries' economies and societies in general; supported by ongoing emphasis on the economic returns of such migration, and are considering ways to expand the associated quotas even further.

Contradictorily in the US, the only initially temporary immigration option open to qualified non-residents is the H1-B visa, allowing American companies to hire, albeit with notoriously burdensome legal and financial difficulties, highly-skilled foreign workers, the limited yearly number of which has in October 2003 been groundlessly cut by US Congress from the even then insufficient 195,000 to 65,000, despite grave concerns of and active lobbying by the information technology companies.

The further deterioration of the currently inadequately cumbersome and bureaucratically thorny immigration system, inclusively for the already legally-residing aliens such as skilled employees and potentially socially valuable graduating students, and the lack of an open-door, even if competition based, legal system for qualified immigration simply leads to the only possible immigration most likely to prevail – illegal, and naturally unqualified. As opposed to the duplicity of the US state of affairs, EU justice spokesman behind the “Blue Card” proposal Friso Ascam Abbing admits that "We had better manage immigration properly as it is going to happen anyway."

Tightening and restricting legal immigration in traditionally migrant-reliant countries - the single one practically accessible for restriction - leads to it being automatically substituted by illegal, chaotic immigration. The previous statement is neither intended to denigrate the significant economical importance of illegal immigrants widely employed in agriculture, construction, hospitality and other industries, benefiting both businesses and consumers, and the Americans' dependence on them in a multitude of diverse sought-after menial and unskilled jobs, nor to advocate a need for severe curbing of unqualified immigration, since it eventually instigates continuous illegal immigration, as the need for immigrant labor has a natural tendency to be convened by supply.

The American immigration system, with its insufficient legal immigration provisions, regularly tacitly expected general pardon and consequential naturalization of illegal migrants in itself implies an initial breach of law – can it get any more hypocritical than that?

A governmental bipartisan group's recent months' attempts to manage the illegal immigration phenomenon by a - even though still strategically flawed - bill comprising of clauses for the strengthening of the south border security, encouragement of currently illegally residing immigrants to return to their home country and reapply for working permits through a system which also integrates a points-based format, where education and skills, including English ability, could contribute to an applicant’s case, and a stipulation of issuing of 400,000 further amended to 200,000 visas a year to the future temporary workers permitted to stay for two years at a time and renewed up to three times, periodically separated by a year's break between each visit, have disappointingly failed, even in spite of initial public opinion support.

The constant debate about immigration in America has an irrational inclination to pitch all issues into one large jumble, intermixing causes and consequences, revolving around all types of suspected problems caused by illegal residents, which include border issues, pressure on public services and criminal allegations, further fuelled by economically unreasonable fears that immigrants weaken the wages of the native-born citizens. Hence, public concerns about - as some economists and politicians argue - the falsely assumed negative consequences of illegal immigration and the allegedly threatened national security, exaggerated by the government's failure to satisfactorily deal with it, leads to an ignorant absence of differentiation of and antagonism towards immigrants, and consequential psychological and bureaucratic aggravation of the already ill-reputed naturalization process for the legally residing temporary and aspiring workers, making the US a decreasingly attractive destination for talented people from all over the world.

Considering current tech companies' widespread outsourcing, combined with the recently emerged phenomenon of inverse brain-drain and other developed and promising markets' ever -increasing competitiveness for talent acquisition, what kind of potential immigrants and most importantly - how is the US naively, or even better put – overly self-confidently hoping to lure in the future?

In the end, the United States, with its notoriously weak social support and welfare system can only attract generally self-reliant and motivated people who want nothing but to work industriously, be it a farm worker from Mexico or a qualified doctor from India; therefore not offering sufficient people an administratively accessible opportunity to do so will inexorably lead to the negatively perceived effects caused by the vicious circle of illegal, irrepressible immigration or alternatively, and even concurrently – economical underperformance provoked by competent personnel scarcity.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Julia Socolov

#75 Japan Forced to Rethink Its Energy Policy

The red hot Indian and particularly Chinese economies are unquestionably having a major impact on the world. While discussions often rage about whether or not this is a good thing (e.g. with environmentalists pointing out the devastating effect this is having on the environment and business leaders arguing it provides for opportunities not seen in decades), there are a myriad of micro areas where the effect of their growth is clear for all to see. One such interesting area is in Japan's energy policy.

For centuries Japan has been the largest economy in Asia, as well as the dominant political player (this has more to do with their financial muscle than with actual influence exerted). Subsequently, the country experienced a hunger for natural energy resources such as gas and oil that far surpassed that of any of its neighbors. With the rapid growth of India and China, this is beginning to change. While, according to the CIA World Factbook, Japan is still the world's second largest (after the USA) importer of oil with 5.43 million barrels of oil per day, China follows closely with 3.18 million and India with 2.01 million. More interestingly, China already consumes more oil than Japan, with China's consumption standing at 6.53 million barrels per day, Japan's at 5.6 million and India's at 2.5 million (the USA is still the world's largest consumer of oil). This means an increasingly larger portion of China's oil has to come from abroad, which directly and adversely affects Japan's supply. Given the fact that Japan's demand for oil has remained and, according to projections, will continue to remain steady for the coming years, the country is justifiably worried that it is no longer as interesting a market as the rapidly growing Chinese and Indian ones are for petroleum exporting countries.

Japan imports a whopping 90% of its oil from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia is Japan's largest oil supplier, shipping 458 million barrels, or 30% of Japan’s total import; UAE second with 387 million, or 25.4%; Iran third with 176 million, or 11.5%; and Qatar fourth with 156 million, or 10.2%). Japan - the world's largest importer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) - is similarly dependent on one geographical location for its gas imports (three quarters of Japan's imports come from Australasia: Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and Australia. Qatar is Japan's fourth largest supplier after Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia).

In the meanwhile, China and India have been scavenging the world - particularly Africa - for new areas from which to secure their oil supply. China has been so successful in Africa that it has even managed to create a very balanced oil importing picture (in 2006, the Middle East accounted for 45% of China's crude oil imports, Africa for 32%, the EU and the Americas for 18.3% and Asia Pacific for 4%, according to the Chinese General Administration of Customs). All the while the oil prices have been skyrocketing, allowing for countries like Russia and Venezuela to play their oil cards and flex their muscles.

Given all these worrisome facts, the Japanese government decided it was time to prioritize the securing of the country's energy supply. In May 2006, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) published a revealing document entitled "The New Energy Strategy." In it (and in later documents and high level speeches even more so), we find some key shifts away from their old policy. As Jan-Hein Chrisstoffels, a Japan specialist at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, points out, the formerly abundant references to liberalization, globalization and the free market are nowhere to be found. The new pillars are: Strengthening of bilateral relations with oil and gas producing countries; Increasing imports from oil and gas projects that are led by Japanese firms abroad; Decreasing the use of oil in the transport sector; Using more nuclear energy; And cooperation with China in the field of energy.

Another major shift in policy is the increased role that the Japanese government seeks to play. Japan feels Chinese oil firms have an unfair advantage given a government that pumps money into seemingly economically unprofitable extraction projects simply in order to secure supply. Therefore, the Japanese government has now set out to increase subsidies to Japanese oil firms and provide more favorable loans and investment guarantees. In other words, there is to be little left of the free market policies and non interference from the government that took the overtone until now. Much like China - which woos potential oil suppliers by promising preferential loans, the building of large infrastructure projects and a policy of non-interference in internal affairs - Japan has embarked upon a quest of securing her energy supply through tit-for-tat policies. One success story can already be found in former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visit to Kazakhstan in August 2006, followed by Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Amari Akira's visit this year. They ensured that Kazakhstan's (which has the world's second-largest uranium reserves after Australia) current supplies of only 1% of Japan's uranium imports will jump to 30-40% in the near future, in exchange for Japanese expertise in uranium enrichment.

It appears India and especially China are having a major impact on the policies of other nations such as Japan, which in this case can be considered as a blow to proponents of the free market. It is even likely to extend beyond the oil and gas sectors, as this year China - the world's largest consumer of coal - for the first time became a net importer thereof. The country imported 4.7 million metric tons of coal in January, a rise of 81.1% from a year ago, according to figures from the customs bureau. Although Japan is not at all a major consumer of coal, it might very well affect other formerly free market adhering countries.

#74 Chavez’ vs. Putin’s Freedom of Speech Crackdowns

The events of the recent weeks surrounding the scandalous closure (and the reopening of its unfortunately less far-reaching and accessible cable/satellite version) of an opposition-leaning Venezuelan TV channel, RCTV have revealed that, in addition to Mr. Chavez showing alliance propensity gyrating around controversial nuclear ambitions, weapons, oil and even gas arrangements with the aspirant “outsiders” such as China, Iran and Russia, lately he also proved to employ, even though in a somewhat maladroit approach, some of those countries’ leaders’ “tried-and-proved” censorship maneuvers.

In the midst of the RCTV crisis, hardly anybody seemed to recall a similar - though more perversely masked as compared to Chavez’ frankness - scandal that revolved in 2000-2001 around a privately held Russian TV channel, NTV.

The evolvement of the Russian, much more craftily performed analogue, started in June 2000 with the controversially executed arrest ordered by the prosecutor-general of Vladimir Gusinsky - charged with embezzlement - head of the Media-Most group that owned NTV (Russia’s first independent TV station), a newspaper and an openly opposition-leaning radio “Echo Moskvy,” which even President Bill Clinton favored during his visit to Moscow earlier that month, ignoring any Russian state-run radio or television during his visit. Media-Most publications, especially through its most widely accessible and highly popular TV channel NTV, had at the time openly refused to be loyal to the Kremlin. NTV, through its daily news, political programs, and a satirical puppet show, has broadly criticized the policies of the Kremlin and president Vladimir Putin, brought to light alleged atrocities during the Chechen war and other social issues in Russian life often ignored by state-owned channels.

A month later, in an informal deal, the charges against Gusinsky were dropped after signing an agreement with the minister of media, under which Gusinsky was to sell Media-Most to a state-dominated Gazprom, which already possessed a 30% share in NTV since 1996, for a price forced by Gazprom, in return for a guarantee that Gusinsky would not be prosecuted. After Media-Most itself refused to comply with the agreement, Gazprom publicly announced its acquisition of a controlling stake in NTV and the voting rights of a minority stake held by Media Most were frozen by a court decision.

Almost a year later, in April 2001 Gazprom took over NTV's old board of directors by force in a boardroom coup and replaced its director. Fearing that the Gazprom takeover would lead to government censorship, demonstrations of several thousand people in Moscow and St. Petersburg showed their support for NTV staff. Although the protests were weak when compared to the recent Caracas’ demonstration, they were incredibly brave by the practically non-existent Russian protest standards. Nevertheless, the majority of the prominent journalists have since left the channel, while the rest were been fired soon afterwards. Furthermore, rather conspicuously, two other independent channels were shut down in the next several years.

These events, which were critically commented on by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Council of Europe, and by former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, for some reason have been swiftly forgiven of Putin.

How damaging are such freedom of speech crackdowns for the future of these countries?

The answer most likely lies in the countries’ past. A principle difference between the two is that since 1958 Venezuela has been evolving under an incessant period of democratic government; whilst Russia, except for a short period of Yeltsin’s laissez-faire unprecedented freedom (which was most likely due not to his proclaimed democratic aspirations, but to his inability to adequately manage the Russian chaos of the 1990’s), have been living under constant, multi-dimensional fear and rigid totalitarianism for at least the last 80 years. As opposed to the turmoil of the past decade, Putin brought in “order” – an archaically authoritarian “order” the nostalgic Russians are willing to give up many freedoms for; freedoms they probably never even owned in the period of modern history.

Thus, while Chavez acted in a military-background induced, atrociously blunt, and prospectively self-detrimental manner, having openly and ruthlessly commented on and pronounced the (upcoming) closure, Putin, owing to his KGB - the single most efficient Soviet-generated structure - experience, proceeded more furtively, and consequently more “effectively” in the long run, which makes it even more appalling and daunting.

Since this cunning de facto elimination of the only opposition-channel almost 8 years ago, there have virtually been no more attempts to reinstate any similar channels in Russia ever since; and no remembrance of these events, as if they were something insignificant, seems to currently permeate the discontent of the existing opposition.

Compared to Putin’s slyness and carefully premeditated conspirative approach, Chavez’ clumsy shutting of a dissident channel from the public system, which triumphantly reemerged soon afterwards in independent cable broadcasting (and even YouTube) following the logically predictable strong international reaction, seems just a poorly calculated whim, regardless of how intrinsically erroneous it is.

What is obvious is easier to confront and has a tendency to backfire eventually.

Optimistically, the support for Chavez and his “revolutionary” policies is just a temporary Venezuelan poor’s “nervous breakdown” and the nouveau riches’ “folly” that - under favorable circumstances of the opposition’s effort supported by a strong-willed, though diminishing, middle class that has been manifesting great dissatisfaction with and spirit to oppose Chavez - can theoretically be reversed.

Unfortunately for the Russians - even the younger and notably increasingly more prosperous ones - continuing complacence with a latent, concealed and consequently more enduringly perilous governmental “iron-fist” seems to be metaphorically an almost genetically inherent mentality trait.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Julia Socolov