Showing posts with label Business and Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business and Economy. Show all posts

Monday, October 27, 2008

Crisis of Capitalism

America is the anchor of global economy in the era of globalization. The American financial collapse has therefore spread like a thermonuclear chain reaction throughout the globe with far-reaching implications. Government experts of the effected countries are sitting together and scratching their worthy heads to bail out the crisis. To calm down the turmoil, the United States Federal Reserve and Treasury Department has declared to pump as much as $1.3 trillion into the system which is nothing but just a tactical response; a desperate effort to shore up confidence in the system. While the investment bankers and their executives have made massive profits out of their speculative operations over the past few years, when they have suffered losses, governments are feeling obliged to bail out these companies using taxpayer’s money. The greatest irony is, after vociferously advocating for a deregulated, liberalized financial system and encouraging removal of government constrains on use and flow of capital, the same advocates of the international economic order are asking for government intervention with regulatory measures today. Some of them like David Macke, the economist for J.P. Morgan Chase has even gone one step ahead to say that “At the end of the day, if you socialize enough of the financial system, it has to work.” Counterparts in India is also toeing the similar line and advocating for ‘national policies’ to survive the crisis but with a caution – don’t allow the Left forces, the commies, to take advantage of the situation.

Credit expansion and the subsequent credit crunch is the prime reason behind the current turmoil in financial markets. By creating new and additional money, the American banking system started lending out at artificially low interest rates to borrowers whose ability to repay the loans were in doubt. This process has distorted the spending pattern of the society as a whole and in turn led to a large scale waste of capital. To understand the current financial crisis we have to go to America – the paradise of capitalism, from where the crisis originated.

After the stock market crash and the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 1999-2000, American economy ran into a recession and caused a global slowdown in the following year. In June 2003, in an effort to stimulate the present economy and to avoid deflationary consequences of the previous poor years of economic performance, the United States Federal Reserve cut interest rates to a 45 year low, all the way down to slight more than 1 per cent. Taking advantage of the low interest rate, American banks started to borrow billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and then spread the funds in the credit system, primarily in the mortgages market, providing easy housing loans. Banking business became simple: borrow at a lower rate from the Federal Reserve and lend at a higher rate to creditors. The effect of this additional money flow with minimal interest rates helped the American economy to recover momentarily but at the same time was silently encouraging another bubble – this time in the housing sector.

After been aggressively provoked by banks and financial institutions with attractive credit terms, millions of middle class Americans, who in a normal state of affair could not afford or even think of borrowing, started to take out huge amount of credit money to realize their ‘American dream’. The estimate of United States Federal Reserve shows that, in 2005 homeowners extracted $750 billion from equity of their homes (up from $106 billion in 1996), spending two thirds of it on personal consumption, home improvements, and credit card debt. Through housing loans (mortgages), a solid flow of large scale capital investment poured into the housing market. As a consequence of this loose money policy, the housing sector boomed.

Purchase of housing property by massive borrowing was not necessarily done to live in but as an investment venture to cash-in from the rising real estate market. Expectations was that the purchased property could be re-sold with higher profits in future. A largely fabricated demand based on speculation of greater profits created a euphoria among common people. The increased money flow had also temporarily helped the stock markets to stabilize and grow. Its rising index boosted the financial wealth of many upper and middle class households, made them feel richer. In addition, consumer loans (credit cards) provided them the necessary fodder to fly into rampant consumerism with easy available credit money and drove them into the labyrinth of greater borrowing and spending.

Home prices were rising and most people seemed to prosper as long as the new and additional money kept pouring into the housing market at an accelerating rate. But the ecstasy didn’t last longer. From 2004 to the first half of 2006, to prevent the inflationary consequences of its policy, the Federal Reserve began to gradually normalize interest rates. Borrowing became costlier now and as a result the additional money flow in housing market started to decelerate. The housing boom was not founded on a real demand for housing and the drastic price rise of property was far beyond its real value. Growing unemployment and slow down of the economic growth rate of American economy exacerbated the situation towards a crisis.

The demand for houses started to drop fast. Suddenly there were only sellers and no buyers left in the housing market. As a consequence, the real estate value started to fall – up to 30 per cent in some areas effecting 12 million households. Owners were left with a mortgage debt higher than the value of the property. Many creditors turned into credit defaulters as they cannot afford to pay back the amount higher than what they borrowed. At this instant, the police on behalf of the multi-billion-dollar banks and mortgage industries, started to carry out mortgage foreclosure eviction, throwing out millions of American families, landlord and tenant both, from their homes.

Banks and financial institutes lost billions of dollars due to vast amount of outstanding mortgage debt. Over $5 trillion in total market capitalization has been evaporated into air. With empty coffers, banks cannot lend anymore now. They no longer could borrow cheap money from the Federal Reserve for their survival and started declaring bankruptcy. A reduction in the supply of loanable funds and an increase in the demand for more loans created a unique situation that is described as ‘credit crunch’. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve boss has called the crisis that happens once in a century. In August 2007 the United States treasury department announced the housing bubble as "the most significant risk to our economy.”

This ‘most significant risk’ is derived from a basic contradiction of the capitalist economic system. With its fantastic productive capacity, capitalism generates overproduction that exceeds the population's consuming capacity. Long before, Karl Marx had defined capital as “dead labor”, which is “vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.” Capitalism is basically built on wage exploitation where the wage earners can never earn adequate money to buy back their own produce. Uneven distribution of wealth leads to social inequalities and limits the purchasing power of common people.

The effect of the present turmoil is similar to all periodic boom-bust cycles of capitalist economy where credit expansion in the financial market creates an expanded but fabricated demand for a particular sector and most of the additional capital funds created by the credit expansion are also invested in the same sector. It temporarily raise wages and the prices of raw materials. Buying and selling sharply increases paralleling with the rise in asset prices. But at the same time money gets cheaper, loses its buying power and leads the economy towards inflation. Once the system slows down, stock markets decline due to a reduction in the money flow and assets available to fund business activities.

Business houses badly needs available fund to repay their debts. But now they can neither borrow from banks anymore as a consequence of the credit crunch. Nor can they raise funds by liquidating the securities they hold as share prices have fallen. They try to accumulate funds from their last option – the option of reducing expenditures or cost-cutting. Pink slips are handed over to workers and staff members; cost-cutting in production and sales activity reduces revenues. It subsequently diminish profits and their ability to repay their debts reduces further. Of course no one expects them to spend from the enormous surplus accumulated in their private vaults to stimulate the crisis. Thus, when the value and quantity of money reduces, it results in more bankruptcies.

For the moment, India has remained partly immune to the high magnitude global financial crises because the Indian financial sector has remained somewhat regulated and less liberalized compared to most capitalist economies. But there is nothing to rejoice as the worst is yet to come. We can be assured that if situation ‘demands’, the Government of India will also not hesitate to use taxpayer’s hard earned money to bail out business houses. In a capitalist economic system this merry-go-round of the unending ups and downs of boom and bust cannot be permanently eroded. Though capitalism is held up as the best model to emulate but far from being efficient, it has only promoted reckless speculation and greed. Time and again it has not only been proved to be a dangerous system to depend upon, the validity of the entire system is in danger today.

Over the past few years global economy has mainly been following and driven by the American neoliberal economic model. Developing countries like India is no exception as its political and apolitical bosses are trying hard to fit in with the international financial markets by emulating this model which they continue to believe as the best. Their apologists are bravely hoping that “in a few months capitalism will revive itself with some corrections because whatever its flaws, it remains the best way for countries and people to become rich and prosperous.” (Emphasis added) This is the true essence of capitalism – to become rich and prosperous, to become greedy. Capitalism is a vulgar system that teaches every individual that avarice, envy, gluttony and heartlessness are the essential attitudes to achieve self-progression.

The Indian upper and middle class have tasted blood. Who cares to look into the 2008 Global Hunger Index report which has exposed that 12 Indian states are suffering from ‘alarming’ levels of hunger? Who cares to know that more than 10 million children in India are malnourished and over 200 million people are insecure about their daily bread. They have learned to pretend that they ‘just doesn’t see’ and have devoted all their energy to be rich and prosperous. 33 to 50 per cent of the country's wealth is possessed by the top 10 per cent of India's population whereas an estimated 800 million of India's billion-plus people live on 50 US cents a day. Who cares to eradicate social inequalities and uneven wealth distribution? After all, what is the fun to be rich and prosperous if there are no poor around?

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Nuclear deal: why America is proactive to ‘help’ India

The Bush administration is visibly working overtime to finalize the nuclear deal with India. There are many indications that president George Bush is personally pursuing the deal to get it pass in the September session of the US Congress. However, there are different voices within the US administration about how much America will benefit from it. There is also the non-proliferation lobby constantly campaigning against the deal. The Bush administration is arguing that the deal will be a foundation of closed strategic relationship with a democratic and ‘economically vibrant’ friendly country that significantly shares its border with China.

Non-proliferation groups are saying that the deal would ruin global efforts to stop the spread of atomic weapons and boost India’s nuclear arsenal. Democratic Representative of Massachusetts Ed Markey, a leading critic of the deal, said that the Bush administration is pressuring the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for quick approval of the deal, which will compromise the integrity of the review process of the deal’s non-proliferation implications.

‘The Economist’ in its 23 August 2007 issue raised alarm on the Bush administration’s readiness, “Among other dangerous loopholes, some of which have widened since Congress gave its conditional go-ahead to the deal in December, India is pointedly not taking on the obligations and practices of the official five. Unlike them, it has refused to sign the test-ban treaty. Unlike them, it declines to end the production of fissile material—uranium and plutonium—for bombs.” It also says, “China, unhappy at America’s coddling of India, is exploring more nuclear cooperation with Pakistan—which in turn threatens to match India, should it step up weapons production or test again.”

The critics say that contrary to the claims of its advocates, the deal fails to bring India further into conformity with the nonproliferation behavior expected of the member states of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Unlike 178 other countries, India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Then why is the US so eagerly interested? There are two primary reasons.

The business economics of the nuclear deal

American economy in general is looking for greater business opportunities in the ‘liberalized’ Indian economy of today. International Monetary Fund (IMF) has projected a slow economic growth rate for the US economy which is expected to register a growth rate of only 0.5% in 2008, compared to a strong growth rate in India, forecasted to be above 8%. India is one of the fastest growing economies of the world. As the American economy is moving slowly, countries like China and India provides fertile territory for US, the largest economy in the world to invest for high returns. The free market economy is therefore demanding more liberalized procedures in India and any obstacle in this regard is considered negative to the free market notion. Creating a favorable political atmosphere is therefore a necessity in this context. It is understandable why Dr. Manmohan Singh, the ‘chief architect’ of ‘liberalized’ India, a former IMF man, is so dear to Mr. Bush.

The strategic relationship between Delhi and Washington after the Indo-US nuclear deal will result big business for US nuclear suppliers, which would be around $150 billion worth of contracts according to estimates from the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC). US nuclear companies will be able to sell both reactors as well as nuclear technology to India. The nuclear industry in the US presently is going through a stagnant phase as no new commercial nuclear reactor had come up in the past ten years. For one of the largest nuclear industries in the world, this situation is definitely grave. Therefore, if the Indo-US nuclear deal gets through it will have a stimulating effect on the US nuclear industry, which is expected to gain substantially from the emerging Indian nuclear market. Sensing this money-spinning option, the US nuclear business lobby is applying all their influences and contacts to get a smooth passage for the deal. In 2006, two US business delegations visited India looking to sell Westinghouse nuclear reactors and uranium from South Dakota. In the next year when the largest ever US business delegation visited India, 50 out of 250 delegates among them were nuclear manufacturers. As stated by a Bloomberg News report, “Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear power stations, and General Electric, are among four companies poised to share $14 billion of orders from India.”

There are interests extended by big Indian companies also. According to the Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata, Tata Power is certainly interested in operating a nuclear power plant. Other interested parties are the Anil Ambani-controlled Reliance Energy (Anil Ambani is very close to Samajwadi Party’s Amar Singh who has made a volte-face to announce support for the Manmohan Singh government after the Left withdrew support), the Essar Group and the GMR Group. Anil Kakodkar, the Atomic Energy Commission chairman has already made the Indian government’s plan clear when in 2007 he said that the Atomic Energy Act would be amended very soon to allow private-sector participation. There are also contender companies eagerly interested to provide local support as contractors to US companies for setting up nuclear plants in India. Just look at the following list:

(a) In civil construction: Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) and Gammon India;

(b) In boilers: L&T in reactors; Bharat Heavy Engineering Ltd (BHEL);

(c) In boiler feed pumps: KSB, Kirloskar Brothers, Mather & Platt, Jyoti Ltd. and Bharat Pumps;

(d) In heat exchangers: Alpha Laval, GEI Hammon Pipes, Maharashtra Seamless and Ratnamani Metals;

(e) In panels: Honeywell Automation;

(f) In consulting and engineering services: Rolta India.

American hegemony and the nuclear deal

By building a close strategic tie-up with India, Washington will firmly position itself into the heart of the Asian subcontinent. All neighboring countries will soon start sensing the American hegemony from close. Then there are the significant advantages in a perpetuated future conflict by geographically positioning closer to China. India will be more valuable as a friendly nuclear state in this scenario. Washington is continually trying to influence New Delhi to tune its foreign policy with US global strategies; the nuclear deal will work as a wonderful catalyst in this respect. The added advantage will be that in near future the US could greatly increase their influence on economic policies of the Indian government as well. US military’s immediate goal is to start a constructive military cooperation program hosted from Indian soil, jointly with its allies, involving India. The Chinese newspaper ‘People’s Daily’ commented that, “In fact the purpose of the US to sign civilian nuclear energy cooperation with India is to enclose India into its global partners’ camp, so as to balance the forces of Asia.” In September 2005, the Indian Government had displayed its loyalty by voting twice against Iran in the IAEA after the US asked them to do so. Senator Luger of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee praised India’s initiative by stating, “We have already seen strategic benefits from our improving relations with India. India’s votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues.”

India and the US had already signed a ten year agreement ‘New Framework for India-US Defense Relationship’ earlier on June 2005 where various military issues like joint military exercises, joint planning, joint operations in other countries, and defense procurement between the two countries have been included. It seems likely that the civilian nuclear cooperation pact comes in exchange with this defense agreement. The agreement started rolling with the joint military exercises between the two countries in the Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal. Another agreement called “The Logistics and Service Agreement” will allow refueling and complete access facilities to all US ships and aircraft in Indian waterfront.

Strategic partnership between the two countries would be favorable to counteract China’s strategic capabilities and ‘Chinese hegemony’ in the South Asia region. Ms. Condoleezza Rice had earlier made it clear when she affirmed the strategic partnership as, “a platform of partnerships that will enable America to advance its interests and its values in this dynamic region for years to come.” There is another important aspect — the India-Pakistan relations. As M.K. Bhadrakumar in a recent article has noted,

“From Washington’s perspective, harmonising India-Pakistan relations makes the U.S. the predominant power in South Asia. It has serious implications for Asian security as well as for the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. The fallout on Afghanistan can only be helpful. The U.S. diplomacy will become optimal. It makes a fine legacy.”

Here also, money matters has influenced heavily. An estimate shows that India will spend $70 billion in defense procurements in the next five years. India’s long-term purchase plans are highly attractive to the US defense industries. It is not without cause that companies like Boeing were found lobbying the US Congress to smoothen the nuclear deal path. If the deal rolls, Government of India could be influenced further for US defense contracts to push back Russia, who is India's biggest defense supplier today. In future, India may also start launching satellites carrying U.S. components. India has already entered in the business of space launches and satellite fabrication. The availability of high-skilled talent at a lower cost may reduce 30 percent costs of the US space launch programs.

Conclusion

The civilian nuclear cooperation agreement will have a huge overall effect on the economic, political and social life of the country and its people and therefore ought to be studied and analyzed from all possible angles. It is a perilous agreement with hidden dangers which the Left parties tried to explore and explain to the entire nation — not as anti-Americans but as true patriots. The nation is more interested to follow the scrumptious daily developments of political vulgarism and sadly, dedicated to defend the great Prime Minister for holding the nation’s status to an ‘all time high' without knowing the full truth.

Cartoon by Michel Kichka / Courtesy: http://cartoons.nytimages.com/

Friday, June 20, 2008

A booming Indian art?

Let us start with some figures and facts:

a) The global art market is worth about US$ 40 billion (Rs 1,70,000 crore).
(b) The Indian art market is worth more than US$ 0.24 billion (Rs 1,000 crore).
(c) The Indian art market has grown from US$ 2 million to a US$ 400 million market over the last seven years.
(d) From the benchmark year 2003, the Indian art market is growing at an average rate of between 20-30 per cent an year.
(e) A recent report by Fortune claims that the Indian art market has risen over 485 per cent in the last ten years, making it the fourth most positive art market in the world.
(f) Other than the auction houses Sotheby’s and Christie’s, about ten galleries in New York, London and Singapore – added to the hundreds of galleries in Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata - are now dealing regularly and exclusively with Indian art.
(g) Work by an Indian artist that sold in the late 1980s for perhaps $2,500 can now fetch more than $1 million.
(h) The average earning of a resident Indian is US$ 440 per year (Rs. 1,727 per month)

There is a phrase floating around in the Indian artistic community, especially in the hangout joints of young artists, which someway reflects the present status of the contemporary art scene in India. The phrase is that the artist who cannot sell his /her work today will never be able to sell any work in their entire lifetime. The meaning is transparent enough. The present Indian art market has achieved a huge growth and it is not showing any reverse trend even after record inflation figures has hit the Indian economy. According to the Director of Saffron Art Minal Vazirani, the buyers who purchases Indian art today is different from a common buyer of general commodities because their money comes from accumulated wealth, not from earnings. Therefore, the present high inflation does not affect their purchase power.