Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The latest CPI inflation report is dissected and analyzed, showing US inflation is ‘hot’ and chronic. The report ensures another Fed 75 pts rate hike early November and likely another thereafter. Nonetheless Fed rate hikes will have only partial effect on US inflation, although the Fed’s unprecedented pace and size of interest rate hikes is already having unintended consequences: While it’s impact on US inflation is limited (most US inflation due to supply problems not excess demand), Fed rate hikes are driving global collapse of currencies, recession outside US, as well as pushing capitalist financial system into crisis (watch UK pension funds, EU Credit Suisse bank, and US bond markets’ liquidity crisis).

Listen to my October 14 Alternative Visions Radio Show.

GO TO:

https://alternativevisions.podbean.com/e/alternative-visions-inflation-the-fed-us-and-global-consequences/

SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT

Dr. Rasmus discusses the CPI report released this past week and identifies the four sections responsible for the chronic inflation: food, energy, shelter and transport. Why the four will continue to keep inflation high over the winter. Why most of CPI is still supply side driven and not demand. Why Fed escalating rate hikes can address only Demand side causes of the inflation and therefore prices will remain in the 4-5% range despite the deeper recession coming 2023. Rasmus discusses why inflation in Europe is worse than the USA and how Fed rate hikes exacerbate inflation there and elsewhere in the rest of the world. The show concludes with discussion of some of the consequences of the Fed rate hikes (in USA and globally), including why rate hikes (Fed and UK) are contributing to growing financial instability in Britain—which is a case example of what may occur later elsewhere in Europe. Comparisons of the 2008 Lehman Brothers crash with the current emerging financial crisis in Britain.

Remember last fall 2021 when Fed said inflation ‘temporary’ and waited six months to do anything about it? Now, fall 2022, Fed pushing rates up fast, unconcerned about precipitating deeper US and global recession, global currency crisis, and possible financial crash (watch Credit Suisse bank as frontline candidate). Listen to my October 5, Alternative Visions radio show for the discussion, as well as my commentary on OPEC’s thumbing its nose at Biden and US/NATO silly ‘price cap’ on Russian oil and for latest developments in Ukraine war with Biden and Zelensky both talking up possibility of nuclear war.

TO LISTEN GO TO: https://alternativevisions.podbean.com/e/alternative-visions-global-capitalist-instability-rising/

SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT

Dr. Rasmus views consequences of Fed rate hikes continuing on US financial markets, global currencies crisis, and capitalist financial instability. How Fed rate hikes accelerate the dollar and in turn export US inflation to emerging and other advanced offshore economies. Why Fed’s plan is to keep raising rates and there is no ‘pivot’ that US stock markets want to see. Unlike in 2013, the Fed rate hikes will continue despite the negative effects on offshore capitalist economies. Rasmus then discusses the implications of the Saudi-OPEC crude oil production cuts, why the EU’s ‘price cap’ on oil will fail, and what’s possibly behind the recent sabotage of the two Nordstream pipelines. Financial fragility in the case of Euro bank, Credit Suisse, is discussed as is the weak spots in the global real and financial economy. Show concludes with some comments on latest military developments in Ukraine war plus the growing US/Ukraine media campaign (Biden, Zelensky, etc.) messaging the US should use its first strike nuclear doctrine on Russia before it does.

Ever wonder how the phrase ‘US exports its inflation and unemployment to other economies’ because the $US dollar is the global currency and lynchpin of the US economic empire?  Listen to my Oct 5 interview with Critical Hour radio show (15 min.) where I explain the process of US exporting its inflation & recession in simple terms.

GO TO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18HrirjGvMf00mcSx8bhHbFA4DY8GmHBx/view

For a deeper understanding of why the economic-political crises in the UK, listen to my September 30, 2022 Alternative Visions radio show. Contradictions between war induced inflation, energy shortages, collapsing European currencies, and emerging recession in Europe are intensified in the case of Britain and a harbinger of things to come on the European continent.

TO LISTEN GO TO:

https://alternativevisions.podbean.com/e/alternative-visions-britain-s-economic-crisis-isolated-event-or-harbinger-of-things-to-come/

SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT:

Dr. Rasmus reviews the intensifying UK economic crisis that escalated this past week. Bond holders and investors provoked a crisis in Britain’s pension funds in response to the new Truss government’s proposals to cut taxes and enact price caps on the accelerating cost of energy for UK households and small businesses. Capitalist investors don’t want fiscal spending they fear will stimulate the economy and therefore demand and inflation, the latter now double digit and predicted to rise to 17%. They want higher interest rates from the UK bank of England to protect the value of their investments—from rising inflation as well as collapsing British currency, the pound, that has fallen 40%.Rasmus explains this represents growing contradictions between capitalist fiscal-monetary policies and splits within the UK capitalist class. The show further explains and critiques the EU’s latest proposals for sanctions on Russia by creating a G7/EU global oil price cartel, which is doomed to fail if it ever gets implemented. Latest events summarized also in Russia-Ukraine/NATO war.

This past week the European Commission, the umbrella political organization for the European Union nations, issued its latest set of sanctions on Russia.

The most important of the measures was the announcement that the EU was establishing a price cap for purchases of Russian crude oil in global markets. In so doing, the EU in effect plans to become a cartel controlling the price of global oil.

Saudi Arabia and even OPEC in the past failed as a cartel to control the price of global crude by controlling its supply. Yet the EU believes it can become a cartel and control the price of oil even globally even without influence over global supply.

Under the plan, which still requires the approval of all EU economies, the EU will not buy Russian oil at global prices set by market supply and demand. Instead, it will buy Russian oil only at a price that is capped below that of the global market. Reportedly the participants in the Commission discussed a price per barrel of crude capped around $55-$60 a barrel. EU economies will purchase Russian crude only if it is sold to them at or below their ‘cap’.

The plan, if approved, will go into effect only this December 2022.
The idea of the west setting a price cap on Russian oil as a form of sanction originated with Janet Yellen, Secretary of the US Treasury, some months ago. It was an economically absurd proposition then, and remains no less so today. The price cap may not prove effective, but it does illustrate the ineffectiveness of sanctions to date on Russian oil and energy products (i.e. natural gas, uranium ore for Europe commercial nuclear facilities, etc.).

Global oil is traded (bought and sold) in the global market solely in US dollars. So too are other critical industrial commodities and many agricultural commodities. The main focus of US sanctions, including the price cap idea, is to deny the target country—in this case Russia—access to revenue in dollars from the sale of its oil.

Theoretically, the loss of dollars from lower priced oil sales means Russia won’t be able to purchase as much needed imports critical for its economy in general and its war effort in particular. The lack of dollars in turn further means, again theoretically, Russia would have to print more of its own currency, the Ruble, to make up for lack of dollars in its own economy. That might lead to inflation as excess money supply is created for the domestic Russian economy. In turn excess money supply creation in Russia might lead to devaluation to domestic inflation and devaluation of the Ruble.

US initial sanctions on Russian oil and energy to date have largely failed. Russia’s export revenue from sale of oil has actually risen since sanctions and war began last February. Russia has sold more oil to China, India, and at least half of the world economies that have been ignoring US/EU announced sanctions altogether.

The EU ‘price cap’ idea is supposedly going to what oil sanctions up to now, which have been full of loopholes and exemptions, have failed to do—i.e. reduce Russian revenue from oil sales and its accumulation of dollars from those sales.

It is important to note that the EU itself has all but ignored sanctions on Russian oil to date. Russia has continued to ship oil to Europe. And the EU hasn’t even bothered to enforce sanctions on Russian natural gas imports or uranium ore shipments. What reduction in oil and natural gas shipments to Europe that has occurred, has been mostly due to political actions not sanctions. Last spring the Nordstream2 pipeline was quickly closed and more recently sabotaged. So too was the Nordstream1 pipeline. Prior to sabotage, Nord1 gas flow to Europe was reduced in stages by Russia to about only 30% of capacity. It wasn’t sanctions but decision by Russia that reduced the gas exports. There are two remaining large gas pipelines from Russia to Europe still functioning. One crosses the Ukraine and another transverses Turkey and the Aegean Sea into the Balkans. Europe has not tried to reduce gas flow from these with sanctions, although it is likely politics will result in their reduction and shutdown as well eventually.

But to the extent Russian natural gas flow to Europe has been reduced, the causes have been political and have had nothing to do with sanctions. So sanctions on Russian energy exports to Europe have hardly been implemented, let alone been effective. The EU price cap idea is supposed to finally result in sanctions on Russian oil sales and revenue.

Sanctions on exports to Europe and US of Russian industrial commodities have also been rife with exemptions, loopholes and work arounds. In the US, for example, Russian nickel and palladium exports needed for catalytic converters in US autos and in steel production have been significantly exempted. The US some time ago implemented sanctions on Russian oil imports to the US. The amounts of Russian oil imports were quite small. In any event, the US—unlike Europe—has a glut of excess oil and natural gas.

Russia has been earning significant export revenues therefore from the sale of its oil, natural gas, as well as many industrial commodities, ever since the US/EU sanctions regime was first imposed last January 2022. The ‘price cap’ is but the latest desperate attempt by the US and EU to make the sanctions on Russian oil to Europe ‘work’. But it won’t work. Here’s why:

First, the price cap is not going to take effect until December (if at all even then since all the EU nations must agree). So why should Russia even bother selling any oil to Europe in the interim. In business contract matters, if one party notifies the other it is breaking its contract and is no longer going to buy from the seller, that seller can simply cancel its contracts early and not wait until December. Russia will likely therefore cut off its oil exports to Europe sooner rather than later, and just redirect the oil elsewhere to China, India or rest of the world. No need for sanctions of any kind in other words.

But the price cap sanctions idea involves not just the EU buying Russian oil. The price cap is really the US/EU foray into what’s called ‘secondary sanctions’. That is, sanctions on other economies around the world. Up to now, the US has been careful about enforcing sanctions or penalties on other countries that refuse to go along with sanctions to date—and there are many such examples of economies that have been refusing to participate in sanctions. After all, if the Europeans themselves have allowed various exemptions to oil, gas, and commodities exports from Russia, why should other countries abide by the sanctions?

And there’s another even better reason why China, India and so many other countries globally have continued to buy Russian oil: Russia reportedly is selling its oil at around a 30% discount from the global market price.

The global market price today is around $80-$85 a barrel, depending if it’s west Texas crude or Brent (Northsea) oil. So Russia’s 30% discount means it’s selling at around $50-$60 a barrel now. If the EU is talking about setting a price cap at $55, what’s the point? It would have to set a cap even lower than it’s been discussing. But EU won’t be getting any Russian oil after December if Russia decides to turn off what little is still flowing there, as it responds to the price cap threat. And if the EU is not getting any Russian oil but it’s demanding the rest of the world economies adhere to the price cap, who believes the rest of the world is going to take that seriously. EU has nothing to lose from a price cap; but the rest of the world does.

Regardless of any EU artificially set price cap on global oil, should China, India and other countries support the idea just because the US and EU say so. Should they cancel their long term oil contracts with Russia at 30% discount from global market prices because US and EU say so? Buyers of oil and energy in global markets want price stability and reliable delivery. Russian oil provides that stability. The idea of a price cap means potential instability. And who would trust an arbitrary price cap set by Europe and the US as a bureaucratic political directive?

The whole idea of a price cap as a form of sanction set by EU/US by directive is absurd. Few if any will follow. But such is the arrogance of western imperialism to think they still have the power to enact and enforce such a measure. Perhaps in decades past. But no longer.

But the EU and US think they have an ‘ace card’ up their sleeve that will enable them to impose a price cap on the rest of the world: most of the shipping insurance companies are based almost exclusively in the west. What the price cap may have in mind is if other countries don’t follow the cap, then the shipping insurers won’t insure the ships that carry the Russian oil. That would stop the shipment of Russian oil to those countries not following the price cap. The price cap thus is designed to function as a form of indirect ‘secondary sanction’ on countries that don’t go along with the oil sanctions.

Europe is not the real target of the price cap proposal. It will get its oil from the US which will provide much of what Europe needs, albeit at a higher price than the alternative Russian oil. There’s no price cap on US oil; just Russian in the EU proposal.

Stopping the flow of Russian oil to other countries by means of a price cap combined with shipping insurance denial will likely result in a shift toward alternative shipping not located in the west. That means a loss of profits for western oil shipping companies. This has not been lost on Greek, Cyprus and Malta shipping companies who spoke out at the recent EU meeting discussing price caps. They are opposed to the price cap idea for good reason.

To sum up: the idea that the EU can become a global price setting cartel in the world oil market is absurd. What OPEC couldn’t do on the supply side, Europe cannot do on the demand side. Cartels only work if all parties go along, and China, India and the rest of the world simply will ignore and not go along with Europe thinking they can set an arbitrary price of global crude below its market price.

The EU’s recent announcement of new sanctions went beyond just the ‘price cap’ idea. It also announced new sanctions on Russian imports to EU of steel, paper, machinery, appliances, chemicals, plastics and other items. But wait! Weren’t these already sanctioned? If there’s now need for further sanctions on imports of these Russian products, that means sanctions on industrial commodities to date were also full of exemptions and loopholes all along.

China, India, Brazil and other emerging market economies are distrustful of US/EU sanctions to date and justifiably so. That will be especially true of the arbitrary price cap on Russian oil idea. It will be viewed as not imposing much of a cost on Europe, but likely destabilizing world oil markets’ supply and price.

But perhaps they shouldn’t worry that much. The price cap idea is unworkable, probably won’t be supported by all the EU, and carries with it the smell of secondary sanctions by another name, as well as the stink of arrogant western imperialism.

Dr. Jack Rasmus

Last week the US central bank, the Fed, made it clear to investors and all the rest that it was going to war on inflation, regardless if it meant collateral damage to millions of future unemployed. The Fed’s 3rd 75 basis pts rate hike also set off a firestorm of global currency collapse and stock market contractions. While the Fed admits it can’t do anything about supply side causes of inflation or corporate price gouging–which constitutes two-thirds of inflation, it has signaled it will try to make up by crashing consumer and small business demand. The other war is the intensifying conflict in Ukraine. The US/NATO has begun playing a bigger role behind the scenes assisting the Ukraine army in recent gains. In response, Russia has begun to mobilize 300,000 more reservists needed to match Ukraine’s 300,000 forces in the field. Russia’s ‘Special Military Operation’ (SMO), based on limited force commitment in the field, is now over. What replaces it remains to be seen, but the likelihood is a greater escalation in coming months.

TO LISTEN TO my Alternative Visions radio show on the above ‘two war’s of Friday, September 23, 2022 GO TO:

https://alternativevisions.podbean.com/e/alternative-visions-092322-two-wars-the-fed-and-ukraine/

Listen to my recent radio interviews (15-20 min. ea.) on the Fed’s latest interest rate hike and its consequences for inflation and recession:

1. WBAI-NY (Pete De rienzo show host)

https://soundcloud.com/user-879607737/092122-trump-fam-suit-putins-nukes-fed-rate-hike-iran-unrest?si=0b15d2e3fb9342a6993191e3b84ae436&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

2. Critical Hour Radio (Wilmer Leon & Garland Nixon hosts)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FI8TYc7_kxHVr6A2PKWlEyeVxTgxWadO/view

3. By Any Means Necessary Show (Sean Blackmon host)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jCxQo4HnHSk60jNp9LAHAepBUB4ctqWX/view

4. Political Misfits show

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SD4qdUcwoDLnxt5hjfoYwj_X_hi3j2g1/view?usp=drive_web

There is much that Michael Hudson and I agree on, especially with regard to the growing economic and political influence of finance capital in the last half century. We differ, however, in our analyses of how the growing global weight of finance capital destabilizes the global capitalist economy (and especially USA & UK variants) as well as its role in the US economic empire–that is, imperialism.

Another difference between Hudson and I is Hudson sees debt as the centerpiece and lynchpin to reform of the current capitalist economic system. He thus calls for a ‘debt jubilee’ in which by a political-legal action debt is expunged from the capitalist system. In my view, however, a debt jubilee is politically naive call for reform. Capital cannot function without debt, and as it financializes it necessarily creates more debt to function. To therefore call for a ‘jubilee’ in which debt is expunged requires a political revolution first. It is not possible to ‘reform’ excess debt by expunging it from the capitalist system. Capital’s political elite will not assassinate itself. The call for Jubilee is thus a naive, never attainable reformist demand.

Still another important difference in our analyses is Hudson sees a direct conflict between finance capital and industrial capital in the 21st century in which the former is prevailing over the latter. In contrast, my view is this class dichotomy proposition is over assumed. Capital is Capital and the two expressions–finance and industrial–are actually quite integrated. Finance capital is becoming more industrial; Industrial capital has been financialized for some time and is becoming more so.

This writer recently joined in a discussion on another blog, where commentary and exchange occurred on Michael Hudson’s book, SuperImperialism, in which his above basic propositions regarding debt, finance capital, and imperialism were discussed.

My reply and contribution to the discussion was as follows:

“Hudson is right about the growing financialization of Capitalism in the late 20th century, accelerating in the 21st and that financialization creates excess debt in its wake. But he’s wrong about Industrial capital (China, Russia) vs. Finance capital (USA). The USA is still the global leader in industrial capital. USA and China each produce about 25% of the world’s goods output. The USA does it with fewer workers, which means its rate of exploitation of labor is higher. More important, Hudson misses the fact that since the advent of Neoliberal economic policies (late 70s and ever since) US has enabled its multinational corps to offshore much of US goods production. So when industrial capital inside the US is combined with US industrial capital relocated offshore in the empire, the USA capitalism is still the ‘industrial’ capital leader. It is simultaneously become the ‘financial’ capital leader as well. But to the point: in the age of global capitalism and global US economic empire, one cannot compare national economies (China v. USA). As neoliberal policies were implemented and expanded from Reagan to Biden, finance capital also expanded offshore along with industrial capital, beginning in the late 1980s and accelerating. The US empire around the same time also created what I call the ‘twin deficits’ solution to enable US capitalism to repatriate a good part of the surplus value back home that its offshore multinational corporations created. It purposely and consciously (following the Plaza (NY) Accords with Japan and Louvre accords with Europe) ran a trade deficit whereby money capital created offshore was recycled back to the USA in the form of buying US Treasuries and other M&A acquisitions. That surplus allowed the USA to run massive budget deficits in turn, which further in turn allowed the USA to fund constant wars in the 21st century ($8T)while at same time cutting corporate and investor taxes by $15T. Global financialization was essential in order to recycle this foreign created surplus value.

In short, US trade deficits are ‘good’ for US capitalists in that they ultimately increase the global repatriation of value and, very important, enable funding wars and massive tax cuts for capitalists (ie the state returning value to the capitalists via the tax system)

USA empire and capitalists find both industrial and financial capital profitable. In some ways the former is even more profitable. (Note here that ‘profits’ are both from productive labor as well as ‘fictitious’, for Marxists). Capitalism sucks up global productive labor profits via imperial policies. But it same time creates more ficititious profits. Contra contemporary Marxists’ analysis, fictitious capital is not irrelevant..at least not to the capitalists. Fictitious capital and profits expand because there are no costs of goods, no need for labor in most cases, and the turnover is far faster than for industrial goods profits.

It is naive to call for a Debt Jubilee without clarifying that debt is essential now (in many forms not just financing industrial capital as in the 19th century) to capitalism and the US global economic empire. An anti-capitalist revolution would be necessary to expunge debt in general in the system. Hudson doesn’t understand this and calls for a debt jubilee under capitalism, as if the capitalists would agree anyway to such ‘reforms’ that would topple their own economy and eliminate much of their current system of profit maximization (fictitious as well as productive labor profits). An anti-capitalist revolution would be required to expunge debt on any scale. And that takes a political strategy, not an economic reform proposal to pass legislation to enact a debt jubilee.

There’s one more comment on Hudson ‘Superimperialism’ thesis and view that financialization is taking over real investment, leading to the decline of US economic empire, as finance capital attains dominance over industrial capital:

Do the capitalist global energy companies represent industrial capital? Yes, they produce the non-durable products called oil (and chemical derivatives of same). They make profits from industrial production. But the global price and therefore profits from oil is as much ‘financial’ as industrial. A major part of price and profit is determined by finance capitalists speculating on global oil futures exchanges. Profits are thus both industrial (production) and exchange (speculation in financial oil futures markets). So are the world’s oil corporations ‘industrial’ or ‘finance’? How does one speak of industrial vs. financial in this case? The same can be said for most globally traded industrial commodities, also bought and sold on futures markets. And then there’s the world’s great manufacturing corps. Many of them make a majority of their ‘profits’ from financial asset investing, not producing. In other words, in 21st century global capitalism, run by the American empire, the old 19th century distinction of bankers/finance capital vs. industrial capital is largely in accurate. It is just Capital, finding ways to leverage finance in order to make even more ‘fictitious’ money capital as it squeezes labor to extract more value and thus profits from production as well.”

Dr. Jack Rasmus
Sept. 16, 2022

Listen to my annual Labor Day assessment of the condition of American workers and their Unions, and latest key trends and developments including Amazon & Starbucks organizing and the mainstream press virtual blackout of historic collective bargaining negotiations currently underway involving US railway workers and west coast longshore dock workers.

TO LISTEN GO TO:

https://alternativevisions.podbean.com/e/alternative-visions-090222-labor-day-2022-the-state-of-american-workers-unions/

SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT:

Dr. Rasmus presents his annual labor day overview of the condition of American unions and working class. A description of the history of the rise and fall of union membership in the US from the 1920s to the present is given, followed by why overall union membership still remains stagnant despite 60-70% of workers saying in polls and surveys they want a union. Corporate-Govt causes of the decline vs. union top leadership failures are addressed. On the positive side, Dr. Rasmus reviews the past year’s positive union events including formation of unions at Amazon, Starbucks and other retail and the direct election of new top union leaders in the autoworkers and Teamsters unions. The state of current negotiations involving the ILWU (west coast dockworkers) and the Railway unions is covered, and the key strategic nature of these unions and negotiations are noted. On the negative side, the failure of the Biden administration to get the promised PRO Act passed and the White House’s token responses. An overview of the condition of the US working class over the past year concludes the show, including what’s really happening with jobs, the decline in real wages, other compensation losses for the working class in 2021-22 and why Biden’s recent legislation will have no benefit to workers in the short term.

Listen to my last two weekly Alternative Visions radio shows in which I analyze in depth and critique Biden’s latest two legislative programs: Student Debt cancellation and Inflation Reduction proposals.

To listen GO TO:

(Student Debt Cancellation)
https://jackrasmus.com/2022/08/25/bidens-bifurcated-student-debt-cancelation-plan/

(Inflation Reduction Act)
https://alternativevisions.podbean.com/e/alternative-visions-081922-biden-s-inflation-reduction-act-and-how-we-got-it/