adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

Putin’s plan to take on the world economic order hits a wall

Published

 on

On December 5, a $60 per barrel price cap on Russian seaborne oil – agreed upon by the European Union, the G7 and Australia just a few days earlier – came into effect, marking the beginning of a new phase in the economic war between Russia and the West.

The price cap may be one of the most significant ripostes to Russia’s weaponisation of its energy reserves since the beginning of its all-out invasion of Ukraine, but what it entails and hopes to achieve appear to be widely misunderstood.

Despite what many seem to believe, the price cap is in no way an effort to end Russian crude exports. On the contrary, it aims to ensure that they continue to flow despite ever-tightening regulations and sanctions – albeit not to Western markets. Indeed, China, India and many other third countries who have been purchasing Russian crude in large quantities and at heavily discounted prices since February are still free to do so. The purpose of the cap is not to stifle these purchases but to limit Russia’s profits – which are mainly used to finance its war effort – by ensuring the current discounts are permanent.

Agreeing on the move has not been easy for the international coalition resisting Russia’s war on Ukraine – its final terms were only accepted by all parties on December 2. The sticking point was where to set the cap. The countries eventually decided to set it at $60 – above the price point where most Russian crude was trading on the eve of the restriction. As the European nation arguably most supportive of Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, Poland was the last holdout. Warsaw joined Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s criticism that setting the cap at that level would mean Russia still makes some profit from the barrels it sells.

But in the end, all parties agreed to a cap of $60, because they saw that at that level Russia’s profits can be vastly restricted without causing a major disruption to global oil markets that could send prices skyrocketing for everyone. Indeed, any lower price cap would have likely forced Russia to take drastic action – such as stopping all exports – and damaged all oil-importing nations alongside Russia.

Since February, the Kremlin – for all its cawing and carping about any such price caps being an unacceptable violation of its sovereignty – has already been exporting its oil at substantial discounts. Therefore, in real terms, a cap of $60 is just an effort to make the existing arrangement permanent.

The West will implement the cap simply by refusing to provide essential services, such as ship brokerage and insurance, for Russian crude that is sold above the limit.

Moscow only has itself to blame for this sad state of affairs. When he launched his war against Ukraine and decided to take on the international economic order, President Putin made several grave miscalculations.

First and foremost was, of course, his deadly and devastating misreading of Ukraine – Putin thought Russian troops would be welcomed by most Ukrainians and his “special military operation” would end in victory in a matter of days.

His second miscalculation was the extent of Russia’s ability to disrupt the international economic order without facing pushback. He assumed that his country’s influence over the energy market would allow him to easily fracture the West and prevent his adversaries from agreeing to multilateral measures – such as the price cap – that could severely limit his ability to wage economic warfare.

But Russia is in no position to take on the West economically.

As recently as in June, for example, roughly two-thirds of Russia’s seaborne crude exports were still being carried by ships that belong to nations that have imposed sanctions on it.

To address this crippling dependency and blunt oil sanctions, the Kremlin has sought to swiftly build a “shadow fleet” to transport its own crude. But that shadow fleet also found itself dependent on Western services – such as the insurance nations require to be in place to accept oil shipments – and thus subject to sanctions.

To avoid being dependent on multinational insurers who comply with Western sanctions, Putin’s Kremlin has sought to develop its own insurance. But many nations, most notably China and Turkey, have refused to accept this Russian workaround insurance.

The impact of Chinese and Turkish denial was significant given the former is Russia’s principal purchaser, and the latter is the country that controls the Bosphorus – Russian exports’ primary way out of the Black Sea.

Neither Beijing nor Ankara is a member of the West’s sanctions regime, let alone its price cap. China almost certainly could use its own insurance giants to help Russia mitigate some of the pain. But it is not willing to do so. Despite declaring its relationship with Moscow had risen to the level of “friendship without limits” on the eve of the war, Beijing has since revisited this position. The new deal is that Beijing will not actively help Russia to undermine the sanctions though it won’t enforce them either – as it has realised that Putin’s aim to destroy the international economic order clashes with its own desire to displace Washington and rise to the top. In short, it is very happy to lock in the discount for Russian crude precipitated by Russia’s war and which the oil price cap seeks to make permanent.

Putin’s increasing isolation – and realisation that his supposed friends are no real allies – may cause him to lash out. The one arrow left in Russia’s oil quiver is to throttle exports to all markets. Doing so, however, runs the risk of burning the few bridges the Kremlin still has, given the likely impact of such a move on international oil prices. And Saudi Arabia, which has been cooperating with Moscow through OPEC+ to keep oil prices from falling too far, could seek to take advantage of the situation – their partnership nearly collapsed in 2020 in a fight for market share that sent prices negative within a month as Riyadh’s ability to ramp up production is far greater than Russia’s. It has already been positioning itself for a greater role in Europe’s energy markets by investing in Poland’s refinery network.

All in all, this month’s price cap on Russian crude marks a turning point in the economic war between Russia and the West. Of course, this war is still far from over, and we will likely experience many more disruptions caused by it in the near future. But it is increasingly looking like the beginning of the end for Putin’s ambitions to uproot the world economic order.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Canada’s unemployment rate holds steady at 6.5% in October, economy adds 15,000 jobs

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Canada’s unemployment rate held steady at 6.5 per cent last month as hiring remained weak across the economy.

Statistics Canada’s labour force survey on Friday said employment rose by a modest 15,000 jobs in October.

Business, building and support services saw the largest gain in employment.

Meanwhile, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing experienced the largest decline.

Many economists see weakness in the job market continuing in the short term, before the Bank of Canada’s interest rate cuts spark a rebound in economic growth next year.

Despite ongoing softness in the labour market, however, strong wage growth has raged on in Canada. Average hourly wages in October grew 4.9 per cent from a year ago, reaching $35.76.

Friday’s report also shed some light on the financial health of households.

According to the agency, 28.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or older were living in a household that had difficulty meeting financial needs – like food and housing – in the previous four weeks.

That was down from 33.1 per cent in October 2023 and 35.5 per cent in October 2022, but still above the 20.4 per cent figure recorded in October 2020.

People living in a rented home were more likely to report difficulty meeting financial needs, with nearly four in 10 reporting that was the case.

That compares with just under a quarter of those living in an owned home by a household member.

Immigrants were also more likely to report facing financial strain last month, with about four out of 10 immigrants who landed in the last year doing so.

That compares with about three in 10 more established immigrants and one in four of people born in Canada.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Health-care spending expected to outpace economy and reach $372 billion in 2024: CIHI

Published

 on

 

The Canadian Institute for Health Information says health-care spending in Canada is projected to reach a new high in 2024.

The annual report released Thursday says total health spending is expected to hit $372 billion, or $9,054 per Canadian.

CIHI’s national analysis predicts expenditures will rise by 5.7 per cent in 2024, compared to 4.5 per cent in 2023 and 1.7 per cent in 2022.

This year’s health spending is estimated to represent 12.4 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Excluding two years of the pandemic, it would be the highest ratio in the country’s history.

While it’s not unusual for health expenditures to outpace economic growth, the report says this could be the case for the next several years due to Canada’s growing population and its aging demographic.

Canada’s per capita spending on health care in 2022 was among the highest in the world, but still less than countries such as the United States and Sweden.

The report notes that the Canadian dental and pharmacare plans could push health-care spending even further as more people who previously couldn’t afford these services start using them.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Trump’s victory sparks concerns over ripple effect on Canadian economy

Published

 on

 

As Canadians wake up to news that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the president-elect’s protectionist stance is casting a spotlight on what effect his second term will have on Canada-U.S. economic ties.

Some Canadian business leaders have expressed worry over Trump’s promise to introduce a universal 10 per cent tariff on all American imports.

A Canadian Chamber of Commerce report released last month suggested those tariffs would shrink the Canadian economy, resulting in around $30 billion per year in economic costs.

More than 77 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S.

Canada’s manufacturing sector faces the biggest risk should Trump push forward on imposing broad tariffs, said Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters president and CEO Dennis Darby. He said the sector is the “most trade-exposed” within Canada.

“It’s in the U.S.’s best interest, it’s in our best interest, but most importantly for consumers across North America, that we’re able to trade goods, materials, ingredients, as we have under the trade agreements,” Darby said in an interview.

“It’s a more complex or complicated outcome than it would have been with the Democrats, but we’ve had to deal with this before and we’re going to do our best to deal with it again.”

American economists have also warned Trump’s plan could cause inflation and possibly a recession, which could have ripple effects in Canada.

It’s consumers who will ultimately feel the burden of any inflationary effect caused by broad tariffs, said Darby.

“A tariff tends to raise costs, and it ultimately raises prices, so that’s something that we have to be prepared for,” he said.

“It could tilt production mandates. A tariff makes goods more expensive, but on the same token, it also will make inputs for the U.S. more expensive.”

A report last month by TD economist Marc Ercolao said research shows a full-scale implementation of Trump’s tariff plan could lead to a near-five per cent reduction in Canadian export volumes to the U.S. by early-2027, relative to current baseline forecasts.

Retaliation by Canada would also increase costs for domestic producers, and push import volumes lower in the process.

“Slowing import activity mitigates some of the negative net trade impact on total GDP enough to avoid a technical recession, but still produces a period of extended stagnation through 2025 and 2026,” Ercolao said.

Since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement came into effect in 2020, trade between Canada and the U.S. has surged by 46 per cent, according to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

With that deal is up for review in 2026, Canadian Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Candace Laing said the Canadian government “must collaborate effectively with the Trump administration to preserve and strengthen our bilateral economic partnership.”

“With an impressive $3.6 billion in daily trade, Canada and the United States are each other’s closest international partners. The secure and efficient flow of goods and people across our border … remains essential for the economies of both countries,” she said in a statement.

“By resisting tariffs and trade barriers that will only raise prices and hurt consumers in both countries, Canada and the United States can strengthen resilient cross-border supply chains that enhance our shared economic security.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending