Connect with us

Economy

The economy we have taken for granted is not coming back

Published

 on

Open this photo in gallery:

From the left: Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, China’s President Xi Jinping, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov raise their arms at the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa on Aug. 23, 2023.ALET PRETORIUS/The Canadian Press

Jeff Rubin is the former chief economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets. His latest book is A Map of the New Normal: How Inflation, War, and Sanctions Will Change Your World Forever, from which this essay is adapted.

In the early 1960s, only 4 per cent of countries were subject to economic sanctions imposed by either the United States or the United Nations, accounting for less than 4 per cent of global trade.

Today, 54 – a quarter of all the countries in the world – are subject to some form of sanctions, affecting almost a third of global GDP. And at the rate that sanctions are now being applied, it will soon be the majority of trade.

The world is engulfed in an ever-escalating global trade war. Virtually every day, new sanctions are being imposed, triggering reciprocal actions against Western goods.

300x250x1

Where will this lead? Can the West still win such wars, as it has done before? If not, what are the consequences of losing?

Along with sanctions has risen a new world order in which the United States and its NATO allies can no longer use their economic and military power to unilaterally dictate terms to the rest of the world.

A growing number of economic heavyweights in the developing world are joining America’s principal opponents, China and Russia, in the BRICS economic alliance, which includes once bitter enemies Saudi Arabia and Iran. Dozens more countries are lining up to join.

Together they are challenging the dominance of Western economic power on a scale not seen in a century. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the trade war over Ukraine, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

As BRICS membership grows, the reach of Western sanctions shrinks. Instead of isolating Russia as a pariah, sanctions have instead fractured the global economy into competing geopolitical blocs.

Russia itself is of course no stranger to Western sanctions. What U.S. President Joe Biden and his Western allies didn’t realize was that Russia had been busily sanctions-proofing its economy ever since it annexed Crimea back in 2014, if not before, in anticipation of economic reprisals from NATO countries.

And even more importantly, Western powers didn’t fully appreciate how the rest of the world, particularly the emerging Global South, had changed and the role it could play in taking the bite out of sanctions.

That proved to be a fatal miscalculation. Whereas in the past the loss of Western markets – particularly for Russian energy exports, the lifeblood of Moscow’s war machine – would have dealt a fatal blow to the Russian economy, that certainly is no longer the case.

Russia has pivoted its economy away from Western European markets toward those of its BRICS partners in Asia, most notably China and India, which have steadfastly ignored U.S. threats and welcomed sanctioned Russian goods to their vast and rapidly growing economies. Last year Russian energy export earnings hit an all-time high.

An even greater miscalculation by the Biden administration and its allies was ignoring how sanctions would boomerang back on their own economies, opening a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences.

The most obvious of those consequences is the resurrection of inflation, which had been long buried for more than four decades. Sanctions were the trigger for its dramatic revival.

When you sanction shipments from the world’s largest exporter of energy and grain, there are consequences for the prices of substitute supply. Soaring food and energy prices pushed inflation to levels not seen since the OPEC oil shocks. That in turn has forced a crippling rise in interest rates, as central banks such as the Federal Reserve Board and the Bank of Canada were reluctantly forced to respond by raising their target interest rates from near zero to the 5-per-cent range.

And those central bank rate hikes in turn led to the largest correction in the supposedly staid but safe government bond market since before the U.S. Civil War (1860 in the case of the benchmark 10-year Treasuries).

While the North American economy has weathered the storm (apart from the collapse of a few regional banks in the U.S.), the European Union hasn’t been so lucky. Skyrocketing energy costs and soaring interest rates have thrown the entire EU economy into recession, most notably in Germany, and have done the same in Britain. Meanwhile, the Russian economy, after experiencing a very modest decline during the first year of sanctions, has hit a new peak in GDP.

As disheartening as the short-term results have been, the longer-term consequences of sanctions could be even more worrisome.

Historically, trade restrictions have been the normal realm of economic warfare, but today’s sanctions have spread like some terrible contagion to capital and currency markets as well. And just as in trade, there have been boomerang effects.

Sanctioning the ruble and confiscating a third of the Russian central bank’s foreign reserves was supposed to cripple the Russian economy. Instead, it has already cost the U.S. dollar its five-decade status as the petrocurrency of the world and may soon cost it even more: its once unrivalled position as the sole reserve currency in the world during pretty much the entire postwar period.

Similarly, the ultimate consequence of Western firms abandoning their operations in Russia or refusing to sell their goods or services in the Russian market may ultimately fall on those same Western firms.

Instead of forcing Russian consumers (and perhaps soon Chinese consumers as well) to go without Western goods, sanctions have created a vacuum in those markets that is quickly being filled by the growth of indigenous companies. These companies do not only replace Western firms in their own markets, as Russia has already done in aerospace, but in time may come to compete with them in third markets, particularly in BRICS countries.

Ditto for the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions aimed at preventing China from accessing state-of-the-art semi-conductor technology. There can be no greater incentive for the growth and development of China’s chip industry than U.S. attempts to thwart its access to leading-edge technology. Just check out Huawei’s new 5G phone – a technology it wasn’t supposed to possess.

Having spurred the development of alternative, homegrown industries in BRICS countries, have the U.S. and its NATO partners incented the development of new commercial competitors among its geopolitical rivals?

But perhaps the biggest casualty of sanctions is the global trading order that our governments repeatedly assured us was the basis of our collective prosperity. While no fewer than 11 (and likely more still to come) rounds of sanctions have failed to shred the Russian economy as promised, they have managed to shred that very global trading order that we supposedly all cherished.

The exclusion of Russian and, increasingly, Chinese products from Western markets, as well as the ban imposed on investment in and from those countries, undermines a system predicated on the free flow of goods, capital and technology. And that fundamentally changes the way our economies will operate.

Instead of fostering the highly specialized division of labour that globalization compels, sanctions encourage economies to look inward to meet the needs of their domestic markets. Adapting to a world of sanctions requires a local economy to become a jack of all trades, as opposed to specializing in the production of whatever its natural comparative advantage dictates. And that transformation is happening not only in the economies that are being sanctioned but in the economies of sanctioning countries themselves.

For countries that lack the resources to be self-sufficient (and most do), friendshoring provides the new chart book for securing foreign supply among the many obstacles that now stand in the way of global trade. Friendshoring essentially means trading with your political allies instead of with your geopolitical rivals.

“Decoupling” or “derisking” is another way of putting it – and its goal is nothing short of turning the very dynamic of international trade (comparative advantage) on its head.

As any economics undergraduate student will realize, if Ricardo’s dictum of comparative advantage makes everyone better off, then sanctions do the exact opposite. But the logic of economics doesn’t seem to matter any more. All that matters is security of supply in a world that seems inexorably heading toward global war – if not military, certainly economic.

Friendshoring may make supply chains a lot more secure in a world where economic warfare has become the norm. But the only problem with friendshoring is that most of America’s friends are high-wage economies much like its own. They are the last places global corporate titans such as Apple want to be making their products.

If Apple produced its iPhone in its home state of California, where the minimum wage is US$15.50 an hour, instead of in China, where its principal supplier, Foxconn, pays US$1.50 an hour, you probably couldn’t afford to buy it. And that doesn’t hold true just for Apple. That holds true for virtually everything imported from China.

The realignment of global supply chains along a geopolitical axis, as opposed to cost considerations, is going to make the world a lot more expensive for generations of Western consumers who have grown accustomed to reaping the price benefits of cheap overseas labour.

No longer will trade be driven by economic imperatives. Instead, international trade will be driven by geopolitical considerations. Suddenly, the foreign policies of a country’s government, not the cost competitiveness of its industries, will determine trade flows. At least from an economist’s perspective, the emerging new world order will be a lot less efficient than the old order it is rapidly replacing.

Insofar as the lead imposer of sanctions, the United States, is concerned, it hasn’t really mattered whether there was a Democratic or Republican administration in office; sanctions have been on an upward trajectory no matter which party was in the White House. Sanctions imposed by the Office of Foreign Asset Control soared from 540 a year under the Obama administration to 975 a year under Donald Trump and 1,175 under Mr. Biden.

Sanctions are no longer the exception. Instead, they have become part of the new normal. And so have their consequences.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Newcomers, youth hit hardest as job market cools: Bank of Canada’s Macklem

Published

 on

The Bank of Canada’s Tiff Macklem says the path back to the central bank’s two per cent inflation target appears close to the coveted “soft landing,” but he also warns consequences of the cooling labour market have not been spread equally.

Macklem spoke about the health of Canada’s jobs market in a speech to the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce on Monday afternoon.

His talk came a few weeks after the Bank of Canada delivered its first interest rate cut in more than four years, a major shift in monetary policy after more than two years of tightening that saw the Canadian economy slow.

300x250x1

As part of that cooldown, the unemployment rate rose to 6.2 per cent as of May, up from 4.8 per cent in July 2022 — the lowest point since at least the 1970s.

Rather than a correction that sees waves of Canadians losing their jobs, the rise in unemployment has come alongside a decline in vacancies and a rapidly growing population.

Inflation has come down too, last clocking in at 2.7 per cent in April with fresh data set to be released on Tuesday. Macklem said Monday that the economy appears to have enough “slack” where it can continue to add jobs without jeopardizing the path back to the two per cent inflation target.

“This is the soft-landing scenario. It has always been a narrow path, and we have yet to fully stick the landing,” he said.

“We are not yet back to two per cent, and we can’t rule out new bumps along the way. But increasingly, we look to be on our way.”

But Macklem also pointed out that while the overall labour force cooling has been “reasonably smooth” in aggregate, the data can mask worrying trends for some groups in the jobs market.

The unemployment rate for newcomers to Canada stood at 11.7 per cent in May, he noted, more than double that of the rest of the population (5.7 per cent).

It’s a similar situation for many Canadian youth, including new graduates. The unemployment rate stands at 12.7 per cent for those aged 15 to 24, well above the rate of 5.2 per cent among 25-to-54-year-olds and two percentage points higher than the pre-pandemic average for the group.

Because employers are hiring less in the slowdown, it’s harder for workers to find their first jobs, Macklem explained. That disproportionately hurts newcomers, young workers and recent graduates, and means the jobless rates here are rising much faster than the rest of the workforce who have more established careers.

“Integrating into the Canadian economy is becoming more difficult,” Macklem said of newcomers taking longer to find jobs. He said the federal government likely “has room” to slow the pace of growth in non-permanent residents without driving labour shortages.

Macklem conceded that labour market adjustments are “never evenly distributed,” adding that the Bank of Canada’s policy rate can’t target “specific parts” of the workforce.

“But the slowdown in hiring has led to increases in unemployment for younger workers and newcomers to Canada. These workers are feeling the effects of slower growth more than others, and we need to recognize this,” he said.

Macklem also had praise for Canada’s immigration system on Monday. He told reporters after his speech that Canada “does a pretty good job” of bringing in workers who can “integrate relatively quickly into the labour market.”

But there are “limits” to how quickly Canada can absorb newcomers into the economy, Macklem said.

“I think the message here is, ‘Look, this has been a big success for us, it’s been a real strength.’ Let’s not lose sight of that. Let’s make sure we’re focused on smart immigration policy going forward,” he told reporters.

“It’s been a key source of growth to Canada. Let’s keep it that way.”

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Kevin O’Leary blasts Canada’s ‘weak leadership’ amid economic uncertainty

Published

 on

Kevin O’Leary says Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have squandered Canada’s vast economic potential, and that it’s time for wholesale change within the federal government.

In an interview with BNN Bloomberg on Tuesday morning, the Canadian businessman said that Canada’s abundance of natural resources make it one of the richest nations on earth, but political leaders have done a poor job managing the country’s wealth.

“We’re such a wealthy country, and we are so poorly managed from a policy basis,” he said.

“When I think about the tremendous potential the country has in natural resources, which was the essence of its success over the last 200 years – we’ve ignored it.”

300x250x1

O’Leary said that the current federal government has instead focused on things that “have nothing to do with our core wealth,” adding that he “can’t help but blame Justin Trudeau for the last decade.”

“He’s a weak manager, in my opinion. A very successful politician, but a very, very weak manager,” he said.

O’Leary made a brief foray into politics himself during Trudeau’s first term, entering the race to become the leader of the federal Conservative Party in January of 2017.

However, he dropped out a few months later, saying he didn’t think he would garner enough support in Quebec to beat Trudeau in a 2019 election, and officially endorsed Maxime Bernier, who lost his leadership bid narrowly to Andrew Scheer.

Foreign investment, capital gains

O’Leary argued that Canada should be attempting to lure foreign investment from corporations and sovereign wealth funds in order to inject jobs and capital into the Canadian economy, but current policies make investing in the country unattractive.

“We’ve done a very poor job of that and we’ve made the policy so poor in terms of attracting capital for these massive projects that they just don’t come anymore,” he said.

“Our own pension plans go and invest in natural resources outside of Canada. It’s just shameful. It’s a real problem… I’m hoping there will be a change in policy in this country because I would love to invest more in it, I just find it impossible to do so.”

When it comes to taxation, O’Leary said the proposed change to Canada’s capital gains tax, which officially came into effect on Tuesday, is “an absolute mistake.”

“When you mess around with corporate tax rates, corporations are not people, they can move. Structures can move, and they will,” he said.

“They’ll contort themselves if all of a sudden they find a path of least resistance somewhere else.”

Jamie Golombek, managing director at CIBC Private Wealth, told BNN Bloomberg in a Tuesday interview that for most individuals, the increase to the capital gains inclusion rate won’t impact their finances.

“For the average Canadian, this will not make any impact, whatsoever,” he said.

“You have to have over $250,000 of annual capital gains for this to actually impact you… a capital gain is the difference between the selling price of something and the cost. So typically a stock price; the proceeds plus the cost base is your capital gain.”

But O’Leary said that from a business perspective, the changes will negatively impact Canada’s ability to compete with other G20 nations for investment dollars, adding that it’s a fundamental policy misstep by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.

“I want to respect Freeland because she is the finance minister, but I don’t know why she’s the finance minister. She has no experience at this. She’s never even run a bank… I don’t know why she’s there,” he said.

“The damage she’s doing now will be felt, if it doesn’t get repaired immediately, for decades. Bad managers do a lot of damage, and she is a very bad, underqualified manager.”

Leadership change 

O’Leary said that he’d like to see new elected leaders take control of Canada’s finances in order to help the country become more prosperous and competitive.

“Justin Trudeau and his cabinet have been very successful in terms of longevity, but I really believe this to be true: Canada, if you look at resources per capita, is one of the richest countries on earth, run by idiots,” he said.

O’Leary compared Canada’s approach to managing its abundance of natural resources to that of Norway’s – another major oil exporter.

He said the Scandinavian country used and contributed to its sovereign wealth fund wisely over the years, growing it to one of the largest in the world, and making Norway one of the richest nations per-capita in Europe.

“(Canada) desperately needs leadership that understands the potential of the country and what to do in terms of putting the right people in cabinet positions,” he said.

“We have unqualified, weak managers, and I mean no disrespect, but I wouldn’t let them run a bodega… I think a lot of people feel this way about this country: so much potential, so squandered (with) weak leadership. Let’s change it.”

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

BLOG: Ontario’s future as dynamic economy in doubt—if employment trends continue

Published

 on

As Canada’s largest province both economically and in terms of population, Ontario is a key driver of Canadian prosperity. Its economic strength manifests itself via job creation and Ontario has nearly 40 per cent of the country’s employment. Since 2010, Ontario’s total employment has grown by more than 21 per cent while the rest of Canada (ROC) has expanded by about 18 per cent. While Ontario’s employment growth mirrors that of the rest of the country, it does exhibit some interesting differences in terms of public, private and self-employment shares of total employment and their performance over time.

The first chart below plots public-sector employment as a share of total employment for Ontario and the rest of Canada for the period 2010 to 2023. Overall, Ontario is somewhat less reliant on public sector employment but there is a difference in trends over time. From 2010 to 2019, Ontario was marked by a slight decline in the public-sector share of employment as it went from 19 to 18 per cent. At the same time, the rest of the country stayed at about 20 per cent. Since 2019, both Ontario and the ROC have seen a jump in public-sector employment to nearly 20 per cent for Ontario and 22 per cent for the ROC with a levelling off after 2022.

Figure 1

The second chart shows Ontario consistently above the ROC when it comes to private sector employment shares reflecting Ontario’s continuing role as a centre for Canadian manufacturing and finance especially in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). Moreover, since 2010 that share has grown from under 66 per cent to 67 per cent with that growth continuing after the post pandemic employment rebound. The rest of the country has been somewhat more moribund in this regard as its private sector employment share is no higher than in 2014.

Figure 2

The third chart is more concerning given the trends revealed for Ontario and the rest of Canada. First, Ontario’s self-employment share was relatively stable between 2010 and 2020 at an average just above 15 per cent. Over the same period, the ROC saw a decline that by 2020 brought the share to below 15 per cent. Indeed, over the 2010 to 2020 period, the ROC went from slightly above Ontario to below when it came to the self-employment share. When the pandemic hit, the self-employment share in both Ontario and the ROC took a steep dive from which neither has yet to recover. This represents a remarkable free-fall that does not bode well for the future.

300x250x1
Figure 3

What are the implications of these trends?

While the long-term increase in total private sector employment is reassuring, the rise in public sector employment and drop in self-employment is not. To start, a drop in self-employment means a drop in the number of small businesses and ultimately a decline in entrepreneurship. The shock and restrictions of the pandemic were invariably a factor as many smaller and family or individually run businesses decided to pack up shop for good. While some of these individuals may have gravitated towards public-sector employment it is more likely given the aging labour force that they simply have decided to retire from the labour force permanently.

This is a national trend but in a province that is the economic engine of the country , it foreshadows a decline in innovation and future economic growth. Small businesses are the backbone for developing entrepreneurship and innovation and they also provide opportunities for financial independence aside from traditional employers in both the private and public sector. Moreover, while the self-employed themselves may only account for 14 per cent of employment, they in turn are responsible for a large chunk of the remaining private-sector employment.

In terms of other takeaways, another interesting item to note is that for Ontario, the period of declining public-sector employment shares occurred under the McGuinty-Wynne governments while the increase since 2019 has been under the Ford government. While the pandemic is inevitably a factor in the post-2019 public-employment surge, as it recedes into the past there seems to be no movement towards the public-sector share shrinking. Indeed, if one looks at the public-sector salary disclosure lists, during the McGuinty-Wynne era spanning 2003 to 2018 the list added 130,981 salaries over $100,000 to the broader public sector. Since 2018—a much shorter time period—nearly 150,000 salaries have been added to the list.

More public-sector employment is not better for long-term economic growth. Ontario’s future as an innovative and dynamic economy may be in peril if these trends continue.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending