The Untold Realities of Pakistan: Kaiser Bengali

 

What is a Default - A Pakistan Scenario

Asad Ejaz Butt in The Dawn

When Pakistan’s dollar reserves fell below $5 billion in December, and its credit default risk had reportedly become too high for analysts to ignore the possibility of an imminent default, the central bank made a policy decision to allow the opening of import letter of credits (LC) in a staggered manner to ensure spreading of the dollar reserve over a longer period of importing time.

The idea was to allow the government some diplomatic time to knock on the doors of friendly countries and multilateral organisations, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Fund had dilly-dallied on the ninth review to force monetary authorities in Pakistan to take the first steps towards a few baseline reforms, including the relegation of the dollar to the markets. Markets that the central bank and the government regards as ripe with imperfections.

The rupee was finally devalued last week which automatically implied that it was left to a market that had the propensity to sell it to gain dollars. This provided IMF with the confidence to schedule the ninth review, which is now ongoing in Islamabad. It is likely that the IMF’s review will be completed, and default, as was predicted by some and wished by a few others, didn’t happen.

However, while the media thundered about the staggeringly high levels of inflation and alarmingly low levels of reserves, and analysts evaluated an infinitely large number of scenarios that would lead to a default, no one from the economists ever explained what a default meant and what would have happened to the economy if it took place. 

From the mid of November to the end of January, I was asked this question many times: “is Pakistan going to default, or has it already defaulted?” None of those asking the question seemed to know what it meant for a country to default and what would happen if it did. Last week, for the first time, someone asked me what Pakistan’s economy would have looked like under the influence of default.

Put in very simple terms, a default for a country like Pakistan with large exposure in commercial loans means defaulting against commercial debt. Bilateral debt can be rolled over, while debt from multilateral organisations often has long-term maturity cycles making a country’s default vulnerability depend primarily on commercial loans.

So, imagine if Pakistan’s reserves had declined to such low levels that it would have defaulted against its commercial debt. This would have led the central bank to refuse commercial lenders’ payments to repay or service their debt.

That would have reflected in the further downgrading of the country’s ratings by agencies like Moody’s and S&P, dampening the trust of other international lenders and, after that, the government’s ability to raise new commercial debt.

Since the dollar inflows would have declined due to limitations of debt inflows, you could have only imported as much as you exported plus the dollars that expat Pakistanis remit from all over the world. This would be like a situation where you are forced by circumstances to keep your current account deficit close to zero.

Many of the imports that you would not afford would be inputs to the industry. While that would impact exports, the slowdown would impact production in the non-exporting sectors, pulling down the overall level of production in the economy. The natural consequence of all of this is the classic saga of too much Pak­istani rupee chasing too few goods.

Inflation would have skyrocketed as the local currency that people would be holding would not translate into consumable items. Contraction in the economy due to production losses would have seen many people get laid off in a span of weeks, leaving some with money but nothing to buy and many without even money to buy. Economists call such situations characterised by slow growth but high unemployment and inflation ‘stagflation’.

This was played out in Sri Lanka in the summer of 2022. It suspended repayments on about $7bn of international loans due out of a total foreign debt pile of $51bn while it had $25m in usable foreign reserves.

Pakistan has around $3bn in reserves against an external debt pile of $126bn. Pakistan, in December 2022, was definitely headed in the Sri Lankan direction. However, we did not default and any chance of doing so has been left far behind.

Reviving even mere inches away from default is a world different to an actual default since, in the former case, you can resume business as usual as soon as a multilateral like the IMF returns with a few dollars in hand. However, in the latter case, even multilateral balance of payments support will take years to rebuild the economic edifice.

Pakistan didn’t default, and those who thought what happened to Pakistan in December of 2022 was a default must realise that a real default would have been much scarier than a few hundred LCs being opened with delay.

This piece is based on several conversations held with Mubashir Iqbal and Haider Ali.

Will Nissan stay once Britain leaves? How one factory explains the Brexit business dilemma

David Conn in The Guardian

Earlier this year, when the British government’s assessments of the economic impact of Brexit were finally published, they revealed that the north-east of England was at risk of the deepest damage. Although the region still bears scars from the decline of heavy industry in the 1980s, today the north-east is the only part of Britain that exports more to European countries than it imports. And, amid the region’s new and rebuilt industries, such as pharmaceuticals, the most significant engine of recovery has been Nissan, the Japanese carmaker, which is housed in a giant factory complex just off the A19 at Washington, near Sunderland.

The plant was opened with great ceremony by Margaret Thatcher in 1986. Sharon Hodgson, now Labour MP for Washington and Sunderland West, which includes the plant, remembers that as a teenager, she was amazed when it was announced that Nissan would be setting up there. “Growing up in the north-east then, we had seen everything close – the mines, the shipyards, so many people put out of work. It was the cruellest, most awful time,” she said. “As a young woman, I remember the feeling of hope and optimism when Nissan came, the shock and surprise that we were actually going to get something.”

Since then, Nissan’s operation has expanded to cover a 800-acre site, running two production lines that produce 519,000 cars per year – about 55% for export to other EU countries. According to the company’s most recent annual report, for 2016-17, Nissan’s UK operation generated £6.4bn from sales, employed 7,755 people and paid these workers, mostly living in the north-east, £427m in wages. Companies supplying parts to Nissan employ a further 30,000 people across Britain.

“Nissan hasn’t been able to bring full recovery to the area; decline and deprivation are still prevalent,” said Hodgson. “But they are a massive employer, providing good jobs, including the supply chain which is so important. You have father and son working there now, a real sense of pride, and that productivity and quality is why it has been so successful.”

Yet today, there is serious concern at Nissan that Brexit threatens to damage its operation in Sunderland. The clearest explanation of how its UK business depends on EU membership was provided in February 2017 by Nissan executive Colin Lawther, appearing before parliament’s international trade committee. Lawther, a chemist by training, began his career with Nissan in 1985, as one of the key workers responsible for setting up the laboratory operation in the Sunderland plant. He went on to become Nissan Europe’s senior vice-president for manufacturing, purchasing and supply-chain management, before retiring earlier this year.

To produce as many cars as it does, Lawther explained, Nissan Sunderland needs to receive and fit 5m parts each day. Of these parts, 85% are imported, mainly from Europe. The plant holds only enough parts for half a day’s production, because it is expensive to store them, so the whole multi-billion pound operation relies on these millions of parts arriving daily with no barriers or customs delays.

Because Britain is currently part of the EU, this is a straightforward process. Each of the 28 EU member states belongs to the single market, which has been designed to facilitate trade by removing tariffs, as well as other trade and customs barriers. Rather than having 28 different industrial safety regulations, for instance, there is a single set of regulations that applies across all member states. The single market means trade between 28 different countries is free, fast and “frictionless”, just as it would be if the EU were one very large country. “Frictionless trade has enabled the growth that has seen our Sunderland plant become the biggest factory in the history of the UK car industry, exporting more than half of its production to the EU,” Nissan said, in a statement for this article.

“We build two cars every minute,” Lawther told the committee in 2017. “So you have 5m parts coming in every day, and you have half a day’s worth of stock. Any disruption to that supply chain is a complete disaster.

“We are talking about plant efficiency, downtime efficiency – to be world-class, we have to be 97% efficient. We are talking about two, three, four, six minutes a day of downtime on the production line. More than that is a disaster. If you start talking about interruption of supply of parts for hours, that is completely off the scale.”

If Britain leaves the EU without securing an agreement for continued frictionless trade – the “hard Brexit” outcome – Britain’s trading relationships would be regulated by World Trade Organisation rules, which do not allow for agreed product standards, and therefore will require customs checks at the borders with Europe. The rules also impose tariffs, including 10% on cars, 4.5% on car parts. For Nissan’s Sunderland operation, Lawther told the committee, as well as likely new delays at the borders, the impact of tariffs will add up to around £500m per year of additional costs, which would be “pretty disastrous”.

According to the government’s assessments, published in March, a “hard Brexit” would lead to a 16% economic decline in the north-east. London, by contrast, with its much more varied economy and the financial power of the City, would suffer a drop of only 3%.

The key figure in deciding the fate of Nissan’s operation in Sunderland is Carlos Ghosn, a global business executive born in Brazil to Lebanese immigrant parents, then educated in France. Ghosn, who became known as “le cost killer” after he restored the fortunes of Renault in the 1990s with his relentless efficiency drives, is not only chairman of Nissan, but also chairman of Renault and Mitsubishi, and of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance that allows the three companies to work together to save costs. Renault owns 43.4% of Nissan, which in turn has bought a 15% stake in Renault, and 34% of Mitsubishi.

Since the vote to leave the EU, which was a shock to Nissan and other carmaking companies, Ghosn has consistently emphasised two main points in his occasional public statements. First, Nissan will not make further investments when they do not know what Britain’s future trading arrangements will be. Second, if leaving the EU significantly raises costs and trade barriers, Nissan will consider reducing its British operations. Sunderland is by far Nissan’s largest European plant, but the company has other factories in Europe. The current priority for the alliance, overseen by Ghosn, is a €10bn (£8.9bn) global cost-cutting programme to be implemented by 2022. It is increasingly moving towards a standard manufacturing method that can make both Renault and Nissan models. Already the Renault factories at Flins and Le Mans in France are making the Nissan Micra, in huge numbers.

Although it has invested £4bn since 1986 to make Sunderland its European base, Ghosn has said it will be reviewed if Britain becomes uncompetitive due to Brexit. “I don’t think any company can maintain its activity if it is not competitive,” Ghosn said in June. “If competitiveness is not maintained, little by little you’re going to have a decline. It may take some time, but you’re going to have a decline.”

Nissan’s Washington car plant does not look grand; it is a no-frills operation. Beyond the security gates and high railings, which are punctuated with turnstiles where the workers enter, the vast site consists of blank, imposing production sheds and basic office blocks. The main reception is a bare, functional lobby that has the feel of a 1980s school entrance. There, on a shelf, sit two Japanese Daruma dolls, which by tradition had their first eye painted – by Prince Charles and his then wife, Diana – when construction began in 1984, and the second – by Margaret Thatcher – when the plant opened on 8 September 1986.

In her landmark speech that day, Thatcher portrayed Nissan’s arrival as a British victory over the rest of Europe. “It was confirmation from Nissan,” she said, “that within the whole of Europe, the United Kingdom was the most attractive country – politically and economically – for large-scale investment.”

 

Margaret Thatcher painting the eye of the Daruma doll at the opening of the Nissan plant in 1986. Photograph: Alamy

Thatcher did not mention that Britain’s membership of the European Community (as the EU was then known) was crucial to Nissan’s decision. Yet she was fully aware of it, as were other government ministers. In a meticulously researched history of the plant’s funding via EU and UK government public money since the 1980s – adding up to almost £800m – Kevin Farnsworth of York University and his co-authors Nicki Lisa Cole and Mickey Conn (no relation) unearthed a 1980 memo to Thatcher from her industry minister, Keith Joseph. Nissan had by then decided to build a European plant in Britain, and Joseph explained:

“The deal [is] tangible evidence of the benefits to the UK of membership of the European Community; Nissan [has] chosen the United Kingdom because it [gives] them access to the whole European market. If we were outside the community, it is very unlikely that Nissan would have given the United Kingdom serious consideration as a base for this substantial investment.”

At that time, the north-east’s traditional industries were already being closed down. In 1980, British Steel shut its plant at Consett, putting 4,500 people out of work, a still powerfully remembered devastation. Shipbuilding on the river Tyne had long been declining and was parched of investment. Ashington, Easington and other communities built around coal, including Wearmouth colliery in Sunderland, were to suffer the agonising deprivations and defeat of the 1984-85 miners’ strike, which was called to fight closures. In 1992, Michael Heseltine, then president of the board of trade, would announce that 31 of the country’s remaining 50 pits would close, cutting 30,000 jobs.

When I spoke to Heseltine for this article, I asked if he conceded that his government was too brutal in these mass closures of longstanding industries. He reflected for a moment, then replied: “Probably it was too unthinking.” He said he regrets that there was no considered policy to improve these industries – through better management, company reforms and longer-term investment. “Unlike Germany, Japan, France, now China, there was never any stable industrial strategy. It was much easier to say ‘let the market rip’,” he said.

Against that landscape of collapses, Heseltine recalled the efforts to bring Nissan and other Japanese companies to Britain: “We were looking to attract anything that would help the economy. And it was a central part of the attraction to the Japanese that we were in the European Union.” The German and French governments were more protective of their own industries, Heseltine said, and the UK saw Japanese investment as an opportunity to get into the European market. Thatcher’s newly restrictive trade-union laws, which had been bitterly opposed by unions, were also part of her government’s pitch: that workers would be less able to strike and easier to lay off than in other European countries. The Washington plant has, however, always been strongly unionised.

For the Japanese companies, Heseltine said, the UK was the “soft underbelly” of Europe, a way in. Shinichi Iida, minister for public diplomacy and media at the Japanese embassy in London, confirmed that Japanese companies were courted by Thatcher’s government, telling me that many Japanese companies “have a strong sense that they came here at the invitation of the UK at that time”. In 1989, two other major Japanese car manufacturers followed Nissan’s lead: Honda, which now makes models of the Civic for export, about a third to the EU, from its factory in Swindon, and Toyota, which describes its car plant at Burnaston, near Derby, and its engine factory in Deeside, north Wales, as “European production centres”.

The English language was a big draw to the UK for Japanese manufacturing companies, as was its tradition of research and development, and “the very strict and open legal system”, Iida said – but it was “quite essential” that the UK was “a gateway to Europe”. Sir Ian Gibson, who was recruited by Nissan from Ford in 1984 to establish and run the Washington plant, confirms that: “The whole premise of the investment was that it was a European base; there would be free access to the European market.”

Ged Parker, who was on the negotiating team for the local regeneration authority, recalled their pitch to Nissan. They had a huge site available on an old airfield, the former RAF Usworth; they had the north-east’s industrial tradition and experienced workforce; there was proximity to the A19, the A1, Newcastle airport and – most crucially – the ports on the Tyne, Tees and Wear for shipping parts and finished cars to and from Europe.

The north of England development council had hired a representative in Japan, Ken Oshima, to drum up business, and Parker remembers the enthusiasm of the visiting Nissan executives. “The delegation were engineers – they were technical people and they had a reverence for British industry.” They could also see that the area was able to complete major construction projects; Washington new town had just been built, a planned layout of new housing, industrial estates and shops, near historic Washington village, where the first US president George Washington had his family roots.

The team deployed an array of winning tactics to impress Nissan. “The proposal document was the first we ever did on a word processor,” Parker said. The authority had bought two computers just a few weeks before Nissan’s visit. “It was leading-edge technology then.”

Crucial, though, were huge grants of public money, provided by the UK because the north-east was classified as a special development area, in need of investment. According to Farnsworth, by 1984 the government had pledged £112m from the regional development and selective financial assistance schemes, to secure and prepare the site for Nissan’s investment. The airfield was classed as agricultural land, and sold at a heavy discount.

On 30 March 1984, Nissan finally signed the agreement to invest in Washington. “It was an unbelievable feeling,” said Parker. “It was a career high for me. The north-east has always felt hard done by, and it almost changed morale overnight. What Nissan has done since, expanded so much, particularly in recent years, dragged more industry up here, spread good practice, has been huge for the region.”

The first model made at the plant in 1986, when it employed 430 people, was the Nissan Bluebird. Gibson said they began with a target of 24,000 cars a year. The Primera model replaced the Bluebird in 1990, and two years later, the plant began to make a second model as well, the Micra. By 2000, the plant was producing three models – and a total of 300,000 cars each year.

Although the financial crisis hurt Nissan and 1,200 jobs were axed in January 2009, the British plant’s fortunes recovered more quickly than others. The Juke, Leaf, Infiniti and Qashqai models were all commissioned at Washington from 2010 onwards, attracting more multi-million pound investment in plant and machinery by Nissan, and a new round of expansion.

 

Nissan workers prepare doors for the Qashqai car in Sunderland. Photograph: Reuters

When Nissan needs to decide on new investments, such as where new models are to be built, individual plants mount competing internal bids to the main board. “The plants with the best claim get the investment,” Gibson explained. “And the ones with the best claim have the least friction and risk. Sunderland, for a long time, was the best claim.”

Inside the basic, shed-like structure that houses the production lines is dizzyingly intricate, hugely expensive technology geared towards the “just in time” assembly of a car, mostly Qashqais, every minute. One of the Unite officials described the job on the line as “very hard, physically demanding”, and it looks it. The workers, mostly men, are on their feet throughout an eight-hour shift, tightly focused on machine-fitting engines, doors, dashboards and windscreens to the car bodies that come along the line each minute. Overhead, another line is sending down finished wheels, to be attached at the end of the process. Another team carries out rapid tests on the cars, then transporters take them out and to the port.

The Sunderland factory does not go in much for the modern trend of decorating the workers’ areas with ambient colours or motivational slogans, but there is one small sign next to the production lines. It says: “Nissan Sunderland Plant: SECOND TO NONE.”

In the months before the EU referendum, the Labour party’s official remain campaign, led by the former home secretary Alan Johnson, approached Nissan to ask if it could stage its north-east launch event at the Washington plant. The politicians wanted to showcase an economic, industrial and employment success that had clearly been built on EU membership.

Nissan declined. Despite the impact Brexit was likely to have on their businesses, senior executives at most major companies took the view that it was unlikely voters would decide to leave, and there was little to be gained by being too forthright on a political issue. When Nissan finally did make a statement, it was an exercise in restraint. “Our preference,” it said, “is, of course, that the UK stays within Europe – it makes the most sense for jobs, trade and costs. For us a position of stability is more positive than a collection of unknowns. While we remain committed to our existing investment decisions, we will not speculate on the outcome nor what would happen in either scenario.”

 

Nissan Qashqais and Leafs being inspected at the port of Tyne before export. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty

Unite also told its members that the union favoured remaining in the EU. “The damage Brexit can do is a massive concern, and we did campaign to remain,” says Tony Burke, Unite’s assistant general secretary with responsibility for manufacturing. One Unite official at the plant, who did not want to be named due to the sensitivity, still, of talking about Brexit, said he felt Nissan’s statement was “very neutral” and did not communicate to the workers how much was at stake. He said they did their best with Unite’s message, but it was “just one voice, one hit, in months of hysteria ramped up by the media, particularly about hostility to immigrants. That’s what people were listening to.”

Politically, Sunderland is overwhelmingly Labour: its three constituency MPs all represent the party, and in 2016, Labour won 67 of the 75 seats on Sunderland city council. The MPs and council campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU, but on the doorsteps, they found that people were planning to vote leave in large numbers.

In the referendum, 61% of Sunderland’s voters chose leave. When I visited the plant recently, I talked to several workers as they came off a shift. Most had voted leave. One young man, 24, who, like the others I spoke to, did not want to be named, said he had voted remain because he preferred stability and he “thought we’re fine as we are”, but that older workers around him had voted leave. “They said that they didn’t see a change from before and after we joined the EU, and some said they didn’t like the EU making rules for us.”

An older man, 55, pointed to one of the huge sheds behind us and said, like others, that Nissan’s multi-million pound investment in it shows the Sunderland plant is secure. He said he had voted leave to stop immigration, “EU interference”, and because the north-east gets “bugger all money” from the EU.

In fact, after Cornwall, the north-east receives England’s second-highest amount of EU structural funding proportionate to its population, according to a report compiled before the referendum for Sunderland’s public and private sector partnership, the Economic Leadership Board. The current round of EU funding, being managed by the region’s local enterprise partnership, is £437m between 2014 and 2020. Nissan itself, according to Farnsworth’s research, has received £450m in loans from the European Investment Bank, and £347m in grants and other public funding, from the UK and EU.

Another Nissan worker, 63, sitting on a barrier waiting for his lift home, said he had voted leave, like many of his colleagues, because he was “sick of the EU deciding our laws”. I asked him if he accepted that leaving was damaging to the car industry, and to Nissan. He did, he replied, then smiled, and said that would still not prompt him to change his mind.

Since the referendum, Nissan’s chairman, Ghosn, has regularly made public warnings that the operations in Sunderland will be reduced over the long term if Brexit makes the UK uncompetitive. Gibson says Britain’s lack of preparation and chaotic political process is creating “a terrible impression” with the Japanese.

Gibson knows the company intimately. After helping to establish the Sunderland plant, he went on to become president of Nissan Europe, and the first European to join the main Nissan board in Japan. “Of course, it is realistic that Nissan could stop investing in the plant; it’s the most likely outcome,” he said. “Now it is a three-company alliance; there are lots of Renault plants screaming out for future models, and Nissan plants in Spain. Why go to Sunderland, which will have more frictions and risk, and be isolated?”

During his time at Nissan – he left in 2001, after 17 years – Gibson was struck by the way Japanese business culture focused single-mindedly on careful scrutiny of the data. “They have a very rational decision-making culture,” he said. “They examine the evidence, and have a very tough debate to reach a rational conclusion.” Iida, the Japanese embassy minister, agreed with Gibson’s assessment: “It takes time for them to take a decision, but once they do, they simply don’t waver it so easily.”

Within the car industry there is exasperation, and even disdain, for the pro-Brexit argument that British-based companies will be freed from ties with the EU to “go global”. Nissan and the other major manufacturers, including suppliers, are already global; they have huge plants in the US, China, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India and Russia. The Sunderland plant was allocated one model, the Infiniti, for export to the US, and sells some other cars around the world, but as Ghosn has emphasised, the plant is there principally to serve Europe, not to ship expensively to other continents where Nissan already has plants. Car manufacturers locate a factory in one country to serve that geographical region; Ghosn has consistently referred to Nissan’s Sunderland plant as “a European investment based in the UK”.

In September 2016, Ghosn suggested that the company’s plan to select Sunderland as the European plant to assemble its new Qashqai and X-Trail models was at risk following the referendum, and stated that the government needed to provide “commitments for compensation” if Brexit increased costs. In response, the government scurried to reassure Nissan. May met Ghosn personally, and the business secretary, Greg Clark, flew to Japan to meet senior executives. There then followed a period of correspondence that has still not been made public.

Following this government effort, on 27 October Nissan’s global headquarters in Yokohama announced that it would indeed build its new Qashqai and X-Trail models in England, “securing and sustaining the jobs of more than 7,000 workers at the [Sunderland] plant”.

Nissan has since insisted that Ghosn’s call for “compensation” was misunderstood, and was never a request for direct subsidy. However, the government has allocated considerable further UK and EU funding that has had the effect of helping Nissan. One of Nissan’s priorities, emphasised by Colin Lawther in his evidence in parliament, has been to bring more suppliers to the north-east, saving the company costs of importing and transport. In January 2017, only a few months after its intense period of correspondence with Nissan, £41m of EU funding was allocated by the north-east local enterprise partnership towards the construction of a new international advanced manufacturing park (IAMP), across the road from the Washington plant. Nissan suppliers are planned to locate on the site, where initial construction began in August.

That grant accounted for more than 80% of the £50m EU funding the local enterprise partnership had to spend in that round, so other regional infrastructure projects lost out. The chair, Andrew Hodgson, said he has never asked to see the exchange of letters between Nissan and the government, but that: “It was very clear, from a north-east perspective, we needed to invest in the IAMP.”

In March 2017, the BBC managed to uncover a small part of the correspondence between Nissan and the government. Paul Willcox, then chair of Nissan Europe, had proposed the need for more investment in electric vehicles, of which Nissan’s Leaf model is a market leader. Soon after the exchange of letters, the government announced that it would be making a multi-million pound investment in more charging points and other incentives to develop electric cars. Clark’s department for business, energy and industrial strategy has said that commitment followed general policy and was not specific to helping Nissan.

Farnsworth, the York University academic who has researched the public funding for Nissan in the UK, suggests that Brexit is already leading the British government to be defensive, desperate to keep the investment the country already has. Brexit, his report says, “gives Nissan nearly unprecedented bargaining power with the UK government. These circumstances put the government in the position of having to give Nissan exactly what it wants in order for the company to remain in the UK.”

Despite the government’s efforts to reassure Nissan, Ghosn has repeated warnings that further investment decisions are on hold. It was in June, speaking to the BBC, that he warned of gradual decline if competitiveness is damaged. “So far we have absolutely no clue how this is going to end up,” he also said. “We don’t want to take any decisions in the dark. We don’t want to take any decisions we might regret in future”.

In their statement for this article, Nissan, still quite restrained, nevertheless echoed Ghosn’s warning. “Today we are among those companies with major investments in the UK who are still waiting for clarity on what the future trading relationship between the UK and the EU will look like,” it said. “As a sudden change from those rules to the rules of the WTO will have serious implications for British industry, we urge UK and EU negotiators to work collaboratively towards an orderly, balanced Brexit that will continue to encourage mutually beneficial trade.”

Iida, at the Japanese embassy, said the priority is to avoid a hard Brexit: “Japanese companies have been seriously taking risk-hedge measures,” he said. “For example, Japanese financial institutions have already submitted business applications to cities such as Frankfurt and Amsterdam, and Japanese manufacturing companies are very quietly holding off their future investment plans.”

Since the referendum, and particularly since the publication of the government’s impact assessments earlier this year, James Ramsbotham, chief executive of the north-east chamber of commerce since 2006, has been voicing increasingly urgent warnings about the threat to the region’s economy. None of the government’s responses, or its conduct of the negotiations since, he says, have reassured him.

When I told him that Michael Heseltine had reflected on the 1980s closures of the north-east’s coal mines and heavy industry as “too unthinking”, Ramsbotham instinctively drew a parallel with Brexit: “Aren’t we in danger of doing the same unthinking thing now?” he responded. “Delivering another potentially catastrophic shock to the economy, without sufficient thinking, planning or foresight?”

Currency wars are nothing new – but who will be the casualty of the next?

Satyajit Das in The Independent

Wars frequently take place over years, with shifts in theatres, strategy, and tactics.

The current currency wars began in 2009. Badly affected by the sub-prime crisis, the US cut interest rates dramatically and subsequently launched 3 waves of QE. Between March 2009 and August 2011, the US dollar fell by around 16 per cent on a trade weighted basis against major currencies. With its banks exposed to the 2008 financial crisis, the UK adopted similar policies resulting in a sharp fall in the Pound Sterling.

There were counter-attacks commencing late 2011/early 2012. The European debt crisis forced the European Central Bank (“ECB”) to cut rates and then launch its own version of QE. Between 2011 and 2012, the Euro fell by over 25 per cent against the US dollar. As part of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s economic program, the Bank of Japan (“BoJ”) expanded its QE programs, weakening the Yen, which fell by over 30 per cent between 2012 and 2015.

There were side skirmishes. After 2014, falling oil prices and diplomatic conflict with the West over the Ukraine and resulting sanctions caused a sharp fall in the Rouble. Since 2011, the Indian Rupee has lost half its value. Falling commodity prices weakened the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand dollars, Brazilian Real and South African Rand.

The battles themselves have been inconclusive. The US recovery was assisted by the weaker dollar which increased exports. But investment in the shale oil boom, growth in emerging markets, budget deficits and also prompt action to deal with banking problems were crucial. In Europe and Japan, fiscal stimulus, demand from emerging markets and a lower commodity, especially oil, prices were arguably as important as the fall in the Euro and Yen in stabilising economic activity.

The complex impact of devaluations can be seen from the case of the UK. The sharp drop in the pound after 2007 was expected to increase exports. In the early 1990s, it stimulated activity pulling the country out recession. The lower pound, this time, improved the balance of trade but not sufficiently to offset declining domestic demand and the higher cost of imports. The muted effect was driven by the lack of external demand from major trading markets such as the US and Europe, the changed structure of UK industry with its focus on services rather than raw materials, advanced machinery, automobiles and luxury goods demanded by emerging markets, and the decline in North Sea oil and gas production.

The divergence in economic cycles between various major economies caused a change in fortunes. Between August 2011 and July 2014, the US dollar rose by 11 per cent on a trade weighted basis. By January 2016, it had risen a further 25 per cent because of a strengthening US economy, anticipation of higher interest rates and the deliberate weakening of the Euro and Yen.

The rise slowed the US economy. It created pressure on emerging market borrowers with substantial US dollar debt not covered by cash flows or assets in the currency. The stronger dollar placed pressure on already weak commodity prices and resulted in a revaluation of the Yuan which is linked to the American currency.

At the March 2016 G20 Shanghai Summit, the leading economies recognised the stresses. There are suggestions that there was agreement to lower the value of the dollar. Between January and July 2016, the US dollar declined by around 5 per cent. But the accord, if there was one, unravelled quickly. At the G7 Finance Minister’s Meeting in May 2016, Japan clashed with the US on the issue of currency valuation. The dollar’s fall reversed, exposing problems for the US and global economy.

The war is entering a more dangerous phase. Gold, which now functions as a de facto currency, has risen in value anticipating the currency crisis which appears increasingly unavoidable.

Japan and Europe are likely to further ease monetary policy weakening their currencies to address the lack of growth and low inflation. For Europe, the immediate effect of the Brexit decision and the depreciation of the pound is an additional consideration. China needs to devalue to help manage a slowing economy, property bubble, industrial overcapacity, fragile banking system and export-dependent, debt-based economic model.

Policy makers risk losing control. A falling Yen or Euro could force China to retaliate by devaluing the Yuan significantly. Other countries, especially in Asia where currencies are directly or indirectly pegged to the dollar, are likely to be forced to take measures to counter the effects of the stronger US dollar and a loss of competitiveness against the Euro, Yen or Yuan.

The currency wars will spill over into interest rate markets. Central banks globally will be forced into accommodative monetary policies to avoid large capital inflows seeking higher returns pushing up the currency. Sharp falls in interest rates anticipates this trajectory.

Low rates will increase risk in already over-valued asset markets. They will be reinforced by deflationary pressures as countries, such as China, with excess production capacity undercut competitors. Political responses, such as a declaration by the US of Europe, Japan and China as currency manipulators or reporting countries to the WTO for violation of dumping rules, will add a geo-political dimension.

In foreign exchange wars as in military versions, there are no winners. A weaker dollar means that the rest of the world loses. Japan and the Euro zone benefit from a stronger dollar but the US loses. At the same time if the Euro and Yen weaken, then as the dollar rises China loses because the Yuan appreciates. If a country lowers rates to weaken their currency to improve export competitiveness, there is a risk of capital flight, which may weaken the domestic economy. If a country takes no action and their currency appreciates due to aggressive measures from competing nations, then exports suffer as competitors gain market share. It will end, as it does always, in stalemate with major casualties on all sides.

If only Britain had joined the euro

If Gordon Brown had chosen to join the single currency 10 years ago, both the European Union and Britain would be stronger now

• 
• • Will Hutton
  • The Guardian, Thursday 13 June 2013 19.30 BST

Gordon Brown with Paul Boateng and Dawn Primarolo in June 2003, just after his ‘not yet' decision on joining the euro. Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian

Ten years ago this week Gordon Brown said no to joining the euro. It is an anniversary on which Bank of England governor Mervyn King, Ukip's Nigel Farage, Unite's Len McCluskey and the Guardian's Larry Elliott, along with most of the British economic establishment, can all agree. On this, Brown was right.

Elliott set out the establishment consensus in a classic piece this month on his alternative history of what would have happened had Britain joined. Essentially, he says, there would have been a bigger boom in the runup to 2007 and a more disastrous bust. Britain would now be struggling to maintain its membership as anti-EU sentiment mushroomed, prompting its eventual exit, dramatising the inherent unsoundness of yoking disparate economies into one inflexible currency.

But there is a more optimistic, alternative history. The first obvious point is that Britain could have joined the euro only if a referendum had been won. A victory would have depended on it being an obvious good deal, with the pound entering at a competitive rate and the euro's structure, rules and governance reformed to accommodate British concerns and interests. The European Central Bank would have needed to look more like the US Federal Reserve, with more scope for fiscal and monetary activism. The Germans would doubtless have insisted, in return, that the EU banking system be more conservatively managed.

The last decade would have been very different. What none of the mockers of the euro ever acknowledge is the economic doomsday machine that Brown created through not joining. By not locking in a competitive pound, Britain suffered a decade of chronic sterling overvaluation, made more acute by the City of London sucking in capital from abroad to finance the extraordinary credit and property boom of those years.

Imports surged and exports sagged; the economy outside banking, which made goods and services to be sold abroad, either stagnated or shrank. Much of the best of UK manufacturing was auctioned off to foreigners. Today we find that, despite a huge currency devaluation, there are just not enough companies to take advantage of it: too much of the rest of British capacity, thanks to foreign takeover, has become a part of global supply chains that are indifferent to exchange-rate variation. Our export response has been feeble; evidence of the economic orthodoxy's inability to devise policies and structures that favour production.

Inside the euro, at a highly competitive exchange rate, Britain's exports would instead have soared, and its traded goods sector would have expanded, not shrunk. Regional cities would have boomed around sustainable activity rather than property and credit. The euro's rules would have meant a less reckless fiscal policy, and banks would have been more constrained in lending for property. They would have had to lend proportionately more to fast-growing real enterprise, reinforced because the new rules would have required them to lend in a more balanced way.

Britain would have entered the 2008 crisis with a far less unbalanced economy, a stronger banking system and international accounts, and a government deficit much less acute. And the reformed eurozone could have responded much more flexibly and cleverly than it did.

In any case, both Britain and Europe are now wrestling with depressed economic activity caused by overstretched bank and company balance sheets – and the exchange-rate regime is hardly the cause of this distress. Germany and the stronger EU countries are plainly wrong in their overemphasis on austerity as a solution, but surely right to argue that the only long-term solution is for the whole of Europe to move to their productivist, stakeholder capitalism.

British mainstream commentators see the obvious fissure between the stronger European north and the weaker south as proof positive that the euro is fatally flawed. But suppose countries like Greece or Ireland rise to the German challenge? Already there are encouraging auguries in both. If so, notwithstanding excessive austerity, they could weather the crisis, and become stronger.

There is plainly a chance one or more countries could leave, but there is a greater chance the system in some form will hold – it is in too many countries' interests to avoid failure. Then expect a pan-European recovery to begin in the second half of the decade that will gather strength in the 2020s.

Inside the euro for the last decade, the economic and political debate would have necessarily moved on. Having won a historic referendum decisively affirming Britain's future in Europe, the Blair government would have had to think in European terms about how to produce, invest, innovate and export. Sure, there would have been problems. But Britain outside the euro in 2013, with endless spending cuts, the biggest fall in real wages for a century, 500,000 people relying on food banks, and a weak unbalanced economy, is hardly a land of milk and honey.

Emboldened by his referendum victory, Blair could have sacked Brown before the disastrous second phase of his chancellorship and lacklustre prime ministership. Blairism would have morphed into a new form of European social democracy, fashioning British-style stakeholder capitalism. UK politics would not have moved so decisively to the right, with conservatives preaching free-market Thatcherism while the left clings to a bastard Keynesianism – united only in their belief, against all the evidence including Britain's export performance, that floating exchange rates are a universal panacea.

A single currency demands disciplines and painful trade-offs: but floating exchange rates after a financial crisis are a transmission mechanism for bank-runs and beggar-my-neighbour devaluations. Magic bullets do not exist. Had Britain joined, both we and Europe would have been better placed, and Larry Elliott would now be writing about how better to get Britain to innovate and invest under a fourth-term Labour government. A better world all round.

No one really understands what’s going on in our economy

Does anyone properly understand what’s happening in the UK economy anymore? (Editor's comment: If you don't understand then why are you still in your job?)

Can it really be true that an economy which has created more than a million private sector jobs over the past two and a half years is showing no growth at all?  Photo: Reuters

By Jeremy Warner in The Telegraph

7:44PM GMT 11 Feb 2013

I’m sure I don’t, though I spend longer than most attempting to read the tea leaves, and I’m ever more convinced the policy makers don’t either.

There are two related problems here. One is with the data, which are ever more contradictory. Some of them point to a flatlining, or even still declining, economy, with badly impaired levels of productivity, but there are also quite a lot of alternative data to suggest something better – most notably in near record levels of private sector job creation. The other problem is with what fiscal and monetary policy are trying to achieve, which seems to grow more confused by the day.

Both intellectually and practically, monetary policy has become something of a mess. Before the crisis, the Bank of England was guided by a simple and absolute inflation target, which it was relatively successful at meeting and was easy to understand. But since the credit crunch, it has taken on another purpose – that of bringing about a return to sustainable growth. This has brought the Bank into conflict with its primary objective. Since the crisis began, inflation has consistently been well above target, but for a brief dip in 2009, and it has twice been above 5pc.

This week’s quarterly inflation report will bring further discomfort, with the Bank forced to concede both that growth is failing to respond as hoped and that inflation is now likely to remain elevated for the next two years.

Unfortunately, there appears to have been no trade-off between inflation and growth. Inflation has stayed high but growth has been non-existent. The Bank excuses its evident failure on inflation by stressing the apparently higher purpose of preventing a collapse in output, and with justification, it further insists that domestically generated wage inflation has remained tame. This is all very well but, with wages lagging prices by some distance, disposable incomes have been quite severely squeezed and this is plainly bad for domestic demand and growth.

With the Bank’s admission that inflation may remain above target for the next two years, the squeeze on disposable incomes is likely to persist. So, in this regard, the Bank’s policy of tolerating elevated inflation in pursuit of higher growth has been quite harmful to both objectives.

Sticking to the inflation remit has become something of a charade but, ridiculously, the Bank still pretends that this is what it is trying to do. It is to be hoped that the new Governor, Mark Carney, can bring more clarity and openness to the Bank’s endeavours. Don’t expect miracles.

Fiscal policy has been equally badly wrong-footed. Lack of growth has derailed the Government’s deficit reduction plan, threatening certain fiscal crisis down the line in the absence of evasive action.
What’s more, the unwritten compact between Government and Bank of England, under which the Bank is supposed to compensate for tight fiscal policy with monetary activism, seems to be breaking down. At last week’s meeting, the Monetary Policy Committee decided to do nothing even though it judges risks still to be on the downside. To the chagrin of George Osborne, the Chancellor, Sir Mervyn seems to be saying there is little more that monetary policy can throw at the problem.
Mind you, the data as they stand would be enough to paralyse even the most sure-footed of policymakers into inaction. Can it really be true that an economy which has created more than a million private sector jobs over the past two and a half years is showing no growth at all?

Equally hard to understand is why the UK’s export performance continues to look so lamentable. The eurozone crisis provides only part of the explanation, since even Spain and Greece have done better on exports than Britain, and that’s without the “benefit” of a sharp devaluation in the currency.
Britain’s exceptionally large services sector, and its fast-growing digital economy, may provide partial answers to all these puzzles. Once you strip out disruptions to, and structural decline in, North Sea oil revenues, then there has been some underlying GDP growth.

Moreover, if you think of much of the growth that took place in the pre-crisis bubble years as essentially just the “candyfloss” of an out of control financial and property sector, then today’s stagnation looks much easier to understand. Service industries in general, and financial services in particular, are notoriously difficult to measure, both in terms of their output and contribution to exports.

Part of Britain’s problem with the European Union is that there is still no properly functioning internal market across key service sectors. The EU exploits the UK’s weaknesses in traded goods while denying it the opportunity to play to its strengths in services. Until these deficiencies are rectified, the EU will struggle to be a net positive to the UK economy.

But that’s by the by. Looking at business investment, it was on a declining trend from long before the crisis and, to the extent that it was happening at all, there was a disproportionate emphasis on commercial property, great swathes of which now lie empty. Bulldozing this unwanted surplus would perhaps be the best solution, or at least converting it into housing.

So there’s another big chunk of past growth that has turned out to be of little or no long-term value. Strip these things out and it is by no means clear that the rest of the economy is suffering the crippling decline in productivity widely assumed. To the contrary, much of the anecdotal evidence points to significant advances, especially in the digital economy, which is growing faster in Britain than almost anywhere else.

According to a report by the Boston Consulting Group, the UK is now home to the largest per capita ecommerce market and the second largest online advertising market anywhere in the world.

Much of the growth in these markets, the productivity gains they drive, and the intangible benefits they deliver, are not caught by official GDP figures, which only attempt to measure the market value of the economy. In a paper just published, Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College Business School and others find that measured real value added has been understated by 1.1pc since the end of 2010 because of failure to capture intangible investment. Take this into account and there has in fact been no fall in productivity since then.

These musings lead to three conclusions. First and foremost, the Chancellor needs to act swiftly to recalibrate fiscal consolidation so as to give growth a supply-side, tax-cutting shot in the arm. Second, he should answer calls from both Sir Mervyn King and Mark Carney for a review of the Bank’s monetary remit. Finally, something has to be done about the GDP data, which beyond their capacity for political knock-about, have become about as useful as a chocolate teapot. (Editor's comments - The analysis is fine but the problem is with the conclusions - This maybe a ruse to cut taxes for the rich! Secondly the author now admits the problems with using GDP data as an apt indicator of economic performance - wheras all this while the UK and the USA have been telling the whole world that GDP performance is the best measure of economic performance. Alas! - the naysayers were saying it all along!)

Africa's natural resources can be a blessing, not an economic curse

Resource-rich countries have, on average, done poorly but progress is possible if they get economic and political support

People in countries rich in natural resources, such as Tanzania, pictured, can benefit if given the right political and economic support. Photograph: Remi Benali/Corbis

Joseph Stiglitz in The Guardian

New discoveries of natural resources in several African countries – including Ghana, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique – raise an important question: will these windfalls be a blessing that brings prosperity and hope, or a political and economic curse, as has been the case in so many countries?

On average, resource-rich countries have done even more poorly than countries without resources. They have grown more slowly, and with greater inequality – just the opposite of what one would expect. After all, taxing natural resources at high rates will not cause them to disappear, which means that countries whose major source of revenue is natural resources can use them to finance education, healthcare, development and redistribution.

A large literature in economics and political science has developed to explain this "resource curse", and civil-society groups (such as Revenue Watch and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) have been established to try to counter it. Three of the curse's economic ingredients are well-known:

• Resource-rich countries tend to have strong currencies, which impede other exports

• Because resource extraction often entails little job creation, unemployment rises

• Volatile resource prices cause growth to be unstable, aided by international banks that rush in when commodity prices are high and rush out in the downturns (reflecting the time-honoured principle that bankers lend only to those who do not need their money).

Moreover, resource-rich countries often do not pursue sustainable growth strategies. They fail to recognise that if they do not reinvest their resource wealth into productive investments above ground, they are actually becoming poorer. Political dysfunction exacerbates the problem, as conflict over access to resource rents gives rise to corrupt and undemocratic governments.

There are well-known antidotes to each of these problems: a low exchange rate, a stabilisation fund, careful investment of resource revenues (including in the country's people), a ban on borrowing, and transparency (so citizens can at least see the money coming in and going out). But there is a growing consensus that these measures, while necessary, are insufficient. Newly enriched countries need to take several more steps in order to increase the likelihood of a "resource blessing".

First, these countries must do more to ensure that their citizens get the full value of the resources. There is an unavoidable conflict of interest between (usually foreign) natural-resource companies and host countries: the former want to minimise what they pay, while the latter need to maximise it. Well-designed, competitive, transparent auctions can generate much more revenue than sweetheart deals. Contracts, too, should be transparent, and should ensure that if prices soar – as they have repeatedly – the windfall gain does not go only to the company.

Unfortunately, many countries have already signed bad contracts that give a disproportionate share of the resources' value to private foreign companies. But there is a simple answer: renegotiate; if that is impossible, impose a windfall-profit tax.

All over the world, countries have been doing this. Of course, natural-resource companies will push back, emphasise the sanctity of contracts, and threaten to leave. But the outcome is typically otherwise. A fair renegotiation can be the basis of a better long-term relationship.

Botswana's renegotiations of such contracts laid the foundations of its remarkable growth for the last four decades. Moreover, it is not only developing countries, such as Bolivia and Venezuela, that renegotiate; developed countries such as Israel and Australia have done so as well. Even the United States has imposed a windfall-profits tax.

Equally important, the money gained through natural resources must be used to promote development. The old colonial powers regarded Africa simply as a place from which to extract resources. Some of the new purchasers have a similar attitude.

Infrastructure (roads, railroads, and ports) has been built with one goal in mind: getting the resources out of the country at as low a price as possible, with no effort to process the resources in the country, let alone to develop local industries based on them.

Real development requires exploring all possible linkages: training local workers, developing small- and medium-size enterprises to provide inputs for mining operations and oil and gas companies, domestic processing, and integrating the natural resources into the country's economic structure. Of course, today, these countries may not have a comparative advantage in many of these activities, and some will argue that countries should stick to their strengths. From this perspective, these countries' comparative advantage is having other countries exploit their resources.

That is wrong. What matters is dynamic comparative advantage, or comparative advantage in the long run, which can be shaped. Forty years ago, South Korea had a comparative advantage in growing rice. Had it stuck to that strength, it would not be the industrial giant that it is today. It might be the world's most efficient rice grower, but it would still be poor.

Companies will tell Ghana, Uganda, Tanzania, and Mozambique to act quickly, but there is good reason for them to move more deliberately. The resources will not disappear, and commodity prices have been rising. In the meantime, these countries can put in place the institutions, policies, and laws needed to ensure that the resources benefit all of their citizens.

Resources should be a blessing, not a curse. They can be, but it will not happen on its own. And it will not happen easily.

My Weltanschhaung - 11/2/2012

I am glad that atleast now a few Greek politicos have called the bail out terms extortionate. I think Greeks should default on their loans. Else, where is the risk for the lender who seems to get his money back in all circumstances and even by hurting innocent victims in a society.

A more disturbing news is that Chinese imports (of raw materials, I presume) fell in January. This will worry all export led growth oriented countries, unless they are beating China at their own game. Unlikely though since Chinese firms enjoy state subsidised capitalism.

Harry Redknapp seems to be inching towards the England managership. I suppose every man rises to a level of failure, but it won't be Harry's fault as there appears to be a shortage of talent in England.

Argentina accuses the UK of storing nuclear weapons near the Falklands. At the same time the UK tries to prevent Iran and others from getting nuclear weapons.

The global outlook for oil appears gloomy, so will the energy suppliers lower retail prices?

How to solve climate change

By Chan Akya


"Why should I do anything for posterity? What has posterity ever done for me?"
- Groucho Marx
I am neither surprised nor happy about the failure of the Copenhagen summit on climate change. The mutual finger-pointing that has been unleashed, particularly between the United States and European Union on the one end and China, India and other developing countries on the other, is merely a result of human beings acting to their narrow self (national) interests rather than those of humanity in general.

Groucho Marx captured the sentiment many decades ago, as my opening quote shows; mankind is all about living for the now, damn the consequences.

I blame the following factors for the failure of Copenhagen:
1. A poor negotiating framework where unimportant countries such as Venezuela effectively got to block the efforts of bigger carbon emitters to make good.
2. An extraordinary focus on national carbon emission targets, as against a focus on reducing per capita emissions globally.
3. Asymmetry between rich countries that are producing most of the world's carbon emissions but are in demographic decline against poor countries that produce the least carbon emissions but are in demographic ascent.
4. Unsavory discussions, particularly from the Europeans, on who would foot the bill for reducing the effects of climate change.

As a late convert to the science of global warming, or more accurately climate change - and no, it wasn't Al Gore's movie (An Inconvenient Truth) that did the trick - perhaps I am among the last people who should actually write anything on this subject. Then again, it is our world after all, so here goes. In December 2007, I wrote an article titled How central banks could save the world for Asia Times Online. This article dealt with the failed economic logic behind the movement to save the world from itself. Here is a part of the article that should ring with readers, especially seeing as it is over two years old now:
... Going back to the current account deficit though, it represents the "dream" target of any Green. In actual carbon terms, the import of Asian products, for example, represents the carbon emissions of Asian countries as well as those of the global shipping industry. All told, various publications cite different figures but it would not be hazardous to assign some 30% of global emissions to the US current account deficit.

This is what the Greens miss completely - they count the emissions of China and India in the same league of the US and Europe, and that is wrong because a substantial portion of Asian emissions goes to the manufacture of goods consumed in the US.

In turn, what gets consumed in the US is also financed by Asia because Americans stopped saving from the time [president Jimmy] Carter stepped down. This is the billions of dollars in Asian central banks devoted to the purchase of US treasury bonds, as well as various "highly rated" securities. I have written often enough about how much money will be lost in Asia because of these bonds, and there is no need to repeat my arguments here.

To a large extent, the twin forces of a disingenuous Fed (euphemism for outright liars) and harmony-seeking Asian central banks (euphemism for dumb no-gooders who wouldn't get a job flipping burgers if their uncles hadn't made them the governors of the PBOC or BoJ or whatever) allow this circle of deficit-financed consumption to persist.

At the moment, with the US consumers' loans looking very risky indeed - this week for example reports showed sharply increased delinquency rates on auto loans in addition to the continued defaults on housing loans - Asian bankers are panicking about what to do with the billions of US securities on their books.

They have urged the US Fed to become more aggressive on interest rate cuts, to help the US economy recover, in effect helping to perpetuate the cycle of global warming described above. In the face of rampant inflation, it makes sense for the US Fed to hike rates now and engineer a hard landing for the US economy. A few million Americans will be thrown out of work, but so what - they weren't necessarily working on anything except selling each other inflated housing anyway.

A hard landing for the US economy will help cut global carbon emissions, by a factor of over 10%, so why not engineer it? This will also force Asian central banks to abandon their US dollar pegs (which is the main reason their incompetence can never be seen by the public) and actually try to manage inflation and growth in their own countries.

With a bulk of the world's manufacturing now in Asia, a shift in consumption to the region would not be a bad thing, and anyway overall shipping emissions will decline because goods will be consumed closer to the point of manufacture.
Moving forward from here requires every level of Group of 20 (G-20) government to buy into the following guiding principles:
1. It isn't the total emissions of any country that matter but rather the per capita figure: a human life in Cambodia is no less valuable than one in Germany.
2. Per capita emissions should be adjusted for trade, ie add emissions from imports and reduce those from exports.
3. The cure of carbon capture (specifically CO2 capture) is more effective than any preventive steps that can be taken from here on.
4. Developed countries should bear most of the cost.

A huge swathe of carbon emissions today are tied to the category of wasteful consumption: from plastic packaging to paper towels, items of daily use for the middle classes of Europe and the United States represent the most substantial burden on the rest of humanity. On the other end of the spectrum, the basic quality of life in much of Asia including China and India, as well as most of Africa, remains fairly challenging. Asian cities have improved dramatically, particularly in China, for the past two decades, but the countryside remains a place for making further improvements to the human condition. Thus, Asia and Africa have very little room to reduce aggregate emissions.

An alternate approach
After reading my previous article in its entirety as well as a follow up article, my suggestion would be for the following framework to be adopted by G-20 immediately:

Firstly, all central banks will push interest rates up to a level of 5% real - that is, the difference between nominal interest rates and inflation in those countries will be at least 5%

Secondly, the global average per capita CO2 emission will be targeted for reduction - the laws of statistics are that the best way to achieve this would be to cut the emissions of those producing significantly above this average, that is, the United States and Europe and certain countries in the Middle East such as Qatar (the world's highest per capita emitter).

Thirdly, negative economic goods will see their prices shoot up dramatically, for example fuel costs will have to be increased in order to push people towards alternate sources of energy.

Fourthly, only countries that sign up to these rules would be eligible for free trade; punitive duties will be imposed on trade with any country that doesn't sign up.

Lastly, all global summits including those of the United Nations, G-20 and climate meetings will be held in hot, under-developed countries such as in sub-Saharan Africa rather than in comfortable and cozy tourist spots.

Look at the benefits:

By raising interest rates to a comfortable real level, all manners of wasteful consumption will be immediately curtailed. The notion of buying a "McMansion", thereby requiring imports of Canadian timber, Brazilian hardwood, Chinese appliances et al will have to be economically sustainable; that isn't necessarily comfortable in a 5% real interest rate environment.

Targeting a reduction in global per capita emissions means that an economic contraction will have to take place in G-20; otherwise rich countries will have to invest substantially in carbon capture to meet their obligations. Either way, the planet wins.

Tripling the price of oil at the pump and gas for heating would be a good start for the United States. In Europe, with its substantial duties and taxes, a doubling would suffice. This move would push Americans and Europeans to invest in more sustainable energy sources including nuclear, solar and wind.

As I wrote at the beginning of this article, the Copenhagen summit failed because there was no penalty for not agreeing to a deal. Instead, countries adopting these principles could effectively erect trade barriers against any holdouts. By increasing the cost of saying "no", the chances of a "yes" are increased dramatically. Simple game theory, really.

My last point isn't meant as a throwaway. I have a deeply held suspicion that people in rich countries who start waving their hands and pointing fingers at these climate-change pulpits have no real understanding of the real economic issues confronting the developing world. If you were to stick French President Nicholas Sarkozy in the middle of a Tanzanian drought-hit flatland, his propensity to talk up the need for rich countries to "share" with poor countries would, I suspect, actually reverse from his current position.

Plus it would be good fun to watch all these idiot politicians actually sweat towards a deal, for a change.