This is redistribution for Zimbabwe’s elite, not revolution in a ruined nation

Jason Burke in The Guardian


Drive any distance anywhere in Zimbabwe beyond the upmarket Borrowdale neighbourhood in Harare, where Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace are detained in their sprawling mansion, and the scale of the challenges facing what was once one of the wealthiest countries in Africa is evident.

In the capital, the roads are potholed, outside they are cracked and crumbling. Banks are so short of cash that people wait hours to withdraw even tiny sums. The only jobs are in government service, yet salaries are rarely paid. The best and the brightest have long fled abroad. Warehouses are empty, fields lie fallow. The busiest store in rural villages is the “bottle shop”, selling dirt-cheap spirits.

Zimbabwe has famously abundant natural resources but resuscitating the economy after 20 years of disastrous mismanagement and wholesale looting by corrupt officials is a major undertaking. The banking system needs to be rebooted, faith restored in the national currency and government finances somehow replenished. The vast debts incurred by Mugabe’s regime need to be rescheduled or waived and new funding arranged to rebuild the country’s shattered infrastructure.

Investors have long been interested in Zimbabwe but put off by the significant risk that any funds will be stolen or any successful venture appropriated. Can they now be sure that will not happen? Old habits die hard.

The ruling Zanu-PF party and allies in the military launched their takeover to purge an ambitious faction that threatened their position, not because they wanted to see structural reform that would shut down their own lucrative rackets and rent-seeking.

There are immediate practical problems, too. The police are seen as creatures of Mugabe by the military and allies, but someone needs to patrol the streets. There is the fate of Comrade Bob and Grace, when they are no longer president and first lady, to decide. There is a government to form, possible elections to hold.

It is this political process that poses the greatest challenge. The people of Zimbabwe have high hopes of a new democratic era. But the ousting of Mugabe was a redistribution of power within the ruling elite of Zimbabwe, not a people’s revolution.

Emmerson Mnangagwa, the ousted vice-president, who is most likely to succeed Mugabe when he finally leaves power, is no committed democrat. He was Mugabe’s chief enforcer, with a long history of human rights abuse. Mnangagwa, 75, will need to make some concessions to public opinion within Zimbabwe and the hopes of the international community, not least to get the donor and diaspora money the country so desperately needs. However, he will seek to do this while reinforcing, not weakening, the grip of the party.

But how long will Zimbabweans tolerate the rule of a clique of septuagenarian veterans of an armed struggle that took place before most of the population was born?

A similar question has been asked elsewhere in Africa over recent decades. It is being asked today in neighbouring South Africa, where the lustre of the African National Congress has steadily diminished over its 23 years in power.

The eventual demise of parties like Zanu-PF is inevitable. But so, too, is the trauma that accompanies their passing.

Britain is still a world-beater at one thing: ripping off its own citizens

From energy and water bills to exorbitant rail fares, we’re all busy lining the pockets of wealthy ‘investors’


Aditya Chakrabortty in The Guardian


And so to the big question. The one that has dogged us ever since the EU referendum and haunts every Brexiteer’s chlorinated daydreams. What is Britain for? Cliche-mongers will tell you that Britain lost an empire then couldn’t find a role. They are wrong. After careful study of recent newspaper articles, I have discovered just that new part – and today, dear reader, I am going to share it with you.

The British are now world-beaters at paying other people to rip them off. We are number one at handing over cash to “investors” who do no investing, to “entrepreneurs” who run monopolies – and who then turn around and tap us up for a bit more on the way out.

Consider two stories from the past few days. British Gas announces its electricity prices will rise by 12.5%, starting next month. Just as the cold nights start drawing in, more than 3 million Britons will find their bills are more expensive. Never mind that the competition watchdog judged last year that British Gas and other energy giants were taking well over a billion pounds a year through “excessive prices”. This privatised industry has a tradition of ripping off loyal customers to uphold.

Think about the scandal of people having to pay huge ground rents just to stay in their own homes. For years, big property developers have been flogging the freeholds on newly built estates to speculators, often based offshore, whose only relationship with the people living there is to hit them with ever-larger bills. Tens of thousands of families have been bundled up and turned into human revenue streams. Nor are they alone. Whether as taxpayers or consumers, pretty much everyone in Britain is now human feedstock for Big Capital.

This may not be how you see yourself. After all, you’re a customer and in our dynamic, choice-stuffed markets the customer is king. Except that the propaganda doesn’t match reality. If, like me, you live in London and use water, you are forced to give your business to Thames Water. The same Thames Water that is owned by a consortium of international investors, whose interests were until recently managed by Macquarie, an investment firm with headquarters in Australia. I have reported before on this arrangement, which ran from December 2006 until March of this year. Between 2006 and 2015, Thames Water divvied up £1.6bn in dividends to its small circle of shareholders, who in turn loaded up the company with billions in debt.

These “investors” were not doing much investing – indeed, they will shoulder neither the costs nor the risks of building London’s £4bn super-sewer. Much of the money will come from me and Thames Water’s 15 million other customers, through our bills. Between 2011 and 2015, the company paid no corporation tax at all. Someone bagged a bargain, and it wasn’t the taxpayer.

Think about the train operators that are subsidised to the tune of billions by public money – only to penalise the public with eye-watering fares and crap broadband. We pay them to rip us off. Ponder the new nuclear station about to be built by the Chinese and French at Hinkley Point, at an estimated cost to British households of £30bn. Neither David Cameron nor Theresa May would countenance the British government creating a new power station, but they will pay way over the odds for foreign governments to do so.

Want more examples? Think about the giant outsourcing industry, where a multinational such as G4S can fail to lay on enough guards for the 2012 London Olympics and charge taxpayers for phantom electronic tags on dead criminals – and still be put in charge of securing the Royal Mint.

In the early 00s, the Mail and the Express would bang on and on about “Rip-off Britain” and how booze and fags and Levi’s jeans were cheaper abroad. Right under their nose a rip-off industry was getting started in the form of the private finance initiative. Tony Blair saw the arrangement as a way of funding more schools and hospitals without raising taxes or taking on public debt. As York University’s Kevin Farnsworth points out, PFIs also served an ideological purpose. “Try getting change in… public services,” he once chortled to a conference of private equity financiers. “I bear the scars on my back.” PFI – putting the private sector in charge of providing public infrastructure – was one of his ways of getting that change.


These are all examples of losing control – over our bills, over our taxes, over our water and trains and schools

Almost two decades later, we can see the results. PFIs have produced more fleecing than Millets. A PFI primary school in Middlesbrough, only opened in 2006, was demolished in 2015 because its foundations had been built on “defective fill material” – literally, dodgy ground. Children and staff moved to another site – nevertheless, payments on the contract had to be made. In Liverpool, a PFI school has been shut since 2014 – because there aren’t enough pupils to keep it open – yet taxpayers still pay £12,000 a day under the contract. These aren’t one-offs: they are inherent in the structure of PFIs, which dump all the risks on the public and hand the private sector all the rewards.

As the TES (formerly the Times Educational Supplement) found in April, one PFI school in Bristol that needed a new window blind will have to pay £8,154 for it. Another that had to install a tap is facing a bill for £2,211. Private companies get paid for the building, then get paid again for cleaning and maintenance and interest charges. Across the UK there are more than 700 PFI projects with a capital value of around £55bn. It is estimated that they will cost the public more than £300bn.

These are all examples of the public losing control – over our bills, over our taxes, over our water and trains and schools. Will freeing ourselves of the shackles of the European court of justice or EU state aid rules or any other Brexiteer hobbyhorse allow us to “take back control”? On the basics that govern our lives we have lost sovereignty. Brussels didn’t sell us down the river: Thatcher, Blair and Cameron did.

Leaving the EU won’t change any of this. Theresa May will continue to privatise chunks of the NHS. Philip Hammond will still flog Britain to foreign capital as a bargain basement of cheap workers and low taxes – one giant Poundland. And Britons will find more and more aspects of their daily lives picked over by big businesses for revenue streams.

Why is China's stock market falling and how might it affect the global economy?

Katie Allen in The Guardian



What has happened in China?

China’s stock market has fallen sharply over recent weeks despite measures by officials in Beijing aimed at calming investors’ jitters and shoring up global confidence in the country’s slowing economy.

Shares in China had soared 150% in the 12 months to mid-June as individual investors piled into the rising market, often borrowing heavily to do so. But chiming with warnings that shares were overvalued and the signs of an economic slowdown, the momentum came to a shuddering halt when shares hit a seven-year peak.

Following another plunge on what was dubbed “Black Monday”, China’s stock markets have now given up all their gains for the year.

China’s shock move to devalue its currency, the yuan, this month only served to intensify worries about the world’s second-largest economy.

Shares around the world followed China’s stock markets lower. About £74bn was wiped off the value of the FTSE 100 and on Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by a record of more than 1,000 points at one stage.

Commodities such as crude oil and copper have also tumbled to multi-year lows as investors take fright over signs of waning demand in the world’s leading consumer of raw materials.

The currencies of emerging Asian economies have weakened as investors drop those assets seen as riskier to hold. But investments perceived as safe havens in times of trouble, such as gold and some government bonds, are in demand.

Is this a repeat of the 2008 global financial crisis?

Some of the falls on stock markets are certainly reminiscent of the swings seen around the time of the collapse of the US bank Lehman Brothers. The FTSEurofirst 300, a pan-European share index, suffered its biggest one-day drop since late 2008, losing 5.4%. For Shanghai’s composite index, Monday’s 8.5% slump was the biggest since February 2007.

But some economists say the parallels stop there. They see limited risk to China’s real economy from the stock market turmoil and little to be worried about beyond China.

Julian Jessop, the chief global economist at the consultancy Capital Economics, said: “The current panic is essentially ‘made in China’. The recent data from other major economies, including the US, eurozone and Japan, has generally been good ... Aside from the bad news from China, there is very little to support fears of a major global downturn.”

But others are less sanguine. They point out that China’s slowdown is just one of many factors worrying investors alongside lingering political problems in the eurozone, signs of weaker global growth and vast sums flowing out of fragile emerging markets such as Brazil. Furthermore, policymakers apparently have few tools left to help.
Should I be worried?

George Osborne, the UK chancellor, suggests not and believes China’s stock market woes will not have much impact on European economies.

But there are plenty of other voices saying this could get a lot worse. 

Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, has suggested that the US Federal Reserve may be forced to ease monetary policy, rather than hiking interest rates in the next few months as had been expected.
— Lawrence H. Summers (@LHSummers)August 24, 2015

As in August 1997, 1998, 2007 and 2008 we could be in the early stage of a very serious situation.
— Lawrence H. Summers (@LHSummers)August 24, 2015

It is far from clear that the next Fed move will be a tightening.

Furthermore, experts say policymakers do not have many tools available to shore up the global economy this time around.

Interest rates are already at record lows and central banks have spent years printing electronic cash in quantitative easing (QE) programmes, cheap money that many blame for the latest market troubles.

Stephen King, the HSBC economist, warned back in May: “The world economy is sailing across the ocean without any lifeboats to use in case of emergency.”

Damian McBride, Gordon Brown’s former spin doctor, spelled out his advice for an impending crash on Twitter.
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Advice on the looming crash, No.1: get hard cash in a safe place now; don't assume banks & cashpoints will be open, or bank cards will work.
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Crash advice No.2: do you have enough bottled water, tinned goods & other essentials at home to live a month indoors? If not, get shopping.
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Crash advice No.3: agree a rally point with your loved ones in case transport and communication gets cut off; somewhere you can all head to.

Another tweet posted later on Monday:
— Damian McBride (@DPMcBride)August 24, 2015

Today is just the stock market catching up with the terror over defaults that's been gripping the bond market for months.

What if I have money tied up in stocks?

Individuals with money invested in shares should not worry too much for now, financial market experts have said.

Nick Dixon, an investment director at the asset management company Aegon UK, said: “If pension savers don’t need to access their fund for many years, they needn’t be alarmed by short term volatility.

“Stock markets are in for a bumpy ride over the coming weeks, but if savers can stomach the ups and downs, equities are likely to provide superior returns over the medium and long term.”
What does it mean for interest rates?

There had been widespread expectation that the US Federal Reserve would start the gradual process of hiking interest rates as soon as next month. Signs of a potential hard landing for China could well stay the central bank’s hand.

The same goes for the UK, where the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, recently hinted that a rate hike could happen around the turn of the year.

In China, meanwhile, the country’s central bank is widely expected to ease monetary policy further to shore up growth and confidence.

What will this mean for inflation?

A silver lining economists highlight for those countries that rely on imports of oil and other commodities is that this global sell-off will keep prices low. Oil has more than halved from a peak of $115 per barrel last summer to a Brent crude price of less than $44 per barrel now. At least some of that will be passed on to drivers in lower fuel prices.

Philippe Waechter, the global chief economist at Natixis Asset Management, said: “On the upside, the fall in the oil price will be positive news for European economies as consumer purchasing power will be increased.”

What happens next?

Officials in Beijing are under pressure to step in with more measures to restore stability to China’s stock markets. The trouble they face is that every action is also perceived as a further sign of quite how worried they are about the slide in shares and the wider economy.

Bill O’Neill, the head of the UK investment office at UBS Wealth Management, said: “There will be some form of additional stimulus over the next few days and weeks.

“That is likely to be combined with supportive words from developed economy central bankers aimed at offering reassurance that accommodative policies will remain in place regardless of when interest rates start to rise.”

From Thursday, investors will be looking to the US and a symposium of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for signs of how this new bout of market volatility may influence their interest rate decisions.

Malta selling EU passports to foreign investors for £546,000

Want to buy citizenship? It helps if you're one of the super-rich

Malta has announced it is selling passports to foreign investors for £546,000, but that's cheap compared with other countries, such as Britain and the US

A foreign investor looking to get a passport for an EU country would be better off looking at Malta's citizenship deal. Photograph: Alamy

Citizenship is like rhythm: if you weren't born with it, it's not easy to get. However, in the EU there is a fast-track for the super-rich. The Maltese government now has a scheme to attract "high-value" foreigners to the country, by selling passports for £546,000. Which, by passport standards, is pretty cheap.

The move has ruffled feathers in the UK. In part, because of worries about unchecked immigration; the passport grants its holders full EU citizenship, including freedom of movement (Maltese citizenship also come with a visa waiver on entry to the US). Labour's shadow immigration minister, David Hanson, told the Financial Times the move risked being "a backdoor route" to EU residence and was "not a tight or appropriate immigration policy". The government faces calls from British and European politicians to intervene and put a stop to the plan.

But the main reason the UK is annoyed is not because we worry foreign millionaires will come here to claim benefits. It is probably that Malta's scheme is more attractive than our own deal for super-rich settlers. The British equivalent, the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme, assesses applicants on the basis of their ability "to invest £1,000,000 in the UK". Foreign investors who hold £10m of their money here can apply for permanent residence after two years living in the country. Compared to Malta's plan, it looks like a load of hassle.

About 20 countries operate similar systems. In the US, Immigrant Investor Visas are awarded to foreign nationals who invest $1m in the economy and create 10 full-time jobs for US citizens within two years of arrival. Those who do so are awarded permanent residence and, after three more years, can apply for full citizenship. In the Canadian province of Quebec, "Immigrant Investors" must invest $800,000 CAN (£457,000) in an interest-free, five-year bond and show at least two years of proven management experience. (Canada suspended its nationwide immigrant investor programme in July 2012 but Quebec's continues.)

The European schemes tend to be more lenient. Greece, Cyprus and Macedonia offer fast-track resident permits for foreign investors who spend a minimum of €250,000 to €400,000 (£210,000 to £335,000) in the country. Spain grants a residency visa to foreign buyers who spend €500,000 (£418,000) or more on Spanish property, though the wait for permanent residency and EU citizenship is five years.

The major beneficiaries of such schemes are the Chinese global rich. Since October last yea, 318 residence permits have been issued in Portugal to foreign property buyers who spent over €500,000. Of these, 248 went to Chinese nationals; 15 went to Russians, and nine each to Angolans and Brazilians.

The Maltese system may be the most open of the lot: its applicants do not need to be resident in the country, and are not expected to prove any further investment in the islands' economy. It is expected to attract around 40 people in its first year, rising to 300 a year from 2014.

But their stay may be short-lived. Polls show 53% of Maltese oppose the move, and the opposition leader, Simon Busutil of the Nationalist Party, has pledged to revoke the passports if returned to power. In fairness to him, it won't be hard to expel citizens who have never actually lived there in the first place.

The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal

Plans to create an EU-US single market will allow corporations to sue governments using secretive panels, bypassing courts and parliaments

• 
• • George Monbiot
  • The Guardian, Monday 2 December 2013 20.31 GMT

A nuclear power plant in Biblis, south-west Germany. The investor-state dispute settlement is aready 'being used by a nuclear company contesting Germany's decision to switch off atomic power'. Photograph: Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters

Panic spreads through the European commission like ferrets in a rabbit warren. Its plans to create a single market incorporating Europe and the United States, progressing so nicely when hardly anyone knew, have been blown wide open. All over Europe people are asking why this is happening; why we were not consulted; for whom it is being done.

They have good reason to ask. The commission insists that its Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership should include a toxic mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement. Where this has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big corporations to sue governments before secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass domestic courts and override the will of parliaments.

This mechanism could threaten almost any means by which governments might seek to defend their citizens or protect the natural world. Already it is being used by mining companies to sue governments trying to keep them out of protected areas; by banks fighting financial regulation; by a nuclear company contesting Germany's decision to switch off atomic power. After a big political fight we've now been promised plain packaging for cigarettes. But it could be nixed by an offshore arbitration panel. The tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing Australia through the same mechanism in another treaty.

No longer able to keep this process quiet, the European commission has instead devised a strategy for lying to us. A few days ago an internal document was leaked. This reveals that a "dedicated communications operation" is being "co-ordinated across the commission". It involves, to use the commission's chilling phrase, the "management of stakeholders, social media and transparency". Managing transparency should be adopted as its motto.

The message is that the trade deal is about "delivering growth and jobs" and will not "undermine regulation and existing levels of protection in areas like health, safety and the environment". Just one problem: it's not true.

From the outset, the transatlantic partnership has been driven by corporations and their lobby groups, who boast of being able to "co-write" it. Persistent digging by the Corporate Europe Observatory reveals that the commission has held eight meetings on the issue with civil society groups, and 119 with corporations and their lobbyists. Unlike the civil society meetings, these have taken place behind closed doors and have not been disclosed online.

Though the commission now tells the public that it will protect "the state's right to regulate", this isn't the message the corporations have been hearing. In an interview last week, Stuart Eizenstat, co-chair of the Transatlantic Business Council – instrumental in driving the process – was asked if companies whose products had been banned by regulators would be able to sue. Yes. "If a suit like that was brought and was successful,it would mean that the country banning the product would have to pay compensation to the industry involved or let the product in." Would that apply to the European ban on chicken carcasses washed with chlorine, a controversial practice permitted in the US? "That's one example where it might."

What the commission and its member governments fail to explain is why we need offshore arbitration at all. It insists that domestic courts "might be biased or lack independence", but which courts is it talking about? It won't say. Last month, while trying to defend the treaty, the British minister Kenneth Clarke said something revealing: "Investor protection is a standard part of free-trade agreements – it was designed to support businesses investing in countries where the rule of law is unpredictable, to say the least." So what is it doing in an EU-US deal? Why are we using measures designed to protect corporate interests in failed states in countries with a functioning judicial system? Perhaps it's because functioning courts are less useful to corporations than opaque and unjust arbitration by corporate lawyers.

As for the commission's claim that the trade deal will produce growth and jobs, this is also likely to be false. Barack Obama promised that the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase US exports by $10bn. They immediately fell by $3.5bn. The 70,000 jobs it would deliver? Er, 40,000 were lost. Bill Clinton promised that the North American Free Trade Agreement would create 200,000 new jobs for the US; 680,000 went down the pan. As the commentator Glyn Moody says: "The benefits are slight and illusory, while the risks are very real."

So where are our elected representatives? Fast asleep. Labour MEPs, now frantically trying to keep investor-state dispute mechanisms out of the agreement, are the exception; the rest are in Neverland. The Lib Dem MEP Graham Watson wrote in his newsletter, before dismissing the idea: "I am told that columnists on the Guardian and the Independent claim it will hugely advantage US multinational companies to the detriment of Europe." We said no such thing, as he would know had he read the articles, rather than idiotically relying on hearsay. The treaty is likely to advantage the corporations of both the US and the EU, while disadvantaging their people. It presents a danger to democracy and public protection throughout the trading area.

Caroline Lucas, one of the few MPs interested in the sovereignty of parliament, has published an early-day motion on the issue. It has so far been signed by seven MPs. For the government, Clarke argues that to ignore the potential economic gains "in favour of blowing up a controversy around one small part of the negotiations, known as investor protection, seems to me positively Scrooge-like".

Quite right too. Overriding our laws, stripping away our rights, making parliament redundant: these are trivial and irrelevant beside the issue of how much money could be made. Don't worry your little heads about it.

Modi's Gujarat - No model state

Christophe Jaffrelot in Indian Express : Fri Sep 06 2013,

In Gujarat, growth relies on indebtedness. And relegates development.

The Gujarat pattern of development has often been arraigned from the left because of its social deficits. Indeed, the state's social indicators do not match its economic performance. With 23 per cent of its citizens living below the poverty line in 2010, Gujarat does better than the Indian average — 29.8 per cent — but it reduced this proportion by less than 10 percentage points in five years. This poverty reduction rate has something to do with the wages of casual workers. According to the 68th round (2011-12) of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), Gujarat has among the lowest average daily wages for casual labour (other than in public works) in urban areas: Rs 144.52, when the national urban average is Rs 170.10. This kind of poverty goes with malnourishment. One of the social indicators where Gujarat shows the most dramatic lag is the hunger index — only about 43 per cent of children under ICDS in the state are the normal weight, according to an Indian Institute of Public Administration report.

These indicators are aggregates. Their break up is particularly enlightening. The urban/rural divide is pronounced in Gujarat. This is evident from NSSO data, including estimates of the average monthly per capita expenditures (MPCE). The urban MPCE was 49 per cent higher in towns and cities than in villages in 1993-94. Fourteen years later, the urban MPCE was 68 per cent higher. In 2011-12, the difference stabilised at 68.1 per cent. Certainly, the operationalisation of the Narmada dam has improved circumstances for some people living in rural areas, but only in part, because the canals have not reached the fields, especially in Saurashtra. This has happened not only because of bad planning, but also because the supply of water to cities (including industry) was prioritised. Second, cash crop farmers have been affected by the low level of agricultural prices. Cotton is a case in point: prices did not go up, whereas inputs became costly because of inflation. Third, prime agricultural land has been given to industry and the latter's activities have affected the natural environment. In Mahua, where the Nirma group had been given 3,000 hectares for mining activities and a cement factory, BJP MLA Kanubhai Kalsaria objected that the water tank the villagers depended on would be badly damaged. He was sidelined and subsequently, he resigned from the party to fight the government's policy.

Among the rural groups that suffered from the state's policy, Adivasis are a case in point. According to a World Bank report, between 1993-94 and 2004-05, the share of those who lived below the poverty line increased from 30.9 per cent to 33.1 per cent — 10 percentage points below the national average. The Modi government has been criticised for not allocating to Adivasis and Dalits funds in proportion to their population. While the former represent almost 18 per cent of the state population, they were allocated 11.01 per cent of the total outlay in 2007-08, 14.06 per cent in 2008-09, 13.14 per cent in 2010-11 and 16.48 per cent in 2011-12. Moreover, actual expenditures were even lower. The same was true of the Dalits, who represent 7.1 per cent of the state population and who were allotted 1.41 per cent of the total outlay in 2007-08, 3.93 per cent in 2008-09, 4.51 per cent in 2009-10, 3.65 per cent in 2010-11 and 3.20 per cent in 2011-12.

Generally speaking, Gujarat has not spent as much as other states on the social sector. In a report, the Reserve Bank of India showed that Gujarat spends less than several other states in this area. Take education — in 2010-11, Gujarat spent 15.9 per cent of its budget in education, when Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal spent between 16 and 20.8 per cent. The national average was 16.6 per cent.

While these criticisms from the left are well known, those on the right, especially the liberals, could also have indicted the Modi government for its lack of financial discipline. The Gujarat growth pattern relies on indebtedness. The state's debt increased from Rs 45,301 crore in 2002 to Rs. 1,38,978 crore in 2013, not far behind the usual suspects, Uttar Pradesh (Rs 1,58,400 crore) and West Bengal (Rs 1,92,100). In terms of per capita indebtedness, the situation is even more worrying, given the size of the state: each Gujarati carries a debt of Rs 23,163 if the population is taken to be 60 million. In 2013-14, the government plans to raise fresh loans to the tune of Rs 26,009 crore. Of this amount, Rs 19,877 crore, that is 76 per cent, will be used to pay the principal and the interests of the existing debts. Gujarat would fall into the debt trap the day this figure reaches 100 per cent.

This fiscal crisis has been caused by several factors. First, many Gujaratis who are supposed to pay taxes don't, whether they are at the helm of companies or ordinary citizens. In 2010, the total amount from taxpayers in Ahmedabad, Surat, Baroda and Rajkot alone was Rs 7,555 crore. This was more than the annual tax collection of Bihar at the time.

Second, the exchequer has been directly affected by the business-friendly attitude of the Modi government. To woo investors, it has indulged in tax deductions and low interest rates, and sold land at throwaway prices. Take the example of the Nano factory. If K. Nag's biography of Modi is to be believed, the Gujarat government made unprecedented concessions to Tata Motors, including the sale of 1,100 acres of land at Rs 900 per square metre, when its market rate was around Rs 10,000 per square metre, a Rs 20 crore exemption on stamp duty levied on the sale of land, a 20-year deferral in the payment of value added tax on the sale, and loans amounting to Rs 9,570 crore against an investment of Rs 2,900 crore (330 per cent of the investment) at 0.1 per cent interest rate over 20 years. Most of the big companies investing in Gujarat — Adani, Essar, Reliance, Ford, Maruti, L&T and others — have been offered special conditions, especially under the SEZ framework.

Certainly, to attract investors is a good way to prepare for the future and heavy debts are not a problem if these investments generate tax revenue. But how productive these investments will be remains to be seen. Many of them are at least partly speculative. The SEZ Act allows the owners of large SEZs (above 1,000 hectares) to use 75 per cent of their superficy for non-industrial purposes (for the smaller ones, up to 50 per cent of an SEZ can be devoted to non-processing areas). SEZ owners have been quick to indulge in real estate speculation and to lease at market price land that they've bought at throwaway prices. Interestingly, the corporate sector is not covered by the RTI. We wonder why.

Those on the right, who overlook the fact that the Modi government is more business-friendly than market-friendly (surprisingly, for liberals), claim that the way Gujarat is attracting investors is good for development. But it is only good for growth. For development, investing in education would make much more sense.

The writer is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King's India Institute, London, and non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace express@expressindia.com

So how long can the US hold the world to ransom with the dollar?

Satyajit Das

On 8 November 2010, the German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble told the Wall Street Journal: "The USA lived off credit for too long, inflated its financial sector massively and neglected its industrial base."

US gross government debt currently totals around $16trillion (£10trn). The US government holds around 40 per cent of the debt through the Federal Reserve and government funds. Individuals, corporations, banks, insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds, state or local governments, hold 25 per cent. Foreign investors, China, Japan and "other" (principally oil exporting) nations, Asian central banks or sovereign wealth funds hold the rest.

Historically, America has been able to run large budget and balance of payments deficits because it had no problem finding investors in US Treasury securities. The unquestioned credit quality of the US, the unparalleled size and liquidity of its government bond market, ensured investor support. Given its reserve currency and safe haven status, US dollars and US government bonds were a cornerstone of investment portfolios of foreign lenders.

During this period, emerging countries such as China fuelled American growth, supplying cheap goods and cheap funding – recycling export proceeds into US bonds – to finance the purchase of these goods. It was a mutually convenient addiction .

Asked whether America hanged itself with an Asian rope, a Chinese official told a reporter: "No. It drowned itself in Asian liquidity."

Given the sheer quantum of US debt, foreign investors may become increasingly less willing to finance America. Japanese and European investors, struggling to finance their own government obligations, may simply not have the funds.

Given its magnitude and the lack of political will to deal with the problem of debt and public finances, the US is now deploying its FMDs – "financial extortion", "monetisation" and "devaluation" – to finance its requirements.

In a form of extortion, existing investors like China must continue to purchase US dollars and bonds to avoid a precipitous drop in the value of existing investments.

Debt monetisation – printing money – is another strategy. The US Federal Reserve is already the in-house pawnbroker to the US government, purchasing government bonds in return for supplying reserves to the banking system. Expedient in the short term, monetisation risks setting off inflation. The absence of demand in the economy, industrial over-capacity and the unwillingness of banks to lend have meant successive "quantitative easing" has not resulted in higher inflation to date. But the risks remain.

Monetisation is inexorably linked to devaluation of the US dollar. The zero interest rates policy and debt monetisation is designed to weaken the dollar. As John Connally, the US Treasury Secretary under President Richard Nixon, belligerently observed: "Our dollar, but your problem."

Despite bouts of dollar buying on its safe haven status, the US dollar has significantly weakened over the last two years, losing around 20 per cent against major currencies since 2009. As the dollar weakens US foreign investments and overseas income gain in value. But the major benefit is in relation to debt owned by foreigners. As almost all its government debt is denominated in US dollars, devaluation reduces its value.

This forces existing investors to keep rolling over debt to avoid realising losses. It encourages them to increase investment, to "double down" to lower their average cost of US dollars and debt. It also allows the US to enhance its competitive export position.

Major investors in US government bonds now find themselves in the position John Maynard Keynes identified: "Owe your banker £1,000 and you are at his mercy; owe him £1m and the position is reversed."

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the French finance minister under Charles de Gaulle, famously used the term "exorbitant privilege" to describe the advantages to America of the dollar's role as a reserve currency and its central role in global trade.

That privilege now is not only "exorbitant" but "extortionate". How long the world will let the US exercise it is uncertain.

Satyajit Das is a former banker and author of "Extreme Money" and "Traders, Guns & Money"

China's richest keep firm eye on exit door

By Olivia Chung

HONG KONG - "Get rich - then get out" is the life message being grasped by China's wealthiest citizens two decades after former leader Deng Xiaoping supposedly declared that "to get rich is glorious".

About 60% of rich Chinese people intend to migrate from China, according to a report jointly released by the Hurun Report, which also publishes an annual China rich list, and the Bank of China. A separate study by US-based Bain & Company and China Merchants Bank in April of 2,600 high-net worth individuals - those who hold more than 10 million yuan (US$1.6 million) in individual investable assets (excluding primary residences and assets of poor liquidity) - found that about 60% of those interviewed had completed immigration applications to other countries or had plans to do so.

About 14% of the rich Chinese people, each of whom has a net asset of more than 60 million yuan, said they had either already moved overseas or applied to do so, according to the Hurun findings, which were based on one-on-one interviews with 980 rich Chinese people in 18 mainland cities from May to September.

Another 46% said they planned to emigrate within three years, variously citing higher-quality education available for their children overseas, better healthcare, concerns about the security of their assets on the mainland and hopes for a better life in retirement.

The most favorable destinations by rich Chinese is the US, with 40% of respondents claiming it was their first choice, followed by Canada and Singapore. Encouraging them in their quest, the United States continues to lower its threshold for businesspersons’ immigration.

Some 70% of the 4,218 visas issued under the US Immigrant Investor Program, known as EB-5 visas, issued in 2009 were applicants from China, data from the US Department of State show. In 2010, more than 70,000 Chinese applicants obtained permanent residency in the US, accounting for 7% of total applicants, placing second behind only Mexican applicants, according to the US Department of Homeland Security.

Canada allocated more than 1,000 of its targeted 2,055 immigrant investors to Chinese people in 2009 and last year, 2,020 Chinese applicants obtained permanent residency in Canada through investment, accounting for 62.6% of the total immigrant investors to Canada, data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada showed.

Kathy Cheng, an investment immigration consultant based in Shenzhen, next to Hong Kong, attributed the popularity of the US to it not having a cap on its investment visa program. The minimum amount required for investment immigration to the US is $500,000, and among all destinations that offer investment immigration, the US is alone in not imposing a quota.

“Recently, the US is trying to overhaul the immigration laws to attract rich or high-skilled foreigners. The moves have attracted the attention of some wealthy Chinese, who can afford to live elsewhere," she said to Asia Times Online by telephone.

Two US senators, Democratic Chuck Schumer and Republican Mike Lee, last month introduced a bill that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least US$500,000 to buy houses in the country. The proposal would allow foreigners immigrating to the United States to bring a spouse and any children under the age of 18. The provision would create visas that are separate from current programs so as to not displace anyone waiting for other visas.

The US Ambassador to China, Gary Locke, the former US commerce secretary who took on his latest post in August, said the US will make its investment and commercial environment as open and appealing as possible to increase Chinese investment in the US to create more jobs for Americans, which is the foremost priority of the Barack Obama administration.

"We will help Chinese companies and entrepreneurs better understand the benefits and ease of investing in the US by establishing factories, facilities, operations and offices," Locke told US business leaders in Beijing in September.

In May, President Obama said the US needs to overhaul its immigration laws to secure high-tech foreign talent to address a shortages of scientists and experts in the high-technology sector. In the same month, the Obama administration extended the Optional Practical Training program to allow students graduating in fields that include soil microbiology, pharmaceuticals and medical informatics, to be able to find a job or work in the US for up to 29 months (instead of 12) after graduation.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said recently at a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington, that to spur job growth, the US should allow foreign graduates from US universities to obtain green cards (permanent residency), ending caps on visas for highly skilled workers, and setting green-card limits based on the country's economic needs not an immigrant's family ties.

Of the 980 people interviewed by Hurun Report and the BOC, about 35% said they have assets overseas, which on an average accounted for 19% of their total assets; 32% of those surveyed said they have invested overseas with a view to emigrate and half said they did so mainly for the sake of their children's education.

A mainlander who has manganese mines in his home province of Guangxi said he was applying to emigrate to Canada from his home region in southeast Guangxi, mainly due to take advantage of better education overseas for his two-year-old son.

"An increasing number of parents in China prefer their children to receive education overseas instead of with the examination-oriented education system in China," said the mine owner, who asked not to be identified.

However, a source close to him said the mine owner had assets worth millions of dollars and "underground" businesses; given changeable government policies, emigration was the best way of protecting some of this wealth.

"Despite Beijing's currency rules, the wealthy have many ways to move their money out of the country. Besides, part of his money comes from smuggling, though his business is far smaller than Lai Changxing," said the source.

Lai Changxing was extradited to China from Canada in July after a 12-year exile there. He is expected to face charges for smuggling to a value of US$10 billion, bribery and tax evasion.

Under Beijing's capital rules, anyone leaving China can carry with them a maximum of 20,000 yuan (US$3,100) or the equivalent of US$5,000 in foreign currency. However, it is commonly known that wealthy Chinese are free to leave the country with briefcases full of cash.

Ye Tan, an independent economist and commentator in Beijing, said the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the mainland, which has aroused discontent among the less well off, has made some of the wealthy feel uncomfortable.

"The lack of security sense about the safety of their assets among Chinese wealthy is like a huge black cloud hanging over their heads," Ye was quoted as saying in the Hurun survey report.
China has 960,000 "yuan millionaires" with personal wealth of 10 million yuan (US$1.5 million) or more, according to the GroupM Knowledge - Hurun Wealth Report 2011. The figure is up 9.7% from a year earlier. China has 60,000 "super rich' with 100 million yuan or more, up 9% on a year earlier.

Average monthly income in China is only about 2,000 yuan, despite double-digit economic growth for about the past three decades.

China's Gini coefficient, a commonly used measure of wealth inequality, reached 0.47 in China last year, according to the National Development and Reform Commission, above the international warning level of 0.4, which is considered to be the level that could trigger social unrest.