Search This Blog

Thursday 10 September 2020

The UK is one of the most corrupt nations on Earth

Fortunes are being made by political favourites, while Brexit could cement London’s reputation for money laundering writes George Monbiot in The Guardian


‘Awarding coronavirus contracts to unusual companies, without advertising, transparency or competition now appears to have been adopted as the norm.’ Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA


Fear, shame, embarrassment: these brakes no longer apply. The government has discovered that it can bluster through any scandal. No minister need resign. No one need apologise. No one need explain.

As public outrage grows over the billions of pounds of coronavirus contracts issued by the government without competition, it seems determined only to award more of them. Never mind that the consulting company Deloitte, whose personnel circulate in and out of government, has been strongly criticised for the disastrous system it devised to supply protective equipment to the NHS. It has now been granted a massive new contract to test the population for Covid-19. 

Never mind that some of these contracts have reportedly cost taxpayers £800 for every protective overall delivered. Never mind that at least two multi-million pound contracts appear to have been issued to dormant companies. Awarding contracts to unusual companies, without advertising, transparency or competition now appears to have been adopted as the norm. Several of the firms that have benefited from this largesse are closely linked to senior figures in the government.

Every week, Boris Johnson looks more like George I, under whose government vast fortunes were made by political favourites, through monopoly contracts for military procurement. Any pretence of fiscal rectitude or democratic accountability has been abandoned. With four more years and the support of the billionaire press, who cares?

The way the government handles public money looks to me like an open invitation to corruption. While it is hard to show that any individual deal is corrupt, the framework under which this money is dispensed invites the perception.

When you connect the words corruption and the United Kingdom, people tend to respond with shock and anger. Corruption, we believe, is something that happens abroad. Indeed, if you check the rankings published by Transparency International or the Basel Institute, the UK looks like one of the world’s cleanest countries. But this is an artefact of the narrow criteria they use.

As Jason Hickel points out in his book The Divide, theft by officials in poorer nations amounts to between $20bn and $40bn a year. It’s a lot of money, and it harms wellbeing and democracy in those countries. But this figure is dwarfed by the illicit flows of money from poor and middling nations that are organised by multinational companies and banks. The US research group Global Financial Integrity estimates that $1.1tn a year flows illegally out of poorer nations, stolen from them through tax evasion and the transfer of money within corporations. This practice costs sub-Saharan Africa around 6% of its GDP.

The looters rely on secrecy regimes to process and hide their stolen money. The corporate tax haven index published by the Tax Justice Network shows that the three countries that have done most to facilitate this theft are the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. All of them are British territories. Jersey, a British dependency, comes seventh on the list. These places are effectively satellites of the City of London. But because they are overseas, the City can benefit from “nefarious activities … while allowing the British government to maintain distance when scandals arise”, says the network. The City of London’s astonishing exemption from the UK’s freedom of information laws creates an extra ring of secrecy.

The UK also appears to be the money-laundering capital of the world. In a devastating article, Oliver Bullough revealed how easy it has become to hide your stolen loot and fraudulent schemes here, using a giant loophole in company law: no one checks the ownership details you enter when creating your company. You can, literally, call yourself Mickey Mouse, with a registered address on Mars, and get away with it. Bullough discovered owners on the Companies House site called “Xxx Stalin” and “Mr Mmmmmm Xxxxxxxxxxx”, whose address was given as “Mmmmmmm, Mmmmmm, Mmm, MMM”. One investigation found that 4,000 company owners, according to their submitted details, were under the age of two.

By giving false identities, company owners in the UK can engage in the industrial processing of dirty money with no fear of getting caught. Even when the UK’s company registration system was revealed as instrumental to the world’s biggest known money-laundering scheme, the Danske Bank scandal, the government turned a blind eye.

A new and terrifying book by the Financial Times journalist Tom Burgis, Kleptopia, follows a global current of dirty money, and the murders and kidnappings required to sustain it. Again and again, he found, this money, though it might originate in Russia, Africa or the Middle East, travels through London. The murders and kidnappings don’t happen here, of course: our bankers have clean cuffs and manicured nails. The National Crime Agency estimates that money laundering costs the UK £100bn a year. But it makes much more. With the money come people fleeing the consequences of their crimes, welcomed into this country through the government’s “golden visa” scheme: a red carpet laid out for the very rich. 

None of this features in the official definitions of corruption. Corruption is what little people do. But kleptocrats in other countries are merely clients of the bigger thieves in London. Processing everyone else’s corruption is the basis of much of the wealth of this country. When you start to understand this, the contention by the author of Gomorrah, Roberto Saviano, that the UK is the most corrupt nation on Earth, begins to make sense.

These activities are a perpetuation of colonial looting: a means by which vast riches are siphoned out of poorer countries and into the hands of the super-rich. The UK’s great and unequal wealth was built on colonial robbery: the land and labour stolen in Ireland, America and Africa, the humans stolen by slavery, the $45tn bled from India.

Just as we distanced ourselves from British slave plantations in the Caribbean, somehow believing that they had nothing to do with us, now we distance ourselves from British organised crime, much of which also happens in the Caribbean. The more you learn, the more you realise that this is what it’s really about: grand larceny is the pole around which British politics revolve.

A no-deal Brexit, which Boris Johnson seems to favour, is likely to cement the UK’s position as the global entrepot for organised crime. When the EU’s feeble restraints are removed, under a government that seems entirely uninterested in basic accountability, the message we send to the rest of the world will be even clearer than it is today: come here to wash your loot.

Friday 4 September 2020

Spin Bowlers' Interviews by Murali Kartik

 

Ravi Ashwin
Part 1



Part 2

Graeme Swann

Part 1


Part 2

Daniel Vettori


Ramesh Powar and Rahul Sanghvi

Part 1


Part 2


Dilip Doshi



Maninder Singh

Part 1


Part 2

Harbhajan Singh

Part 1


Part 2


Muttiah Muralitharan

Part 1


Part 2


Laxman Sivaramakrishnan

Part 1




Part 2


Amit Mishra


Part 1


Part 2


Saqlain Mushtaq


Part 1



Part 2







Thursday 3 September 2020

Economics for Non Economists 7: Demonetisation and Indian Economy

 by Girish Menon

 

My friend Shekar has asked the following questions which I will attempt to simplify and answer:

Why do these people keep blaming demonetization? What’s the link to economic prosperity? With such a high saving ability in the middle class, why do they talk about suspensions over moratorium? Is giving handouts the only solution? 

Please explain me how spending on a car, tv, consumer goods etc is going to save the planet? How many TVs would one require so that economist feel there economic prosperity on a nation? 

Me changing my iPhone every year benefits whom; Apple or India?

What about the fake currencies that were bought into our country that vastly created this economic imbalance and parallel economy in our country. If it’s that bad why aren’t people on the streets?

 

Let me start by explaining how one man’s spending is another man’s income and how demonetisation undermined the recycling of money within the Indian economy.

 

In economics there is a term called the Multiplier Effect. A simple definition is “a phenomenon whereby a given change in a particular input, such as government spending, causes a larger change in an output, such as gross domestic product”.

 

To give you an example, suppose say the Modi government actually spent the Rs. 20,000 crores in the economy which it promised to do earlier this year. This money would go to other businesses who will have new business orders. They will in turn employ more workers, buy more machinery which will create additional demand in the economy. These workers and machinery sellers will further spend their income buying goods and services creating even more demand in the economy. In this process of recycling money between the government, businesses and consumers the overall effect of additional government spending of Rs. 20,000 crores may be Rs. 40, 000 crores etc giving a much higher boost to growth and employment within the Indian economy. Now, this is an example of a positive multiplier and is recommended when an economy is in recession. Media reports seem to indicate that the Modi government did not actually give this additional boost to the economy.

 

Now, you can visualise what would happen when you decide to demonetise* some currency. You are reducing the money available to circulate between governments, firms and consumers within the economy. And the immediate effect of demonetisation was that many cash based industries folded starting a negative cycle of less demand therefore less employment leading to even less demand…in a downward cycle.

 

Demonetisation, as per the Modi government, may have been used to combat immediate political threats. However the economic fall out is inescapable in terms of fall in the rate of economic growth and hardships to ordinary people.

 

The timing of the decision may have been politically apt but for an economy that had already declining rates of growth this decision worsened the conditions within the economy. Covid and the lockdown completed the disaster with a 24% fall in GDP that was explained away as an ‘Act of God’.

No photo description available. 

The link to economic prosperity is the belief that as the GDP of an economy rises the people become materially well off and therefore more prosperous. I have explained this in an earlier piece here.

 

As far as the savings of the middle class is concerned these may have been affected by liquidity issues along with unemployment. They may have invested in property and other illiquid ‘assets’ which may be affected by lack of demand and lower prices. Hence they may not be able to repay their debts, mortgages…and hence the call for suspensions/moratoriums.

 

Is giving handouts the only solution? The objective of most governments is to generate a positive multiplier effect. In the western world, governments have given cheap loans and subsidies to firms but it has not resulted in a satisfactory positive multiplier. So, one of the possible solutions is called helicopter money or what you call handouts. The logic is that if you give money to those who need it most i.e. the poor, they will use it to buy goods and create demand in the economy which may kickstart a positive multiplier effect.

 

Your comments on buying iPhones and TVs should be understood with the need for economic growth and recycling of money within an economy. If the money is with you then it becomes your patriotic duty to consume and not save. The environmental damage is well documented and yet only paid lip-service to currently. GDP and economic growth are the unquestioned Ram Janambhoomis of the economic world. Remember, Modi and his 5 trillion economy boast. So, in this model which we have accepted, one way of sustaining growth is for consumers to keep on buying goods because if she stops then the process of recycling slows down and the economy will go into a downward spiral.

 

As for the fake currencies brought into the country; the one positive thing is that such currencies gave the economy a positive boost as it circulated between the people and businesses. It may at the same time have helped Modi's/India’s political enemies in the process. So the right question to ask would be, ‘who has demonetisation damaged more: Indians many of who were Modi's supporters or Modi/India's political enemies more?’

---

*Demonetisation is not always a bad tactic. Keynesian economists will argue that when the rate of economic growth is rising and there is a fear that a crash is imminent then at such a time reducing the money supply could be a reasonable decision to temper the high rate of growth.

Tuesday 1 September 2020

What's behind the headlines demanding a return to the office?

Instead of reimagining the world of work, our censorious press backs those whose wealth depends on the commuter-driven status quo writes Hettie O'Brien in The Guardian


‘Nobody can think that risking their health to save a multimillion-pound sandwich chain is a sensible endeavour.’ Photograph: Peter Summers/Getty Images


 With a deadly virus smaller than a speck of dust still circulating, it’s natural that many office workers would rather be doing their jobs from home. Though this inadvertent mass experiment in home working hasn’t been universally enjoyable, particularly for those living in cramped accommodation or juggling work and children, it has at least freed many from commuting, allowed some to spend more time in their local communities, and made cities less congested as a result.

But this isn’t what you’d think from the censorius press coverage of home working, which has treated it as a collective sickness that is stalling Britain’s recovery. Last week, the Daily Telegraph ran a piece stating that workers remaining at home will be more vulnerable to redundancy, with bosses finding it far easier to hand P45s to employees they haven’t seen during the pandemic. Its language was telling: people must “go back to work”, as if they are not already working.

An article in the Daily Mail reprimanded office workers for “boasting smugly about their exciting new ‘work/life balance’ and the amount of money they are saving on their railway season tickets”, as if these were morally reprehensible acts. “If your job can be done from home it can be done from abroad, where wages are lower”, TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp warned on Twitter, adding: “if I had an office job I’d want to be first in the queue to get back to work and prove my worth”. The meaning of these veiled threats is clear: if you stay at home, expect to lose your job.

Beneath this scolding is a message directed at those who aren’t complying with the old status quo. The service economy in financialised city centres depends on the consumption patterns of office workers: commuting every day involves not just buying a sandwich or a coffee from Pret, but helping to prop up an entire system. Were it not for the vast numbers flowing out of stations every morning, the capacity to extract astronomical rents, both from commercial and residential properties, would shrivel – and city centres would no longer be soulless corporate landscapes where multiple franchises of the same chain restaurant can be found within walking distance of each other.

Warnings from the CBI that city centres could become “ghost towns” if commuters never return belie reality: these have long been sterile places devoid of character – it’s just that in the past, it seemed unlikely they might change.

A recent YouGov poll gauging enthusiasm for this back-to-work mantra found that support for workplaces “encouraging [workers] to return to the office” correlated with age: 44% of over-65s agreed with this statement, while only 25% of 25- to 49-year-olds did so. That the over-65s, the age group least likely to be returning to the office, are the most enthusiastic supporters of this principle is unsurprising. The idea that you’ve got to be physically present to prove your value to your boss encodes an entire attitude to work – one firmly rooted in the Taylorist management doctrine of the 20th century, when employees were expected to conform to the objectives of the firm in exchange for a permanent contract. Today, the expectation of worker “flexibility” is more widespread, and surveillance that once relied on office overseers can now be conducted online (indeed, since the start of the pandemic, the demand for software that monitors workers while they’re working from home has surged).

Despite the media paranoia over home working, many managers don’t really seem to care that people aren’t back in the office. Some companies have said they will move to remote working full time, or at least allow employees to work this way some of the time. The people who seem most concerned about going back to work aren’t workers, or managers, but rentiers – a category that applies to many retiree readers of the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, a demographic that is likely to have paid off mortgages, receives generous pensions and contains a higher proportion of private landlords, and to the rentiers who have funneled their wealth into assets such as real estate and office spaces concentrated in urban centres. Until recently, both of these groups were relatively insulated from economic shocks affecting the labour market, their wealth dependent on the continuation of an old normal that now seems more precarious than ever.

The monstering of home working doesn’t really stem from concern about workers’ productivity or mental wellbeing. Instead it’s an attack on those who dare flout the rules that sustained the old normal. The survival of city centres, and by extension the businesses that extract rent from them, relies upon everyone playing their part – most of all workers. Telling people they must return to the office whatever the circumstances is a way to circumvent critique and insist upon the old normal returning, as if repeating a mantra were all it took to make it true.

When newspapers shriek that workers must return to the office, despite the reality that many don’t want to, they’re voicing what the sociologist Luc Boltanski called a “system of confirmation” – an utterance that is neither truth nor fact, but rather a way of reinforcing the status quo. But nobody can think that risking their health to save a multimillion pound sandwich chain is a sensible endeavour.

Since the pandemic began, societal changes that were supposed to be impossible have happened with relative ease. Workers were sent home overnight, and it now seems that many can do their jobs, if not fully remotely, then at least partially from home. Already, many people are talking of moving away from big cities to avoid the costs of high rent and long commuting times. And behind the claims of economic catastrophe caused by a drop in commuting, some independent businesses have reported that they are thriving. Instead of asking what will happen to city centres if the commuters never returned, we should be asking: what would the city, and the economy, look like if they weren’t organised this way?