Bulletins and News Discussion from March 4th to March 10th, 2024 - The Coalition of Losers - COTW: Pakistan
Image is of a protest in Pakistan after the attempted assassination of Imran Khan in November 2022.
What a clusterfuck of an election.
Imran Khan, the previous official Prime Minister of Pakistan, was removed by the command of the United States in April 2022 in a no confidence motion. This made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Imran Khan and his supporters have protested since then against the Pakistani state, which is more-or-less governed by the military despite the furnishings of civilian rule. This has ranged from largely peaceful protests to trying to burn down and occupy houses and headquarters.
It was assumed by the Pakistani elite that they could make the problem go away by arresting Imran Khan and effectively forcing many PTI candidates to run as independents while hounding them with police raids and stopping them from campaigning - and adding salt on the wound by disabling social media access and mobile services on the day of the election to make it more difficult to co-ordinate. Fortunately, these people don't seem to quite understand how the internet works in the current day, and so Khan's supporters started up WhatsApp groups and improvised websites and apps to spread the word about which candidates to vote for, leading to Khan's party getting the plurality, though not the majority, of votes in the election.
This has created a rather depressed mood in the Pakistani elite. A coalition of eight parties joined together, obviously excluding the PTI, but this coalition is shaky and lacks much legitimacy, with two major parties inside it, the PML-N and PPP, being ideologically opposed on several issues. It has been regarded as "the coalition of losers" by Khan's supporters. The new Prime Minister is Shehbaz Sharif, who also ruled from April 2022 until August 2023 and is the younger brother of Nawaz Sharif, who served as Prime Minister three times before in the last few decades. With inflation at 30% and the economy greatly struggling, there are fears that things may only stay together for months, not years, before the coalition fragments and something else has to be done.
The COTW (Country of the Week) label is designed to spur discussion and debate about a specific country every week in order to help the community gain greater understanding of the domestic situation of often-understudied nations. If you've wanted to talk about the country or share your experiences, but have never found a relevant place to do so, now is your chance! However, don't worry - this is still a general news megathread where you can post about ongoing events from any country.
The Country of the Week is Pakistan! Feel free to chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants. More detail here.
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section. Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war. Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language. https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one. https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts. https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel. https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator. https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps. https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language. https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language. https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses. https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Michael Roberts' latest piece on China, where he dunks pretty hard on Western China Understanders. It is genuinely bewildering that these economists are giving economic advice to a country that is beating them in many ways, while that same advice is used in the West and is producing stagnation and recession. I get that these people don't give a shit about the actual economy and are merely focussed on funnelling more profits into the top 0.01% with all this fancy jargon as a smokescreen, but you'd think cognitive dissonance would kick in at some point.
Like, Russia is doing better than you! The same country that you predicted would experience unsalvageable economic collapses in 2022 is now doing considerably better than you in economic growth! If I was in their position and had even a shred of dignity, I'd say "Fuck. Well, my economic theory doesn't seem to be working, then. Let's see if there are any better ones, which are predicting events better than me."
Can China succeed in achieving both its growth target for this year and reach the longer-term objectives over the next ten years or so, taking nearly 1.4bn people up to living standards only enjoyed by a small group of nations in Europe, North America and East Asia?
If you were to read the Western press and their economists, you would conclude that the chances of China doing that are no better than a snowball surviving on being thrown into the sun. It is the almost unanimous cry of Western economists, particularly the ‘China experts’, that the China ‘miracle’ is over, and worse, China is heading into a debt deflation spiral that will mean growth targets will not be met at best, and more likely there will be a major slump. This is despite the fact that in 2023 China had an official growth rate of 5.2%, more than double that of the ‘booming’ US economy, and five times the rate of growth in the rest of top capitalist economies of the G7. (Don’t get me into the argument that China’s growth figure is fake and growth is much lower. Those that argue this have little supporting evidence.)
Ah, but you see, manufacturing is in recession (as measured by official surveys), consumption is weak (still below pre-pandemic levels) and foreign investment, seen as the life-blood for the Chinese economy has dried up. And even worse, prices of goods and services are falling. Readers may be surprised to hear that Western economists, who spend much of their time demanding that inflation rates in their countries be reduced to no more than 2% a year after the post-COVID inflationary spiral of the last three years, see no merit in the lack of any rising prices (and therefore rising real wages) in the Chinese economy: it’s ‘inflation bad for the US; but no inflation bad for China’.
In a recent article, John Ross has shown that to achieve China’s Plan GDP target for 2025 ie a doubling GDP from 2021, it would require an average annual growth of 4.7% a year. So far, China is ahead of this goal with annual average growth in 2020-2023 of about 5%. Indeed, since the beginning of the pandemic, China’s economy has grown by 20.1% and the U.S. by 8.1%—that is China’s total GDP growth since the beginning of the pandemic has been two and half times greater than the US.
Yes, China’s annual growth rates have slowed from the breakneck pace of the 1990s onwards and the Chinese workforce is declining. But just look the increase in GDP per person that China has achieved compared to the G7 economies since 2019, some of which have even contracted (IMF data). The rise on per capita basis is even higher against the US (nearly four times).
Yes, increasingly China cannot rely on an expansion of a cheap workforce from rural areas to achieve more output, but instead must raise the productivity of the existing labour force, especially through investment in technical innovation. And it is doing so. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows that ‘total factor productivity’ (which is a crude measure of innovation) is growing at 6% a year, while it has been falling in the US.
Despite this evidence, every year the Western ‘China’ experts (and even many in China itself) predict stagnation, given the huge debt levels in all sectors. China is going to stagnate like Japan has done in the last three decades. The only way to avoid ‘Japanification’, say these experts, is to ‘rebalance’ the economy from ‘over-investment’, ‘excessive savings’ and exports to a domestic consumer-led economy as in the West and reduce the state control of the economy so that the private sector can flourish.
This year on the occasion of the NPC, Martin Wolf, the Keynesian guru of the Financial Times, returned to this theme, echoing the arguments of other Keynesian China experts like Michael Pettis. According to Wolf, China’s growth will now slow to a trickle as in Japan because it overloaded with excessive debt and because it has not rebalanced the economy towards “the consumer”. China needs to get its consumption share up to Western levels or it will not be able to grow and so stay locked in a ‘middle income’ trap.
...
But how can anybody claim that the mature ‘consumer-led’ economies of the G7 have been successful in achieving steady and fast economic growth, or that real wages and consumption growth have been stronger there? Indeed, in the G7, consumption has failed to drive economic growth and wages have stagnated in real terms over the last ten years, while real wages in China have shot up. Moreover, these consumer-led economies have been hit by regular and recurring slumps in production that have lost trillions in output and income for their populations. The irony is that China’s consumption growth rate is way higher than in the G7 economies.
China has not had a contraction in national income in any year since 1976, while the consumer-led G7 economies have had slumps in 1980-2, 1991, 2001, 2008-9 and 2020. Much has been made of China’s ‘disastrous’ zero COVID policy. But apart from saving millions of lives, China still did not enter a slump in 2020, unlike all the G7 economies in 2020.
...
Moreover, the arguments of the Western experts that China is stuck in an old model of investment-led export manufacturing and needs to ‘rebalance’ towards a consumer-led domestic economy where the private sector has a free rein are just not empirically valid. Is China’s weak consumer sector forcing it to try and export manufacturing ‘over capacity’? Not according to a recent study by Richard Baldwin. He finds that the export-led model did operate up to 2006, but since then domestic sales have boomed, so that the exports to GDP ratio has actually fallen. “Chinese consumption of Chinese manufactured goods has grown faster than Chinese production for almost two decades. Far from being unable to absorb the production, Chinese domestic consumption of made-in-China goods has grown MUCH faster than the output of China’s manufacturing sector.”
There's more in the article for enjoyers of Chinese economics statistics, but to summarize the argument, I think it's really as simple as: China needs to do the exact opposite of whatever Western economists are telling them to do.
It would be wrong to say that neoliberal economics "doesn't work", because it's actually working stunningly well at its real purpose, which is accumulating profit and repressing the working class, despite failing dramatically and increasingly regularly at its stated purpose, which is some hand-wavey shit about economic growth and stability or whatever. But the contradiction between these two points can only be delayed so long as you don't have a major competitor. Once you do, you must institute a different kind of economics which actually does produce economic growth across society and has some provisions for labor, which is of course the real motive force of the entire economy, because it's now in your material interests to do so in order to maintain imperialism and monopolies.
I'm unsure what the breaking point will be, or when it will happen, but a war against China (proxy or otherwise) seems like a pretty safe bet. The only thing then is whether the current class of capitalists will resist this new state of affairs, and doom Western hegemony, or accept it, plunging us into the biggest Cool Zone of human history with a reinvigorated American working class slaving away for an American bourgeoisie fighting against a Chinese communist superpower.
It continues to amaze me that Marxian economists like Roberts continue to fuse neoclassical thinking into his analysis.
Roberts claimed that Western neoliberal economies with their consumer-led economy is bad. No, consumption economy in itself is not a bad thing. The problem with Western economies is that their consumption is fueled by debt - personal and household debt, while real wages have stagnated. This created an economy that can only sustain itself with more and more credit, which ultimately ends with a recession when the people can no longer afford to keep up with the debt-fueled spending (see: the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis in the US).
Roberts also claimed that China’s domestic consumption has gone up, so it’s wrong to say that its consumption is weak. Of course, domestic consumption has gone up, but so have household and corporate debt!
But that’s not even the crux of the problem. The 2008 global financial crisis and the 2009 global recession that followed plunged China’s export-led economy from a 13% annual GDP growth rate in 2007 to a mere 5% these days. This is not a good sign. It shows you how much the vast potential of China’s productive capacity is not being fully utilized. Just because my legs hurt and can no longer run, but hey, you’re even worse, you had to crawl, therefore I am still winning the race isn’t exactly something to celebrate about.
So what’s the problem here? Post-2009 crash, China ramped up its investment (4 trillion RMB) to stimulate the domestic economy from a global consumptive slump. There is no doubt that such huge investments had stabilized the Chinese economy and prevented it from suffering from the same recessions that were happening elsewhere in the world. However, do you see the problem here? Huge increase in investment while exports are down, and the domestic consumption continues to be weak, where else could all the huge amount of investment end up in? Real estate! This is where China’s real estate bubble came from, and it caused a deeply entangled crisis where the local government debt crisis is intertwined with the banking and real estate sector with no easy solution to get out of (as noted in Roberts’s piece as well). Local governments cutting corners to raise GDP by selling land and allowing the property market to proliferate, to make up for the loss in GDP from the real economy. In the meantime, the financial sector (especially the shadow banks) and the real estate investors benefited greatly from such arrangements. Yes, GDP is still higher than other countries, but how much of it is fueled by the real economy, and how much by the virtual?
Now that the housing prices are inevitably coming down, a lot of investors (both households and corporates) are going to lose a lot of their invested money. Exports are not expected to recover. So, how are you going to offset this loss of financial assets without triggering a recession? Clearly, consumption has to go up in order to make up for it to keep the economy moving. The difference here from those prescribed by Western economists is that the consumption must not be fueled by debt, but from the increase in real wages. And that requires the government to increase its budget deficit, pumping out the money and get them into the hands of the people, rather than relying on bank lending and export surplus.
One way or another, China has to go into a domestic consumption-led economy. It is better to do it earlier than later. People who continue to think China is doing “just fine”, no need to change anything, refuse to see the vast potential of China’s economy and how its continued entanglement with the export sector (where the global market is controlled by the US) causes it to be vulnerable to Western economic and financial warfare.