Connect with us

EUROPE

Death of a myth: Wage hike does not lead to inflation

Published

on

When Germany’s largest labour union, IG Metall, agreed to a 5.2 per cent wage rise last November, monetary policymakers breathed a great sigh of relief. As reported in Financial Times, this deal finally eased central banks’ inconvenient wage-price spiral fears.

The fear that wage increases will lead to price increases (and hence inflation) is quite widespread. We see that not only the Germans but also the British live with the same concern. Bank of England President Andrew Bailey says the wage bargain needs to be “restrained” or things will get out of hand. Jason Furman, who was the Director of the National Economic Council under Barack Obama, is also clear: Increasing wages also increases prices. According to Furman, this is “basic micro and common sense.”

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said they would look at the increase in wages to see if they would continue to raise interest rates in Europe. Last May, Lagarde rejected bank employees’ desire to link wage increases to consumer price increases and wrote that this was “not acceptable and desirable”.

Klaas Knot, president of the Bank of the Netherlands, who has been skeptical about wage increases at the level of inflation, said they should be on high alert for any “feedback loop” to wage and price increases, but added that current wage developments do not provide clear evidence that they are entering a wage-price spiral in the eurozone.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has made the most explicit statement. In explaining why they’re raising interest rates; Powell makes it clear that they want to reduce demand and lower wages. Powell thinks they can do all this without slowing the economy and putting it in recession. However, clearly, interest rate hike aims to reduce the bargaining power of the working class and suppress wages by increasing unemployment.

What is the wage-price spiral?

The technical wage-price spiral recipe: at least three out of four consecutive quarters have a wage-price spiral if both consumer prices and nominal wages increase. To give a more concise definition, price increase triggers the wage increase, and wage increase causes the capital owner to increase the prices, and so on.

The debt between Thomas Weston, a leader of the carpenter’s union, and Karl Marx at the International Working Men’s Association in 1865 is the historical example of this issue. Just like the central banks argue today, Weston said that capitalists reflected the increase in wages to increase in prices to protect their profits; increasing prices would reduce the purchasing power of workers and thus keep real wages in place. That is, Watson concluded that a struggle or bargain for wage increases was useless.

Marx’s answer to this is summarized in the manuscript we know as Value, Price, Profit. Marx presents three arguments against Weston: First, wage increases come to the fore not out of the blue, but usually as a reaction to rising prices. Second, wages don’t cause inflation, but multiple factors influence it: The size of production, the productive forces of labor, the value of money, fluctuations in market prices, and the different phases of industrial cycles. So, for example, under the condition that wages remain the same, a change in the amount of money in the market (or the value of money) can trigger inflation. Or, again, a change in labor efficiency (i.e., productivity) has a direct impact on commodity prices, provided wages remain the same.

Moreover, according to Marx, it is true that a general rise in wage levels reduces overall profit rates, but this does not directly affect the prices of commodities. Capitalists and their ideologists object to the increase in wages, not because prices will increase, but because profits will decrease. The physical limit here is to provide the means of livelihood required for the employee working today to work tomorrow. However, Marx says that in some examples, the wage received by the workers can be pushed below the minimum subsistence. Such a reduce in labor costs is compensated by charity on national scope or laws on supporting the poor. Hence, the question of how to detect wages and profits is answered dynamically, not statically, and the answer is determined by the opposing classes’ struggles and balances of power.

It will happen again: The claim that workers’ “excessive” demands for wages will lead to inflation is an assumption raised by the capitalist and his ideologists, who know that their profits will decrease. Now, it is time talk about the cracks on this front.

IMF’s confession 

IMF economists are finding it very difficult to find the evidence they have been looking for from history for a wage-price spiral. A recently published article examines wage-price spirals in the last 60 years of advanced economies.

The conclusion reached by IMF economists is that wage-price spirals are difficult to find in recent historical records, at least when they are defined as a continuous increase in prices and wages. Moreover, the IMF has even more difficulty in finding the wage-price spiral in other historical periods when real wages has fallen like today. What happens is the nominal wage increases that only partially replace the real wage loss.

The examples found by the economists showing fall in real wages and tight labour market as experienced today, often prioritize a period of falling inflation and rising nominal wages. Thus, as economists describe it as a “surprise,” sustained wage and price increases in only a small part of the example are being rolled over to the next period. As a result, the IMF finds that the rise in nominal wages cannot necessarily be taken as a sign that a wage-price spiral period has begun.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) also confirms this situation. In the first half of 2022, global monthly wages declined by 0.9 per cent in real terms. When wages in developed countries are separated from wages in developing countries, the ILO report shows that real wages in developed G20 countries decreased by 2.2 per cent, while in developing countries they increased by only 0.8 per cent. Looking at the United States and Canada, it is understood that real wages decreased by 3.2 per cent in the first half of this year.

The OECD report complements this statement. The report, which includes third-quarter data, suggests real wages decline in 31 of 32 major countries in the third quarter of 2022 compared to the same period the previous year.

President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mary C. Daly also has had to admit that one of the most fundamental elements of the wage-price spiral is that the rising wage phenomenon has not emerged with inflation.

The ILO says that inflation is not caused by wage increases, but by the Ukrainian war and the global energy crisis.

Sources of inflation

Paul Donovan, the chief economist of UBS, one of the world’s largest asset managers, reminds that real wages are falling globally, pointing out that the Fed’s wage-price spiral thesis is not correct.

According to Donovan, the main source of today’s inflation is the excessive increase in profits. If inflation comes from profit rather than labor, says Donovan, central banks should look for other ways alternative to shrinking demand based on increasing unemployment.

A graphic published by the Economy Policy Institute last April provides the picture. Unit labour cost constituted 61.8 per cent of the increase in unit prices in non-financial companies between 1979-2019. Between the fourth quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2022, this rate decreased to 7.9 per cent. The main factor driving the increase in unit prices is profit with 53.9 percent. It is composed of non-work input prices with 38.3 percent.

So, what else is among the sources of inflation? The decrease in supply chains and labor productivity during the COVID period and the inadequate supply afterwards is a reason. Zero COVID policies in China and the subsequent Russia-Ukraine war also has caused disruptions in global supply chains and cost increases. Sanctions against Russia have also led to an exorbitant rise in global energy prices.

Moreover, in Britain, for example, service providers that distribute to retail energy companies and are often owned by large hedge funds and private equity companies can make profits of up to 40 per cent. These companies, known as the “Big Six,” have almost completely monopolized energy supplies. 99 per cent of domestic and small business customers depend on the Big Six. When the huge profits of international energy monopolies such as BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Total is added, the picture is completed. The UK energy distribution companies, which have been privatized since the 1980s, work for profit and households suffer for it. The figure says it all: The Big Six distributed a £23 billion dividend to shareholders. That’s almost six times the tax the Six have been paying over the last decade.

On the other hand, excessive profit rates in 2021 are expected to decrease with the rise in interest rates. It is certain that there will be a slowdown in the profits and therefore investments driven by the increases in energy and raw material prices last year. The downward trend in large tech companies that made huge profits during the pandemic period, layoffs, and the difficulty in accessing finance also indicate that recession is likely in advanced economies next year.

Moreover, since the source of inflation is not “excessive demand” but weak supply, central banks have nothing to do with it. In addition to the disruption of supply chains, the Ukrainian war, and anti-Russian sanctions, decrease in profitability, declining labour productivity and investment appetite do not seem to match supply with demand. While recruitment in the United States is still in full swing, the lack of pace in GDP growth suggests that the problem of labour productivity in developed countries remains. The emergence of a sustained and downward demand shock in the world system therefore seems preordained.

EUROPE

Germany considers transferring Nord Stream 2 to US control

Published

on

In Germany, discussions are underway regarding the potential transfer of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to US control. The pipeline became unusable following sabotage in September 2022. The aim is to resume the flow of Russian gas to Europe.

According to a report by Bild newspaper, negotiations are ongoing to reach an agreement.

Meanwhile, some politicians from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), led by Friedrich Merz, who was recently elected as prime minister, have suggested that natural gas imports from Russia could resume after the war in Ukraine ends.

CDU Member of Parliament Thomas Bareiss stated that Nord Stream 2 could be used for supplies, saying, “If peace is restored, relations normalize, and embargoes gradually ease, then, of course, gas could flow again, perhaps through a pipeline now under US control.”

Jan Heinisch, the deputy chairman of the CDU group in the North Rhine-Westphalia State Parliament, also stated that Germany should consider buying Russian gas again if a “fair and reliable” peace agreement is signed in Ukraine.

Heinisch added, “Whether this will be done by sea or via a pipeline remains to be seen.”

At the same time, Heinisch emphasized that Germany should not be dependent on a single supplier and should avoid situations where prices are “dictated.”

Heinisch is involved in developing the energy policy of the future ruling coalition consisting of the CDU, CSU, and SPD.

On the other hand, Free Democratic Party (FDP) Member of Parliament Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann claimed that the CDU is “already making efforts” to resume natural gas imports from Russia, undermining the country’s hard-won energy independence from Russia.

However, there are those within the CDU who do not want such cooperation to resume.

Party member Ruprecht Polenz said, “Vladimir Putin’s Russia can never be trusted again, and Donald Trump has shaken confidence in America. Therefore, the coalition agreement should rule out the reactivation of the Nord Stream pipeline.”

CDU foreign policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter also criticized this step.

Kiesewetter said, “Those who have always opposed sanctions, those who want Nord Stream to work again and want to pounce on cheap Russian gas again, those who do not care about the genocide suffered by the Ukrainian people, each of them would be extremely pleased with such a rapprochement.”

In addition, SPD Member of Parliament Michael Roth stated that Bareiss’s proposal was an inappropriate signal at the wrong time, coming from someone who had “obviously learned nothing from recent history.”

The German Ministry of Economy, led by Robert Habeck of the Green Party, stated that Nord Stream 2 has not been approved and has not received legal approval, and “there is no question of operating it at the moment.”

The party itself described Bareiss’s statement as “scandalous,” saying, “If Germany starts buying gas from Russia again, it would mean rewarding President Vladimir Putin for his war of aggression.”

Sources speaking to Bild newspaper previously reported that Richard Grenell, the former US Ambassador to Berlin and currently Trump’s special envoy, had traveled unofficially to Switzerland a number of times to discuss the commissioning of Nord Stream 2.

The headquarters of Nord Stream 2 AG, the operator of the pipeline, is located in this country.

The sources claimed that the American side wanted to mediate the supply of Russian gas to Germany, but only at the level of private companies.

Prior to this, sources interviewed by the Financial Times had said that Matthias Warnig, the former CEO of Nord Stream 2 AG, was trying to reactivate Nord Stream 2 with the help of an American investor consortium that had drafted an agreement with Gazprom if sanctions were lifted.

A former senior US official familiar with the matter said, “The US will say, ‘Russia can be trusted now because there are reliable Americans involved.'”

The official added that if everything goes well, American investors will start making money “without doing anything.”

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Europe plans for US absence in NATO with 5-10 year strategy

Published

on

Europe’s major military powers are formulating plans to assume greater responsibility for the continent’s defense, reducing reliance on the United States.

According to a report in the Financial Times (FT), these discussions are driven by fears of a unilateral US withdrawal from NATO, exacerbated by repeated threats from former President Donald Trump to weaken or abandon the transatlantic alliance. The aim is to avoid the chaos that such a withdrawal could cause.

Four European officials familiar with the matter indicated that Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the Scandinavian countries are among those engaged in these informal discussions.

The FT reports that their objective is to devise a plan that shifts the financial and military burden towards European capitals. The intention is to present this plan to the US before NATO’s annual leaders’ summit in The Hague in June.

The proposal would include firm commitments from Europe to increase defense spending and enhance military capabilities, with the goal of persuading Trump to accept a gradual handover that would allow the US to focus more on Asia.

Since Trump’s election, countries such as Germany, France, and the UK have moved to increase defense spending or accelerate already planned increases. The EU has also launched initiatives to boost military investments among its member states.

Officials estimate that it would take approximately 5 to 10 years of increased spending to elevate Europe’s capabilities to a level where they could replace most US competencies, excluding US nuclear deterrence.

One source stated, “Increasing spending is our only leverage: burden-sharing and moving away from dependence on the US. We are beginning these discussions, but the task is so enormous that many are overwhelmed by its magnitude.”

While US diplomats have assured their European counterparts that Trump will remain committed to NATO membership and Article 5’s mutual defense clause, many European capitals worry that the White House might rapidly reduce troop or equipment deployments or withdraw from NATO’s joint missions.

Officials noted that some capitals are hesitant to participate in burden-sharing talks, fearing it might encourage the US to act more quickly, while others believe that despite Trump’s rhetoric, he does not intend to make significant changes to the US presence in Europe.

Others are skeptical that the Trump administration, given its unpredictable nature, would even agree to a structured process.

One official questioned, “You need an agreement with the Americans, and it’s not clear whether they will be willing to do that. Can you even trust that they would stick to an agreement?”

Officials highlight ongoing and regular discussions, led by France and Britain, about establishing a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine in its war against Russia and to invest in European defense.

These discussions among more than ten European defense powers do not include the US.

When asked what a European pillar within NATO would mean and whether it is feasible, a senior Western official responded, “We are seeing it now: the UK and France are taking the initiative [on a guarantee force for Ukraine] without the Americans.”

NATO officials argue that maintaining the alliance with less or no US involvement is much simpler than creating a new structure, given the difficulty of recreating or renegotiating the existing military plans, capability targets, rules, command structure, and Article 5 for the continent’s defense.

Officials stated that for Europe’s core defense, the UK and other Atlantic maritime powers, the Scandinavian countries for the north of the continent, and Türkiye for the southeast defense will always be needed.

Marion Messmer, a research fellow in international security at Chatham House, noted, “Even without the US, NATO provides a structure for security cooperation in Europe. There are aspects that would need to be replaced if the US were to leave. But it provides a framework and infrastructure that Europeans are really familiar with. It does so much of the work that you would have to do from scratch if you were just setting up a different type of structure for just European members.”

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Scholz comments on İmamoğlu’s detention

Published

on

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a statement regarding the detention of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu.

According to DW Türkçe, Scholz, speaking at the beginning of the summit that brought EU leaders together in Brussels on Thursday, said, “Allow me to address an issue that is very important to me on a current occasion. In recent years, we have made great efforts to further develop relations between Europe and Türkiye. In this context, the detention of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a centrally important opposition politician, is a very, very bad sign.”

“This development is upsetting for Turkish democracy as well as for the relations between Europe and Türkiye,” Scholz said, calling on Türkiye to allow a policy where “the opposition and the government are in competition” and “the opposition is not held accountable in the judiciary.”

Scholz later shared these words in English on his personal social media account.

Yesterday, the German Foreign Ministry also stated about the detention of İmamoğlu and his colleagues, “It is a heavy blow to democracy in Türkiye. Protecting the rights of the people’s elected representatives is an important part of supporting the rule of law.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey