Статті

Since China’s government declared all cryptocurrency transactions illegal last week and banned citizens from working for crypto-related companies, the price of bitcoin went up despite being shut out of one of its biggest markets.

Experts say large-scale Chinese miners of cryptocurrency — the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum — will take their high-powered, electricity-guzzling servers offshore. Exchanges of the digital money and the numerous Chinese startups linked to the trade also are expected to rebase offshore after dropping domestic customers from their rosters.

The shift highlights how virtual currencies can evade government regulation.

“The exchanges have been pushing offshore anyways, and with the exchange business you need cloud infrastructure, you need developers, you need management to move things in the right direction, and so whether that is sitting in Taipei, San Francisco, Singapore or Shanghai, it doesn’t really matter — those businesses are very virtual,” said Zennon Kapron, Singapore-based founder the financial consulting firm Kapronasia.

“The real impact we’ve probably seen though is in the miners, and most of those miners [are in] the process of shifting overseas or [have] already completed moving overseas,” he said.

Strongest anti-crypto action to date

On Sept. 24, the People’s Bank of China, Beijing’s monetary authority, released a statement saying cryptocurrencies lack the status of other monetary instruments. The notice, issued in tandem with nine other government agencies, including the Bureau of Public Security, declared all related business illegal and warned that cryptocurrency transactions originating outside China will also be treated as crimes.

Explaining the ban, China’s official Xinhua News Agency reported Friday that cryptocurrencies have disrupted the controlled economy’s financial systems and contributed to crimes such as money laundering.

Cryptocurrencies — digital commerce tools that aren’t linked to a centralized banking authority — first appeared in China around 2008. Chinese banks began to prohibit the use of digital currencies in 2013 and stepped up regulations after 2016.

China was the world’s biggest Bitcoin miner and supported the largest exchange by volume, according to the news website CryptoVantage. It says many of those who suddenly made millions when Bitcoin prices soared four years ago were in China.

Chinese miners and traders head to Singapore

The Chinese ban carries penalties for international exchanges that do business with people inside China, and news reports indicate international crypto exchanges are trying to cut ties with Chinese clients in recent days. But the companies themselves are largely staying quiet.

A spokesperson for digital currency exchange Coinbase said Wednesday it does not “have anything to share at this time” about the crackdown in China. U.S.-based Worldcoin Global, a new type of cryptocurrency, did not reply to a request for comment.

China’s growing pressure on crypto over the past few years had prompted stakeholders to leave the country, Kapron said, adding that less than a quarter of the country’s original cryptocurrency peer-to-peer lending startups — small firms that connect individual lenders and borrowers — remain in China.

Mining for digital currency — the process of using computers to enter bitcoins into circulation and verify cryptocurrency transactions in exchange for a payout — should get easier overseas as Chinese exit the market, Kapron said.

Smaller operators, he added, may be able to mine more easily without the competition of giant Chinese operations.

Singapore looms as a prime go-to place for operations that need not be physically onshore. The country had accepted about 300 cryptocurrency license applications as of July. From China, e-commerce giant Alibaba as well as digital financial firms Yillion Group and Hande Group have applied, news reports in Asia say.

Other Asian countries lack the legal welcome mat that Singapore has extended, said Jason Hsu, vice president of the Taiwan Fintech Association industry group.

“Where would that money flow to? I think it’s a question that needs to be answered,” Hsu said. “I think in Asia, Singapore would be a destination for them to go to. Singapore obviously has the clearest regulations and also wants to attract more digital fintech [financial-technology] companies.”

Outside Asia, Amsterdam and Frankfurt are “establishing their footprint as international centers” for financial technology, said Rajiv Biswas, Asia Pacific chief economist with market research firm IHS Markit. Financial technology covers cryptocurrency.

Western Europe ranked this year as the world’s biggest crypto economy in the world with inflows of more than $1 trillion or 25% of all global trade, activity, news and data service Chainalysis says. Europe’s surge follows similarly rapid growth in 2020.

Eventual resurgence for crypto in China?

Authorities in China are targeting crypto now as part of a wider “crackdown on overnight riches” and to “clean out the wild, wild West,” Hsu said, referring to largely unregulated market sectors. The trade will go underground for now, he forecasts, and China will eventually come out with an official digital currency issued through major banks.

Several countries are considering adopting new digital currencies that would allow people to exchange money without an intermediary, such as a bank. Proponents argue these currencies could capture the benefits of cryptocurrencies that make exchanging money easy, but without the price volatility of decentralized digital assets like bitcoin.

Chinese authorities may eventually swing to a more tolerant view of non-state-sanctioned digital currencies, though subject to strict criteria on what’s legal or otherwise, said Song Seng Wun, economist in the private banking unit of Malaysian bank CIMB. Blockchain, the core technology behind the public transaction ledger that makes crypto commerce transparent, could continue to develop in China for other ends, he added. 

 
…

During the three-day World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, China, this week, the country’s biggest tech tycoons rushed to show their support for Beijing’s “common prosperity” initiative.

Their enthusiasm for the initiative comes amid a yearlong crackdown on the country’s tech industry, where several high-profile companies have faced investigations and fines. Formerly high-flying celebrity CEOs are now keeping a low profile.

Daniel Zhang, CEO at e-commerce giant Alibaba group, said his company’s donation of $15 billion to the initiative over the next five years represented its willingness to help China achieve its goal of prosperity for all.

Zhou Hongyi, billionaire entrepreneur and chairman and CEO of the country’s largest Internet security firm, Qihoo 360, said his company will donate an as yet undisclosed sum to the initiative and step up to help smaller firms thrive.

Stressing the need to develop these enterprises, Zhou said, “Our success depends on our country’s policies. … We must take the initiative to align our development with our national strategies and serve our country with science and technology.”

Lei Jun, CEO of consumer electronics manufacturer Xiaomi, said that technological development must be used to achieve social good and that tech companies should help build a good life for everyone.

Other tech giants, such as technology conglomerate Tencent, online agricultural marketplace Pinduoduo and food delivery platform Meituan, answered Beijing’s call before the Sept. 26-28 gathering, pledging financial support for social causes.

‘Common prosperity’ initiative

During his first eight years in office, Chinese President Xi Jinping occasionally mentioned the term “common prosperity.” Since February, when he declared China had eliminated poverty, “common prosperity” has become one of his favorite themes.

At a meeting of the Communist Party’s Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs on Aug. 17, Xi stressed that those who are already rich need to guide and help others achieve prosperity.

“Common prosperity means prosperity for all, not just a few people,” Xi said, according to a meeting note published by China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency. “We can allow some to get rich first, but we must then launch a scientific public policy to make sure every citizen can have their fair share.”

Central to achieving common prosperity is a concept known as the three distributions, first introduced by the Chinese economist Li Yining in the 1990s.

According to the explanation from China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the first distribution of wealth comes through market competition. The second is achieved through the state via taxes, subsidies and social welfare programs. The third distribution taps enterprises and individuals to redistribute their wealth through voluntary donations.

‘Third distribution’

“The target of this round of the common prosperity initiative is the wallet of wealthy domestic entrepreneurs,” said Lu Jun, founder of the influential nongovernmental organization Beijing Yirenping Center, in a phone interview with VOA Mandarin. His NGO focuses on eliminating discrimination and defending the rights of disadvantaged groups.

Wang Hsin-Hsien, a political science professor and chair of the East Asian Studies Institute at National Cheng-Chi University in Taiwan, told VOA Mandarin that businesses are essentially forced to make charity donations under the current system.

“China’s current common prosperity initiative is controlled by the party-state. That means large enterprises must make donations in order to show that they are choosing the right side. So I don’t think these donations will be voluntary,” he told VOA Mandarin via phone.

“This is not the charitable donation we see in Western countries, because eventually the money will be returned to the state for redistribution,” he added.

Meanwhile, analysts say this new wave of donation will not likely help boost China’s civil society.

NGOs under microscope

China has been tightening its grip on NGOs since 2016, demanding they provide specific funding sources and membership information or face being banned.

This year, China announced a new wave of crackdowns targeting NGOs. In May, the Ministry of Civil Affairs started to target “illegal NGOs with measures such as limiting their access to conference venues, publicity resources and manpower,” according to the state-owned news outlet China Daily.

“The moves were part of a sweeping campaign launched last month by the ministry and 21 other central agencies to clamp down on the unregistered NGOs, which have masqueraded as foundations, industrial associations and other nongovernmental groups to rake in money from the public,” China Daily said.

Lu told VOA Mandarin that the NGOs that can survive or get funding will be those that align their goals with the government’s agenda — unlike many NGOs outside China, whose views diverge from those of the government.

“I don’t think this is necessarily good news for NGOs, as I believe the money donated by private companies will go to the government-run or government-affiliated NGOs,” he said of the third distribution.

“Beijing won’t allow companies to donate to independent NGOs freely, let alone the ones they don’t like, such as NGOs working on human rights, labor rights and women’s rights.”  

 
…

Fitch Ratings said Friday the United States’ AAA sovereign credit rating could be pressured if federal lawmakers fail to address the debt ceiling in a timely manner, noting that political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a default.

A two-year suspension of the debt ceiling expired in July, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress remain at odds. The credit rating agency said it believes action will be taken to raise or suspend the debt ceiling in time to avert a default. But it said the failure of the latest efforts to address the matter “indicates that the current stand-off could be among the most protracted since 2013.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned that the government could run out of cash by October 18 if the debt ceiling is not raised or suspended, leading to its first-ever default.

“We view reaching the Treasury’s X-date [October 18] without the debt limit having been raised as the principal tail risk to the U.S. sovereign’s willingness and capacity to pay,” Fitch said in a report. “If this appeared likely we would review the U.S. sovereign rating, with probable negative implications.”

As for a default, Fitch said it “would downgrade only the affected instruments to a default rating level, while non-defaulted instruments that continued to perform would retain their then-current ratings.”

It added that the United States would still have a limited capacity to make payments beyond October 18, but that would depend on “volatile revenue and expenditure flows” and that prioritization could reduce the immediate risk of a missed payment.

Fitch has had a negative outlook on the AAA rating since July 2020.
…

U.S. consumer spending increased more than expected in August, but a downward revision to July data kept intact expectations that economic growth slowed in the third quarter as a resurgence in COVID-19 infections curbed demand for services.

The Commerce Department said Friday that consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, rebounded 0.8% in August, shrugging off declining motor vehicle sales caused by a global shortage of semiconductors, which is undercutting the production of automobiles.

Data for July was revised down to show spending dipping 0.1% instead of gaining 0.3% as previously reported. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast consumer spending increasing 0.6% in August. Spending was likely boosted by back-to-school shopping and child tax credit payments from the government.

Though spending is shifting back to services from goods, the flare-up in coronavirus cases in the summer, driven by the Delta variant, crimped demand for air travel and hotel accommodation as well as sales at restaurants and bars.

Services account for the bulk of consumer spending. Growth in consumer spending is expected to decelerate sharply in the third quarter and regain steam for the remainder of the year. Infections are trending down, which already is leading to a rise in demand for travel and other high-contact services.  

Consumer spending grew at a robust 12.0% annualized rate in the second quarter, accounting for much of the economy’s 6.7% growth pace, which raised the level of gross domestic product above its peak in the fourth quarter of 2019. Growth estimates for the third quarter are below a 5.0% rate.

“Consumer momentum should improve in the months ahead, driving the economy closer to a full post-pandemic recovery and keeping inflation hot,” said David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds in New York.

Inflation maintained its upward trend in August. The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, excluding the volatile food and energy components, climbed 0.3% after increasing by the same margin in July.

In the 12 months through August, the so-called core PCE price index increased 3.6%, matching July’s gain.

The core PCE price index is the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation measure for its flexible 2% target. The Fed last week upgraded its core PCE inflation projection for this year to 3.7% from 3.0% back in June.

The U.S. central bank said it would likely begin reducing its monthly bond purchases as soon as November and signaled interest rate increases may follow more quickly than expected. Fed Chair Jerome Powell told lawmakers Thursday that he anticipated some relief from high inflation in the months ahead.
…

About two centuries ago, American local, state and federal governments poured millions of dollars into building canals to move the nation’s people and goods. By 1840, there were 3,000 miles of canals in the United States. But, within 20 years, the rise of the railroads would make canals practically obsolete. In the 1840s, several U.S. states ended up defaulting on the loans they took to build canals and railroads.

The defaults are an example of what can happen when governments spend on infrastructure — because trying to guess the future can be like shooting at a moving target. 

“You try to foresee a future. You try to guess what you’re going to need 10, 20, 30 years down the line,” says Richard White, professor emeritus of American history at Stanford University in California. “It takes a long time to construct this kind of infrastructure. And secondly, you’re going to be paying for it in the future…so very often you can be paying for something you no longer need well into the future.” 

Yet, not spending on infrastructure can be costly. 

“If we continue to not invest, Americans — between now and 2039 —— will lose on average $3,300 per year in lost disposable income,” says Greg DiLoreto, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). “That’s money they’ll lose because they’re spending it on fixing their cars because it ran into a pothole, for example. That’s wasted gas stuck in traffic. Or, this past year where I live, we have the big freeze. People were investing in generators so they would have power. Or that’s when a water line breaks and you go out and you buy bottled water.” 

Every four years, the ASCE grades America’s Infrastructure. The assessment looks at several categories including energy, waste water, drinking water, aviation, roads, bridges, dams and rail. The 2021 Report Card gives the nation’s infrastructure a low C grade — essentially the lowest passing grade possible. 

President Joe Biden has made infrastructure funding a signature piece of his agenda. In August, the U.S. Senate passed a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan that focuses on transportation, utilities, including high-speed internet for rural communities, and pollution cleanup. The proposal, which would be the largest federal investment in infrastructure in more than a decade, must still pass in the House of Representatives. 

DiLoreto says it’s hard to prioritize one infrastructure category area over the other because they all hinge together. 

“You’ve got to have strong electric to have strong water and wastewater and broadband,” DiLoreto says. “You’ve got to have a strong road system if you’re going to feed your ports. You’ve got to have strong ports if you’re going to ship your goods and get your goods into this country. And, without the roads to support that, what happens when [goods] wind up on the ports and can’t go anywhere [because] congestion is a problem?” 

While it’s challenging to predict the future, White sees several places where infrastructure money would be wasted. That includes places like coastal Louisiana, the San Francisco Bay and large parts of Florida and the Atlantic coastline, which could be impacted by climate change and rising sea levels.

“Do we really want to build infrastructure in places where we’re no longer going to be able to inhabit?” White says. “Are we really going to want to build a huge amount of infrastructure to protect coastlines that we really cannot protect? Are we going to want to set up sewage systems that, in fact, will be overwhelmed by ocean rise? We have a whole series of things which are going to be controversial because people live there now and they’re going to want that infrastructure to protect them.” 

Another potentially unpopular move would be to refrain from spending money on more fire-prone areas of the country, primarily in the West. From January 1, 2021, through September 29, 2021, more than 46,000 wildfires burned through almost 2.4 million hectares of land across the United States.

“We should not be building up infrastructure that encourages people to move into places where these kinds of fires are going to ravage them, force them out, [and] we’re going to have to spend huge public resources trying to protect them,” White says. “It seems to me the writing’s on the wall. It’s not that hard to figure out, but none of these things are necessarily going to be particularly popular.” 

Local governments own most of the nation’s infrastructure, but any ambitious infrastructure plans require at least some federal funding. 

“There’s no question that all the spending increases happen because of bold elected officials, and elected officials are only bold when the people they represent tell them to be. So we need bold leadership to make this happen,” DiLoreto says. “We also need to design these projects both sustainably and to be resilient.” 
…

First-time claims for U.S. unemployment compensation edged higher again last week, the Labor Department reported Thursday, as the delta variant of the coronavirus continues to play havoc with the world’s largest economy.

A total of 362,000 jobless workers filed for assistance, up 11,000 from the revised figure of the week before, the third straight week the figure moved higher. The increase last week was at odds with projections of economists, who had predicted a declining number.

Still, the claims figures for the last month have been on the whole the lowest since the pandemic swept through the U.S. in March 2020, although they remain well above the 218,000 average in 2019.

The increase in unemployment compensation claims comes as the U.S. government in early September ended extra $300-a-week payments to jobless workers on top of often less generous state benefits.

The jobless claims total has fallen steadily but unevenly since topping 900,000 in early January. Filings for unemployment compensation have often been seen as a current reading of the country’s economic health, but other statistics are also relevant barometers.

Even as the U.S. said last month that its world-leading economy grew by an annualized rate of 6.6% in the April-to-June period, in August it only added a disappointing 235,000 jobs, a figure economists said was partly reflective of the surging delta variant of the coronavirus inhibiting job growth. The September jobs figure is due out in a week.

The August total was down sharply from the more than 2 million combined figure added in June and July. The unemployment rate dipped to 5.2%, which is still nearly two percentage points higher than before the pandemic started in March 2020.

About 8.7 million workers remain unemployed in the U.S. There are nearly 11 million available jobs in the country, but the skills of the available workers often do not match what employers want, or the job openings are not where the unemployed live.

The size of the U.S. economy – nearly $23 trillion – now exceeds its pre-pandemic level as it recovers faster than many economists had predicted during the worst of the business closings more than a year ago. Policy makers at the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank, have signaled that in November they could start reversing the bank’s pandemic stimulus programs and next year could begin to increase its benchmark interest rate.

How fast the U.S. economic growth continues is unclear, with the delta variant of the coronavirus posing a threat to the recovery. In recent weeks, about 120,000 or more new cases have been identified each day in the U.S. and on some days more than 2,000 people have been dying from COVID-19.  

Political disputes have erupted in numerous states between conservative Republican governors who have resisted imposing mandatory face mask and vaccination rules in their states at schools and businesses, although some education and municipal leaders are advocating tougher rules to try to prevent the spread of the delta variant.

U.S. President Joe Biden has ordered workers at companies with 100 or more employees to get vaccinated or be tested weekly for the coronavirus. In addition, he is requiring 2.5 million national government workers and contractors who work for the government to get vaccinated if they haven’t already been inoculated.

Many companies imposed their own vaccination mandates before Biden acted and are now starting to fire workers who have balked at getting vaccinated.

Nearly 67% of U.S. adults have now been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, and overall, 55.5% of the U.S. population of 332 million, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 
…

U.S. lawmakers have less than three weeks to avert a default on the country’s sovereign debt by raising the limit on the amount of money the Treasury Department can borrow. Failure to do so would result in the United States purposely defaulting on its debts for the first time in history. 

By now, the extent of the damage that economists predict the U.S. economy would suffer in the event of default triggered by bitter conflict between Congressional Democrats and Republicans has been widely reported.

An estimate from Moody’s Analytics earlier this month predicted that in a prolonged default scenario, the U.S. would slide into recession, with the Gross Domestic Product falling by almost 4%. Some six million jobs would be lost, driving the unemployment rate up to 9%. The resulting stock market sell-off would erase $15 trillion in household wealth. In the short term, interest rates would spike, and in the long term, they would never fall back to pre-default lows. 

But the damage from a U.S. default would not be contained to the United States itself. Securities issued by the U.S. have been so trustworthy for so long that they are treated as essentially risk-free in financial markets, and are used to underpin a vast number of financial contracts worldwide. 

“The U.S. Treasury market is the world’s anchor asset,” said Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow with the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “If it turns out that that asset is not actually risk free, but that it can actually default, that would basically detonate a bomb in the middle of the global financial system. And that will be extremely messy.” 

Immediate fallout 

In the event of a default, it is generally assumed that there would be a broad sell-off of Treasury securities, known as Treasuries. This would happen for multiple reasons — from individual investors being spooked by the default, to companies that had collateralized loans with Treasuries being forced to replace them with something the lender sees as more secure. 

The sell-off would make it more expensive for the U.S. to borrow in the future, driving up interest rates in the United States and driving down the value of the dollar against other world currencies. 

Here are five ways those effects would echo through the global economy. 

Reduced global trade 

If a default drove the U.S. into recession, U.S. consumers and businesses would reduce the amount of goods and services they purchase from outside the country. 

While this would impact virtually all countries to some extent, emerging market countries that rely on exports to the United States for much of their income would be particularly hard-hit. 

The expected devaluation of the dollar would have a similar impact — making it more expensive for U.S firms to purchase supplies overseas, resulting in trade being reduced even further. 

Dollarized economies would suffer 

The U.S. dollar is a common currency in much of the world. Some countries have adopted it as the official currency, while in others it exists side-by-side with a local currency that is often “pegged” to the dollar to keep its value stable. 

In the event that a default drove down the value of the dollar, countries with highly dollarized economies would see the buying power of existing currency stock diminished.

“Emerging markets would suffer greatly from this, because they wouldn’t have a domestic currency that’s very credible,” said Kirkegaard. 

Business contracts affected 

Around the world, many cross-border transactions carry requirements that they be settled in U.S. dollars. In ordinary times, this is seen as a practical way to be sure that sudden swings in the value of a local currency don’t dramatically disadvantage one party in a transaction that is to be settled in the future. 

A sudden and sharp decline in the value of the dollar would mean that individuals and companies anticipating payment on existing contracts in dollars would effectively be receiving less than they had expected for their goods and services. 

More sophisticated trade contracts may contain anti-default clauses that require agreements to be renegotiated in the event of a default that drives down the value of a reserve currency. While this would keep both parties to a contract whole, it would also complicate and likely slow down many transactions. 

Capital flows away from the U.S. 

One of the economic advantages the United States has long enjoyed is that it is a magnet for global capital. When the global economy is strong, investors seeking growth funnel money to U.S. firms. When times are bad, investors seek shelter in U.S. Treasuries. Either way, global markets are directing capital into the U.S. 

But when interest rates go up for the wrong reason — because investors don’t trust the U.S. government to pay its debts — that system is broken. 

The result is that to some degree, investors seeking shelter would be more cautious about assuming that Treasury securities are the go-to investment to protect the value of their assets. The logical move would be for them to begin directing at least some of their investments to securities issued by other governments and denominated in different currencies. 

New reserve currency 

A side effect of those new capital flows could be a challenge to the dollar as the world’s “reserve currency.” 

A reserve currency is money held by a country’s central bank and large financial institutions in order to facilitate global trade for domestic companies, to meet international debt obligations, and to influence domestic currency exchange rates, among other reasons. 

The stability of the dollar has made it the dominant global reserve currency since the end of World War II. This has generated constant global demand for dollars, making it possible for the U.S. government to borrow at lower interest rates than other large nations.

The United States’ global competitors, including China and Russia — but even allies, like the European Union — have for years suggested that it would be better if the dollar’s dominance were not as complete as it is. 

There has been little movement to unseat the dollar in recent decades, but a shock like a default on U.S. debts could persuade some countries to hedge their bets by taking on other currencies, like the euro or renminbi, as additions to their reserve holdings. 

“If you are China or, for that matter, the euro area, you have been wanting to replace or supplant the dollar’s dominant role in the global economy with either the renminbi or the euro,” said Kirkegaard. “You couldn’t ask for a better thing.” 

 
…

The U.S. Commerce Department on Wednesday asked a group of anonymous domestic solar manufacturers for additional information before it would consider a request to impose duties on panels produced in three Southeast Asian countries.

The move delays the department’s decision, which had been expected this week. The case is the latest dispute between the U.S. solar project builders that rely on cheap imports for most of their supplies and the tiny domestic manufacturing sector that says it can’t compete effectively with the flood of low-priced imports from Asia.

U.S. solar project developers have lobbied forcefully against any Commerce investigation into new tariffs, saying the probe alone would spook the foreign solar producers they rely on and cripple a sector that is critical to meeting the nation’s climate change goals.

The anonymous group seeking the tariffs last month asked the Commerce Department to investigate whether imports from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam were unfair. It accuses Chinese producers of shifting manufacturing to those nations to avoid U.S. duties on solar cells and panels made in China.

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department sent the group’s attorney, Timothy Brightbill, a letter that set an Oct. 6 deadline for the so-called American Solar Manufacturers Against Chinese Circumvention to respond to a series of questions.

One question asks members of the group to identify themselves. The group said in filings with Commerce that its members wished to remain anonymous because they feared retribution in the marketplace, a claim the department has also asked it to explain.

The department said it would issue a decision within 45 days of receiving a response.

Brightbill did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Solar Energy Industries Association, the trade group that opposes the tariff request, said that it was disappointed the department did not dismiss the group’s petition outright, but that the additional information would show that the petitioners “have no case.” 

 
…

A Malawi Magistrate’s Court in the capital, Lilongwe, has sentenced a Chinese national, described by some as one of the biggest African wildlife trafficking kingpins, to 32 years in prison after convicting him on three wildlife crimes. The court, however, said the sentences will run concurrently for 14 years and then there is a plan to deport him. But the convict is looking to appeal the sentence.

Judge Justice Violet Chipao on Tuesday sentenced Lin Yunhua to 14 years in prison for trading in rhino horn, 14 years for possession of rhino horn and an additional six years for money laundering. Justice Chipao however said the sentences will run concurrently, meaning that Lin will serve a total of 14 years. 

Lin, a Chinese national and the leader of wildlife trafficking syndicate Lin-Zhang gang — named after the husband-and-wife leaders — has been operating out of Malawi for at least a decade. Malawi’s authorities arrested him in August 2019 following a three-month manhunt. 

Prosecution lawyer, Andy Kaonga says Lin would face another punishment after completing the sentence. 

“Once he serves the sentence, our colleagues at the DPP [Director of Public Prosecution] office will probably take it to the minister of homeland security and then start the process of his deportation because the court has recommended that he should be deported from the country,” he said.  

The sentencing of Lin brings the number of wildlife trafficking syndicate members sent to prison to 14. These include four Malawian and 10 Chinese nationals, including Lin’s wife currently serving an 11-year prison term. Lin’s daughter was also arrested in December 2020 for alleged money laundering offences. Her trial is ongoing. 

Brighton Kumchedwa, Malawi’s director of the Department of National Parks & Wildlife, warned that the crackdown on members of the Lin-Zhang gang should send a message to other wildlife trafficking syndicates. 

“We are now starting to deal with the sponsors, the king pins. My message to these syndicates is ‘they should watch out; Malawi is not a playing ground. We eventually will get to them. So, they better stop,” he said.

Kumchedwa says the crackdown is a result of new strategies the government put in place toward combating wildlife crimes. 

“From 2015 thereabout we changed completely the game of handling wildlife crimes. So, we used [our] own intelligence combined with police intelligence. We also used sniffer dogs in the process. So, it’s different strategies that have seen us going this far,” he said. 

Mary Rice is the executive director of the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), an organization campaigning against environmental crimes and abuse. Speaking to VOA via a messaging app from London, Rice says the crackdown shows Malawi’s commitment to bring high-level wildlife criminals to justice,

“It was not an easy road. But the tenacity and resilience of the investigators, the lawyers and the judge who made some very, very interesting comments in the sentencing, they are all to be applauded for their work. We know there have been many, many obstacles along the way. So, I think it’s a great result,” she said.

Defense lawyer Chrispine Ndalama told VOA Tuesday his client is considering appealing against the sentence. 

“Of course, over the phone, the client indicated that he would want to appeal but I will have to look at the judgment first, to see and understand the reasoning of the court so that I can advise my client properly as to whether we need to appeal or not,” he said.

Ndalama says he expected the court to give Lin a lesser sentence because he pleaded guilty to charges of possession of wildlife products. 

The court has given the defense 30 days to appeal the sentence. 
…

China is the world’s largest seafood consumer, and its fleet often fishes waters claimed by South Korea. When South Korean authorities try to enforce international regulations, they often meet fierce resistance. Seung Hyuk Park filed this report with information provided by Hyungjin Kim in Seoul.
…

Australia is under growing international pressure to commit to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but the policy is fiercely dividing its center-right government.

Australia is one of the world’s major exporters of coal and gas. Coal is mined in every state. Most exports go to countries in Asia, including China, Japan and South Korea. 

In 2020, exports were worth about $39 billion. Trade has almost doubled in the past decade. But China’s informal import restrictions on Australian coal saw the value of exports fall sharply, although prices have started to recover. Coal also generates about 70% of Australia’s electricity. Coal-fired power makes it the most carbon polluting nation per capita in the world. 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is planning to eventually shift his country’s reliance on coal and gas in favor of clean energy technologies, a shift from his time as a treasurer in 2017. In support of the mining industry, then-treasurer Morrison brought a piece of coal to Parliament to argue the need to continue producing coal in a famous scene. 

“This is coal,” he said. “Don’t be afraid. Don’t be scared. It’s coal that has delivered prosperity to Australian businesses and has ensured that Australian industry has been able to remain competitive on a global market.” 

Clean energy is still an issue that deeply divides his center-right governing coalition. 

Some members of the National Party — the junior alliance partner — are adamant that Australia’s coal industry is too valuable to lose and insist it will thrive for decades. Many regional communities depend on it. There is also disagreement about committing to a target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The prime minister said he wants to achieve net zero emissions “as soon as possible” but has not outlined any measures to do so. 

But government lawmaker Trent Zimmerman said Australia must join the global push to reduce emissions.

“We need both the target and the plan that matches it,” Zimmerman said. “It is very hard to divorce the two and obviously much of the international community has moved in that direction. In fact, eighty percent of global emissions or thereabouts are covered by pledges that relate to reaching net-zero. So, it is important for Australia that we are part of that because it is the right thing to do.”

Morrison has said he is yet to decide whether he will attend the Glasgow Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, in November. He told a newspaper that he wanted to oversee Australia’s eventual emergence from COVID-19 lockdowns. His critics insist he is “too embarrassed” by his government’s climate change policies to attend the summit in the Scottish capital. 

Opinion polls by the Australia Institute, an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra, have shown that most Australians want stronger measures to curb emissions. A United Nations climate change report recently warned that global warming will inflict more severe and frequent droughts, storms, heatwaves and bushfires in Australia.

However, those surveys reported by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper also revealed support for the coal industry. Less than half of Australians believe that coal power should be phased out within a decade. Australia’s addiction to fossil fuels might be hard to give up, according to the survey. 
…

The World Bank is predicting slower economic growth for developing nations in the East Asia and Pacific regions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A report issued by the bank Tuesday said while China’s economy is expected to grow by 8.5% in 2021, the rest of the region will only expand by 2.5%, down from its April forecast of 4.4%. 

Manuela Ferro, the World Bank’s vice president for East Asia and Pacific, says the region’s economic recovery from the pandemic “faces a reversal of fortune.” 

The report says the persistence of COVD-19 will likely hurt growth and increase inequality throughout the region.

The bank is urging governments to enhance testing and tracing to contain the spread of the virus, increase regional production of vaccines and strengthen their health systems. 

The Manila-based Asian Development Bank issued a separate report last week predicting the region’s developing economies will likely grow at a slower-than-expected pace in 2021 due to lingering COVID-19 outbreaks and the slow pace of vaccination efforts. 

The ADB also predicted that economies in Southeast Asia would grow by just 3.1% this year. It also had predicted 4.4% growth back in its economic outlook back in April. 
…

Botswana is set to emerge this week from an 18-month state of emergency that will remove the president’s emergency powers and end pandemic restrictions on trade and gatherings. While many shops, bars, and restaurants want to get back to normal, some in Botswana’s alcohol industry say it’s too soon to lift restrictions on night spots.

The minister of trade and industry, Kgafela Mmusi, says the end of the edict, set for this Thursday, means businesses can revert to normal trading hours. This includes the reopening of nightspots. 

That should be welcome news to Botswana’s alcohol industry, which employs around 50,000 people, including those who work at bars, breweries and distributors. 

But Botswana Beverages Association president Peter Noke warns some establishments might not be ready to reopen. 

Those that do will likely have restrictions, including a ban on dancing.

He said they have requested that dance floors be converted into seating areas.

“There should be sufficient spacing between the tables and there will be no dancing,” he said. “If one wishes to dance, they can only do so while seated.”

Music promoter Zain Aftermath says the decision to eliminate the dance floor is ill-advised. 

“How are you going to open clubs and then say people should not dance? It doesn’t make sense. I wouldn’t leave my house to go to a nightclub, pay and buy alcohol so that I can sit on a chair. It is going to affect attendance in a huge way,” he said.

Workers’ union leader Johannes Tshukudu welcomes the reopening as entertainment industry workers have been mostly out of work since March of last year. But he too, urges caution. 

“We don’t expect full capacity at the beginning, we may decide to have half capacity at the venues so that at least so that we use that as an observation element. We don’t want to see this thing [opening of night clubs] as a trap by the government to justify reintroducing the state of emergency,” he said.

Minister Kgafela says the government will keep an eye on nightspots to ensure compliance with the rules. 
…

Thousands of farmers in India blocked highways and rail tracks on Monday to give renewed momentum to their months-long demand for scrapping agricultural laws that have triggered the country’s longest farm protest and presented a political challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 

The nationwide protest, or “bharat bandh,” was held on the first anniversary of the passage of the laws that the government says will modernize the agricultural sector, but which farmers fear will spell an existential threat to their livelihoods.

The legislation allows farmers to do business outside government-run wholesale markets where they have sold their crops for decades at guaranteed prices.

But farmers fear that opening up sales of farm produce to the corporate sector will end an era of assured prices for crops like rice and wheat. They say farmers in states such as Bihar where the system has been scrapped are already in distress and get a lower price for their crop. 

Defiant farmers have camped on highways on the outskirts of New Delhi since November amid the persisting stalemate — the government has often said it is open to a dialogue but will not repeal the laws.

On Monday, thousands of farmers waving flags converged outside key roads leading to the Indian capital choking traffic. A farmer from Haryana, Sunil Kumar, who was among the protestors, said the stir demonstrated the farmers’ determination to continue their struggle has not ended.

Life was also disrupted in the northern states of Punjab and Haryana, lush rice and wheat growing states, that have been at the forefront of the protest.

The farmers stir also reverberated in the south of the country — they held protests in the southern cities of Chennai and Bengaluru and Kerala state. In some places they squatted on rail tracks.

Ahead of Monday’s protest, Rakesh Tikait, one of the farm leaders spearheading the stir, said that they are ready to protest for ten years, but will not allow the “black legislation” to be passed.

Several opposition parties including the Congress Party have supported the farmers’ demands. In a tweet, senior leader Rahul Gandhi called the government “exploitative” and extended support to farmers using hashtag #Istandwithfarmers. 

The government maintains the laws will improve farm incomes and agricultural productivity. Prime Minister Narendra Modi called them a “watershed moment” for Indian agriculture when they were passed last year.

India’s agriculture has not kept pace with its economy shrinking to just 15% of gross domestic product over the decades. But nearly two thirds of the country, or some 800 million people, depend on agriculture for their livelihood as the country has not been able to generate enough non-farm-based jobs. 

“The protest is a reflection of the compound anger they carry at the neglect of agriculture, especially farmers’ incomes which have become so low over the decades,” says agriculture economist Devinder Sharma. “The government believes that facilitating corporate entry would pull agriculture out of the crisis but that will not help because a majority of the farmers are small.”

The bulk of Indian farmers own plots of less than one hectare and fear that the laws will make them vulnerable to corporates that will drive down prices and force them to sell their land.

With the stalemate showing no signs of a resolution, the political impact of the farmers stir will be tested early next year when elections in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, are held.

Farmers from the state that adjoins New Delhi are among those who have been at the forefront of the ten-month old agitation. They held a mammoth rally earlier this month and say they will step up protests across the state ahead of the polls to show that the government is pursuing what they call anti-farmer policies. 
…

Up to 90% of British fuel stations ran dry across major English cities on Monday after panic buying deepened a supply chain crisis triggered by a shortage of truckers that retailers are warning could batter the world’s fifth-largest economy. 

A dire post-Brexit shortage of truck drivers emerging after the COVID-19 pandemic has sown chaos through British supply chains in everything from food to fuel, raising the specter of disruptions and price rises in the run up to Christmas. 

Just days after Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government spent millions of pounds to avert a food shortage due to a spike in prices for natural gas, the biggest cost in fertilizer production, ministers asked people to refrain from panic buying. 

But lines of dozens of cars snaked back from gasoline stations across the country on Sunday, swallowing up supplies and forcing many gas stations to simply close. Pumps across British cities were either closed or had signs saying fuel was unavailable on Monday, Reuters reporters said. 

The Petrol Retailers Association (PRA), which represents independent fuel retailers which now account for 65% of all UK forecourts, said members had reported that 50% to 90% of pumps were dry in some areas. 

“We are unfortunately seeing panic buying of fuel in many areas of the country,” Gordon Balmer, executive director of the PRA, who worked for BP for 30 years, told Reuters. 

“We need some calm,” Balmer said. “Please don’t panic buy: if people drain the network then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.” 

Britain is considering calling in the army to ensure fuel supplies reach consumers, according to The Times and Financial Times. 

Environment Secretary George Eustice said there was no shortage of fuel and urged people to refrain from panic buying. 

Haulers, gas stations and retailers warned that there were no quick fixes, however, as the shortfall of truck drivers – estimated to be around 100,000 – was so acute, and because transporting fuel demands additional training and licensing. 

Supply chain crunch 

Britain’s retail industry warned the government on Friday that unless it moves to alleviate an acute shortage of truckers in the next 10 days significant disruption was inevitable in the run-up to Christmas.

For months, supermarkets, processors and farmers have warned that a shortage of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers was straining supply chains to breaking point – making it harder to get goods onto shelves.

Aldi UK CEO Giles Hurley said that while his discount supermarket chain was in a good position, nobody could guarantee there would not be inflation in the market around Christmas. 

BP said on Sunday that nearly a third of its British petrol stations had run out of the two main grades of fuel as panic buying forced the government to suspend competition laws and allow firms to work together to ease shortages. 

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said the suspension would allow firms to share information and coordinate their response. 

“This step will allow government to work constructively with fuel producers, suppliers, haulers and retailers to ensure that disruption is minimized as far as possible,” the business department said in a statement. 

The government on Sunday announced a plan to issue temporary visas for 5,000 foreign truck drivers. Around 25,000 truckers returned to Europe before Brexit and Britain was unable to test 40,000 drivers during COVID-19 lockdowns.
…

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob on Monday presented a new five-year economic plan, boosting infrastructure spending and committing to a carbon tax under climate change goals as the country looks to chart its way out of a pandemic-induced slump. 

Launching the 12th Malaysia Plan in parliament, Ismail Sabri said the country’s financial position was expected to improve in 2023, with the economy targeted to grow 4.5%-5.5% per annum in the next five years. 

Malaysia posted average annual growth of 2.7% between 2016-2020, dragged down by a 5.6% contraction last year due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the premier said. 

Gross national income per capita rose to $10,150 in 2020, about 20% lower than the level required to become a high-income country. Malaysia now expects to reach that target by 2025, Ismail Sabri said. 

“The 12th Malaysia Plan is a comprehensive development plan that will introduce a number of reforms to ensure sustainable economic growth and more equal distribution of opportunities and results,” Ismail Sabri said. 

Malaysia’s export-driven economy has taken a hit from the pandemic. The central bank slashed its full-year growth forecast to 3.0%-4.0% from 6-7.5% last month – the second cut this year. 

The government will spend $95.53 billion on existing and new development projects between 2021 and 2025, compared with $62 billion in the 11th Malaysia plan, Ismail Sabri said. 

These include new highways and rail networks linking rural areas with urban and industrial hubs, more affordable housing, as well as improvements in health, education, and broadband connectivity. 

Malaysia also aims to become a carbon neutral country by 2050, Ismail Sabri said, adding that economic instruments such as carbon pricing and a carbon tax will be introduced. 

The government also pledged to stop building coal-fired power stations, as it continues its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity of GDP by 45% in 2030, the premier said. 

Other promises included plans to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign labor, provide support to small and medium-sized businesses, and turn Malaysia into a regional investment hub. 
…

Democrats pushed a $3.5 trillion, 10-year bill strengthening social safety net and climate programs through the House Budget Committee on Saturday, but one Democrat opposed the measure in an illustration of the challenges party leaders face in winning the near unanimity they’ll need to carry the sprawling package through Congress. 

The Democratic-dominated panel, meeting virtually, approved the measure on a near party-line vote, 20-17. Passage marked a necessary but minor step for Democrats by edging the bill closer to debate by the full House. Under budget rules, the committee wasn’t allowed to significantly amend the 2,465-page measure, the product of 13 other House committees. 

The more important work has been happening in an opaque procession of mostly unannounced phone calls, meetings and other bargaining sessions among party leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers. President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have led a behind-the-scenes hunt for compromises to resolve internal divisions and, they hope, allow approval of the mammoth bill soon. 

Pelosi told fellow Democrats in a letter Saturday that they must pass the social and environment bill this week, along with a separate infrastructure bill and a third measure preventing a government shutdown on Friday. 

“The next few days will be a time of intensity,” she wrote.

Political vulnerability

Moderate Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., joined all 16 Republicans on the Budget Committee in opposing the legislation. His objections included one that troubles many Democrats: a reluctance to support a bill with provisions that would later be dropped by the Senate.

Many Democrats don’t want to become politically vulnerable by backing language that might be controversial back home, only to see it not become law. That preference for voting only on a social and environment bill that’s already a House-Senate compromise could complicate Pelosi’s effort for a House vote this week. 

Peters was among three Democrats who earlier this month voted against a plan favored by most in his party to lower pharmaceutical costs by letting Medicare negotiate for the prescription drugs it buys.

Party leaders have tried for weeks to resolve differences among Democrats over the package’s final price tag, which seems sure to shrink. There are also disputes over which initiatives should be reshaped, among them expanded Medicare, tax breaks for children and health care, a push toward cleaner energy, and higher levies on the rich and corporations. 

Democrats’ wafer-thin majorities in the House and Senate mean compromise is mandatory. Before the measure the Budget panel approved Saturday even reaches the House floor, it is expected to be changed to reflect whatever House-Senate accords have been reached, and additional revisions are likely. 

‘Decades of disinvestment’

The overall bill embodies the crux of Biden’s top domestic goals. Budget panel Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., cited “decades of disinvestment” on needs like health care, education, child care and the environment as the rationale for the legislation. 

“The futures of millions of Americans and their families are at stake. We can no longer afford the costs of neglect and inaction. The time to act is now,” Yarmuth said. 

Republicans say the proposal is unneeded, unaffordable amid accumulated federal debt exceeding $28 trillion and reflects Democrats’ drive to insert government into people’s lives. Its tax boosts will cost jobs and include credits for buying electric vehicles, purchases often made by people with comfortable incomes, they said. 

“This bill is a disaster for working-class families,” said Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, the committee’s top Republican. “It’s a big giveaway to the wealthy, it’s a laundry list of agenda items pulled right out of the Bernie Sanders socialist playbook.”

The unusual weekend session occurred as top Democrats amp up efforts to end increasingly bitter disputes between the party’s centrist and progressive wings that threaten to undermine Biden’s agenda.

 A collapse of the measure at his own party’s hands would be a wounding preview to the coming election year, in which House and Senate control are at stake.

Infrastructure bill

To nail down moderates’ support for an earlier budget blueprint, Pelosi promised to begin House consideration by Monday of another pillar of Biden’s domestic plans: a $1 trillion collection of roadway and other infrastructure projects. Pelosi reaffirmed this week that the infrastructure debate would begin Monday.

But many moderates who consider the infrastructure bill their top goal also want to cut the $3.5 trillion social and environment package and trim or reshape some of its programs. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., have been among the most visible centrists demanding a smaller price tag. 

In response, progressives — their top priority is the $3.5 trillion measure — are threatening to vote against the infrastructure bill if it comes up for a vote first. Their opposition seems likely to be enough to scuttle it, and Pelosi hasn’t definitively said when a vote on final passage of the infrastructure measure will occur.

With each portion of the party threatening to upend the other’s most cherished goal — a political disaster in the making for Democrats — top Democrats are using the moment to accelerate talks on the massive social and climate legislation. Compromise is a requirement, because the party can lose no votes in the Senate and a maximum of three in the House to succeed in the narrowly split Congress.
…