When Will the U.S. Dollar Collapse?

https://youtu.be/N8IyDSrMY3w

By Kimberly Amadeo

Updated October 28, 2018

A dollar collapse is when the value of the U.S. dollar plummets. Anyone who holds dollar-denominated assets will sell them at any cost. That includes foreign governments who own U.S. Treasurys. It also affects foreign exchange futures traders. Last but not least are individual investors.

When the crash occurs, these parties will demand assets denominated in anything other than dollars. The collapse of the dollar means that everyone is trying to sell their dollar-denominated assets, and no one wants to buy them. This will drive the value of the dollar down to near zero. It makes hyperinflation look like a day in the park.

Two Conditions That Could Lead to the Dollar Collapse

Two conditions must be in place before the dollar could collapse. First, there must be an underlying weakness. As of 2017, the U.S. currency was fundamentally weak despite its 25 percent increase since 2014. The dollar declined 54.7 percent against the euro between 2002 and 2012. Why? The U.S. debt almost tripled during that period, from $6 trillion to $15 trillion. The debt is even worse now, at $21 trillion, making the debt-to-GDP ratio more than 100 percent. That increases the chance the United States will let the dollar's value slide as it would be easier to repay its debt with cheaper money.

Second, there must be a viable currency alternative for everyone to buy. The dollar's strength is based on its use as the world's reserve currency. The dollar became the reserve currency in 1973 when President Nixon abandoned the gold standard. As a global currency, the dollar is used for 43 percent of all cross-border transactions. That means central banks must hold the dollar in their reserves to pay for these transactions. As a result, 61 percent of these foreign currency reserves are in dollars.

Note:  The next most popular currency after the dollar is the euro. But it comprises less than 30 percent of central bank reserves. The eurozone debt crisis weakened the euro as a viable global currency.

China and others argue that a new currency should be created and used as the global currency. China's central banker Zhou Xiaochuan goes one step further. He claims that the yuan should replace the dollar to maintain China's economic growth. China is right to be alarmed at the dollar's drop in value. That's because it is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury, so it just saw its investment deteriorate. The dollar's weakness makes it more difficult for China to control the yuan's value compared to the dollar.

Could bitcoin replace the dollar as the new world currency? It has many benefits. It's not controlled by any one country's central bank. It is created, managed, and spent online. It can also be used at brick-and-mortar stores that accept it. Its supply is finite. That appeals to those who would rather have a currency that's backed by something concrete, such as gold.

But there are big obstacles. First, its value is highly volatile. That's because there is no central bank to manage it. Second, it has become the coin of choice for illegal activities that lurk in the deep web. That makes it vulnerable to tampering by unknown forces.

Economic Event to Trigger the Collapse

These two situations make a collapse possible. But, it won’t occur without a third condition. That's a huge economic triggering event that destroys confidence in the dollar.

Altogether, foreign countries own more than $5 trillion in U.S. debt. If China, Japan or other major holders started dumping these holdings of Treasury notes on the secondary market, this could cause a panic leading to collapse. China owns $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury. That's because China pegs the yuan to the dollar. This keeps the prices of its exports to the United States relatively cheap. Japan also owns more than $1 trillion in Treasurys. It also wants to keep the yen low to stimulate exports to the United States.

Japan is trying to move out of a 15-year deflationary cycle. The 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster didn't help.

Would China and Japan ever dump their dollars? Only if they saw their holdings declining in value too fast and they had another export market to replace the United States. The economies of Japan and China are dependent on U.S. consumers. They know that if they sell their dollars, that would further depress the value of the dollar. That means their products, still priced in yuan and yen, will cost relatively more in the United States. Their economies would suffer. Right now, it's still in their best interest to hold onto their dollar reserves.

Note: China and Japan are aware of their vulnerability. They are selling more to other Asian countries that are gradually becoming wealthier. But the United States is still the best market (not now) in the world.

When Will the Dollar Collapse?

It's unlikely that it will collapse at all. That's because any of the countries who have the power to make that happen (China, Japan, and other foreign dollar holders) don't want it to occur. It's not in their best interest. Why bankrupt your best customer? Instead, the dollar will resume its gradual decline as these countries find other markets.

Effects of the Dollar Collapse

A sudden dollar collapse would create global economic turmoil. Investors would rush to other currencies, such as the euro, or other assets, such as gold and commodities. Demand for Treasurys would plummet, and interest rates would rise. U.S. import prices would skyrocket, causing inflation.

U.S. exports would be dirt cheap, given the economy a brief boost. In the long run, inflation, high interest rates, and volatility would strangle possible business growth. Unemployment would worsen, sending the United States back into recession or even a depression.

How to Protect Yourself

Protect yourself from a dollar collapse by first defending yourself from a gradual dollar decline.

Important:  Keep your assets well-diversified by holding foreign mutual funds, gold, and other commodities.

A dollar collapse would create global economic turmoil. To respond to this kind of uncertainty, you must be mobile. Keep your assets liquid, so you can shift them as needed. Make sure your job skills are transferable. Update your passport, in case things get so bad for so long that you need to move quickly to another country. These are just a few ways to protect yourself and survive a dollar collapse.

US Trade Deficit With China and Why It's So High

The Real Reason American Jobs Are Going to China 

By Kimberly Amadeo 

Updated November 21, 2018

The U.S. trade deficit with China was $375 billion in 2017. The trade deficit exists because U.S. exports to China were only $130 billion while imports from China were $506 billion.

The United States imported from China $77 billion in computers and accessories, $70 billion in cell phones, and $54 billion in apparel and footwear. A lot of these imports are from U.S. manufacturers that send raw materials to China for low-cost assembly. Once shipped back to the United States, they are considered imports.

In 2017, China imported from America $16 billion in commercial aircraft, $12 billion in soybeans, and $10 billion in autos. In 2018, China canceled its soybean imports after President Trump started a trade war. He imposed tariffs on Chinese steel exports and other goods. 

Current Trade Deficit

As of July 2018, the United States exported a total of $74.3 billion in goods to China. It imported $296.8 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. As a result, the total trade deficit with China is $222.6 billion. A monthly breakdown is in the chart.

Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit With China From January to July 2018

NOTE: All figures are in millions of US$

Exports Imports Balance

US$211.1

Jul 18

US$202

Jan 18

US$205

Feb 18

US$210

Mar 18

US$210

Apr 18

US$214

May 18

US$213

Jun 18

US$211

Jul 18

Chart: The Balance Source: United States Census Bureau

Causes

China can produce many consumer goods at lower costs than other countries can. Americans, of course, want these goods for the lowest prices. How does China keep prices so low? Most economists agree that China's competitive pricing is a result of two factors:

1. A lower standard of living, which allows companies in China to pay lower wages to workers.
2. An exchange rate that is partially fixed to the dollar.

If the United States implemented trade protectionism, U.S. consumers would have to pay high prices for their "Made in America" goods. It’s unlikely that the trade deficit will change. Most people would rather pay as little as possible for computers, electronics, and clothing, even if it means other Americans lose their jobs.

China is the world's largest economy. It also has the world's biggest population. It must divide its production between almost 1.4 billion residents. A common way to measure standard of living is gross domestic product per capita. In 2017, China’s GDP per capita was $16,600. China's leaders are desperately trying to get the economy to grow faster to raise the country’s living standards. They remember Mao's Cultural Revolution all too well. They know that the Chinese people won't accept a lower standard of living forever.

China sets the value of its currency, the yuan, to equal the value of a basket of currencies that includes the dollar. In other words, China pegs its currency to the dollar using a modified fixed exchange rate. When the dollar loses value, China buys dollars through U.S. Treasurys to support it. In 2016, China began relaxing its peg. It wants market forces to have a greater impact on the yuan's value. As a result, the dollar to yuan conversion has been more volatile since then. China's influence on the dollar remains substantial.

Effect

China must buy so many U.S. Treasury notes that it is the largest lender to the U.S. government. Japan is the second largest. As of September 2018, the U.S. debt to China was $1.15 trillion. That's 18 percent of the total public debt owned by foreign countries.

Many are concerned that this gives China political leverage over U.S. fiscal policy. They worry about what would happen if China started selling its Treasury holdings. It would also be disastrous if China merely cut back on its Treasury purchases.

Why are they so worried? By buying Treasurys, China helped keep U.S. interest rates low. If China were to stop buying Treasurys, interest rates would rise. That could throw the United States into a recession. But this wouldn’t be in China's best interests, as U.S. shoppers would buy fewer Chinese exports. In fact, China is buying almost as many Treasurys as ever.

U.S. companies that can't compete with cheap Chinese goods must either lower their costs or go out of business. Many businesses reduce their costs by outsourcing jobs to China or India. Outsourcing adds to U.S. unemployment. Other industries have just dried up. U.S. manufacturing, as measured by the number of jobs, declined 34 percent between 1998 and 2010. As these industries declined, so has U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace
.

What's Being Done

President Trump promised to lower the trade deficit with China. On March 1, 2018, he announced he would impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. On July 6, Trump's tariffs went into effect for $34 billion of Chinese imports. China canceled all import contracts for soybeans.

Trump's tariffs have raised the costs of imported steel, most of which is from China. Trump's move comes a month after he imposed tariffs and quotas on imported solar panels and washing machines. China has become a global leader in solar panel production. The tariffs depressed the stock market when they were announced.

The Trump administration is developing further anti-China protectionist measures, including more tariffs. It wants China to remove requirements that U.S. companies transfer technology to Chinese firms. China requires companies to do this to gain access to its market.

Trump also asked China to do more to raise its currency. He claims that China artificially undervalues the yuan by 15 percent to 40 percent. That was true in 2000. But former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson initiated the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue in 2006. He convinced the People's Bank of China to strengthen the yuan's value against the dollar. It increased 2 to 3 percent annually between 2000 and 2013. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew continued the dialogue during the Obama administration.

The Trump administration continued the talks until they stalled in July 2018.

The dollar strengthened 25 percent between 2013 and 2015. It took the Chinese yuan up with it. China had to lower costs even more to compete with Southeast Asian companies. The PBOC tried unpegging the yuan from the dollar in 2015. The yuan immediately plummeted. That indicated that the yuan was overvalued. If the yuan were undervalued, as Trump claims, it would have risen instead.

Source: The Balance

Related posts:

More than just a trade war, US in skirmises with China over IT, trade and 'national security'

https://youtu.be/pSHOSumep9E https://youtu.be/4fJKlEyEOEg https://youtu.be/N5Ta_RhsXYY American economist Jeffrey D. Sachs says ..

From trade war to global anarchy?

https://youtu.be/N8IyDSrMY3w The arrest of a top Huawei executive may spark a conflict that could cripple America's rival and unlea...

Malaysia lures for its Gen Y youths?

KUALA LUMPUR: Gen Y youths young people usually recognised for their savvy in communications, media, and digital technology will benefit from the Government's move to draw quality high-tech and knowledge-driven investments to the country.

International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed said with the Government's emphasis on developing the 11.4 million youths who make up 46% of the nation, it was important for Gen Y workers to have access to companies with good training, exposure and salaries.

“The Government is adopting new methods by looking beyond hard FDI (foreign direct investment) numbers,” he said here yesterday.

“Services companies are becoming more crucial to our economy, and their presence in Malaysia is relevant to the young through their (the companies') job creation.”

Mustapa said the Government was not only giving out fiscal incentives, such as tax holidays and training grants, to attract quality investments, but had also liberalised 18 services sectors this year, to follow the 27 in 2009.

He said such measures had yielded “fruitful results” with companies like Service Source, test and design company National Instrument and computer multi-national Hewlett Packard, employing large numbers of Gen Y workers.

“Service Source, a recurring revenue management company, came to Malaysia in 2010 with only 27 people.

“Last June, it surpassed 550 staff the majority being graduates or diploma holders and more than half of them are below 30.

“National Instrument is another sterling example. It offers a salary scheme to graduates equivalent to that offered by some investment banks in Malaysia,” Mustapa added.

The Jeli MP emphasised that FDI was particularly relevant to Gen Y, as the creation of employment and knowledge spillover from foreign companies allowed youths to be exposed to new technologies and cutting-edge training schemes.

He said these companies offered competitive salary packages.

“This will increase their knowledge in the industry and improve their employability,” he said, giving the example of oilfield services corporation Halliburton, which sends fresh graduates to their training centre in the United States for up to 18 months to gain specialised knowledge.

However, Mustapa said, there were challenges to attracting such investments.

“Some companies are not willing to pay more for talent, and so might face a higher turnover rate.
“There is also competition for FDIs from countries that offer bigger incentives or huge domestic markets.

“However, Malaysia offers a value proposition as we have a sound infrastructure and legal system, investor-friendly policies, and a talent pool that will be able to complement investors.”

International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed has been working hard to bring in investments that Gen Y can benefit from. 

In an interview, he talked about the government's approaches and challenges faced.
Excerpts from the interview:

>What do you think of the state of Malaysia's economy?

There lots of of challenges globally and regionally. Europe is still in some trouble, America is not out of the woods yet. India is going through a difficult period politically and economically as well - there was a time where India was very bullish. Although growth is still good there, it's not that good as a year and a half ago. China is still going strong. The bright spots will be ASEAN, Africa, the Middle East.

Against that backdrop, our performance has been quite credible, our economy is doing okay, steady growth that is higher than the world's average. Unemployment rate is low, inflation is manageable, we have an issue with the deficit which is being managed well by the govt. We have strong reserves. Our fundamentals are strong.

Some factors leading to Malaysia's relatively strong state of economy are the fiscal stimulus, the Economic Transformation Programme, our diversified economy, and robust customer spending.

>Do you think the youth population of Malaysia will benefit from our economy?

Yes, our employment opportunities will of course benefit mainly young people. Many come out from universities and expect to get a job, a good job. Some come out and do temporary work, which is useful - working in a hypermarket or petrol station, for example - these are very important stepping stones as they allow you to get some experience.

Our graduates are not as selective as before, they are prepared to accept these jobs to sustain them for a few years before moving on to a better-paying one. Gen Y represents a big percentage of the Malaysian population, and the Government is mindful of the fact that this is a volatile and dynamic component of the population.

The issue is quality employment. Graduates being paid RM2,000 is not true reflection of what they can contribute. Some companies are not paying their graduates too well, some graduates are accepting jobs which require lower qualifications and for that reason salaries are lower.

Job opportunities are plentiful, that's not an issue here. We have lots of job opportunities in Malaysia but the challenge for us in government is to generate more quality employment opportunities.

From anecdotal evidence, many graduates are not happy with the entry-level salaries. That's why Budget 2013 focuses a lot on young people, including measures such as the Graduate Employability Taskforce with an allocation of RM200mil. This isn't new, we have Talent Corp, we have collaborated with various institutions like Mida to help young people.

We also have the 1Malaysia Training Scheme Programme (SL1M), which will increase the employability of graduates through soft skills and on-the-job training in private companies.

From MITI's point of view, our job is to stimulate investment, both domestic direct investment and FDI. We have been working very hard.

In an average year, the companies approved by the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (Mida) will normally generate about 100,000 new job opportunities. The ETP over the next 10 years will generate 3.3 million jobs, that makes 330,000 a year. That's the kind of number we are looking at, and many of these jobs will b available to young people.

>Are we making steady progress towards this goal?

Definitely. There's a company out there, Service Source international - they started small here but when I saw them two weeks ago they had a headcount of more than 500. Their plans are to add more. This is a company of graduates, most of the staff are either diploma-holders or local graduates.

Service Source have also launched a Protg Programme in the company where many fresh graduates are given on the job training at an executive pay package.

Another of fruitful result, is a company in Penang called Agilent which has 2,800 people. 900 of them work in research and development.

In Iskandar you have Legoland, people who work in these places command high salaries.

Of course in sectors like banking and finance they will be well-paid, there has been good growth in Islamic banking and finance in the country. As Islamic finance in Malaysia grows, as the country becomes a hub for the region, there are more opportunities created for young people.

>Why are foreign direct investments relevant to the young, particularly to Gen Y?

The creation of employment - without jobs, our youth will not find an opportunity to improve their economic standing.

Panasonic, for example, employs 20,000 Malaysians as executives and also as blue-collar, factory workers.

The other reason is knowledge spillover as a result of forward or backward linkages with foreign companies possessing high technology that invest in Malaysia, our youth will be exposed to new technology on their job. This will increase their knowledge in the industry and improve their employability as they move further in the industry and perhaps opportunity for them to carry out their own business operations as a vendor to the foreign investor.

Halliburton, one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, provide specified training to its fresh graduates from six to 18 months while they are on the job.

They also send these Malaysian fresh graduates to Halliburton Technical Training Centre in the United States. This is an example of how knowledge spillover from FDI can benefit our youth.

>What is the Government doing to attract quality investments? 

We are more focused now, more targeted. We can't compete with some of our neighbours in terms of wages, but where we can compete are the areas where companies require higher skills, productivity. We target companies that are high-tech, knowledge-intensive companies.

The Government is considering GNI creation of any project or investment while also using employment creation as a complementing tool to measure a “good investment”.

In giving out fiscal incentives such as tax holidays and training grants; the Government targets knowledge-driven, research and development based companies that budget a large amount on capital spend on technology per employee.

We have to look at the supply side as well, increase the supplies of trade and human capital.

The Government liberalized 27 services sectors in 2009 and a further 18 services sectors in 2012. The intention behind this is to drive foreign investments which can create quality, high-paying jobs.

While recording low investments, services companies are becoming more crucial to our economy and their presence in Malaysia is relevant to the young through their job creation.

>Have these approaches been fruitful?

Yes, along with companies I already told you about, there's National Instrument - another sterling example, a test-and-design company. NI Malaysia offers a salary scheme to graduates that is equivalent to the salary schemes offered by some of the investment banks in Malaysia.

More importantly, it has a unique internship programme formed in 2009. In 2012, they admitted around 30 graduates and these interns were trained in R&D and manufacturing as well as IT applications.

There is also Hewlett Packard, which has its Operation Headquarters for Asia-Pacific here. We gave them a tax holiday - one of the ways we are attracting investments, as you asked before.

>But how do you know these foreign companies will hire fresh graduates rather than someone who has already been in the workforce for a while?

Well, some companies do prefer to take people from other companies rather than train fresh graduates. There are different ways to do it, and some companies to tend to take the easier way out. But I feel they should invest in youth, employ them, train them. The companies must play a better role in training youth, it can't just be left to the Government.

I'll bring up SL1M again - we've found that our graduates become much more employable after learning these soft skills - they become more proactive, more aggressive, more forthcoming. The government is doing that, but we urge and strongly encourage companies to play a more active role and train its new recruits.

>Are there any challenges when it comes to attractive quality investment?

It's a chicken and egg issue - companies will come here if we have a large pool of skilled graduates and manpower, and that will bring in more investments as well. On the other hand, if the skills are not available then they will not come. We need to increase the supply of human capital.

Companies operate on cost factors and many companies that are interested in Malaysia are still looking at low cost factors in Malaysia. Some companies are not willing to pay more for talent.

There is also competition for FDIs, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan offers bigger incentives and has very liberal policies while countries such as Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia continue to offer a huge domestic market which interests investors.

However, I am convinced that Malaysia offers a value proposition as we have sound infrastructure and legal system, investor-friendly policies and a talent pool that will be able to complement investors.

>What are some of the challenges a company may face in recruiting Gen Y workers?

In general, those companies which offer lower salaries are not so good with attracting good people. Those which are willing to pay a little more have better luck.

>Do you think these companies would be more inclined to hire expats?

In general, bringing in expats costs money, and if you add up, it will almost certainly be more than what you pay a local.

>Would local graduates be making more if they took their skillset overseas?

If you factor in other costs - rent, transport, cost of car... We found that at the top level, the gap is not that wide. Malaysians earn a decent income. The problem is the entry rates at base levels, entry point salary is where the difference is.

Once Malaysians leave, it is harder for them to come back because they've made friends, settled down, become part of the community. If our entry level salary is low, and because of that people work overseas, it will become even more challenging to build this talent pool.

In my view, if companies have better entry-rate salaries, it will help to prevent brain drain, and also solve some problems companies have when hiring.

>Do you think that the development of our Gen Y will meet the Government's aspirations of attracting quality investments?

In a way, some of our measures are short-term. We need more medium and long-term solutions, for example, reform the education system. It needs to be more hands-on, so we've got some measures like the National Education Blueprint.

We also need to regularly change the curriculum in schools and universities. Malaysians have to develop a love for skills, fight to get a job.

I would like to relate to you a story of a young girl by the name of Nani Abdul Rahman. She is an alumni of Yayasan Khazanah, which I chair. She read Law at IIUM and in her penultimate year, she interned at Khazanah. Khazanah Nasional offered her a job as an analyst and after working for a few years, she got an offer to do her Masters in Jurisprudence at Harvard University. Today, she is a senior personnel at one of the biggest Islamic banks in the world.

I have complete trust in our Gen Y. They are very confident and well exposed generation.

>How do MNCs feel about local graduates? Do they prefer those who graduated from foreign universities, Ivy Leagues and similar?

Some of our local graduate are good, some are outstanding. Many of our top corporate figures were trained in this country. Not every top corporate guy studied overseas. I don't think companies have a preference, it does depend on the person.

If you're a foreign university graduate but you're quiet, timid, aloof - the company will not want to take you on. It is the qualities a person holds.

Companies are looking for a person who is outgoing, passionate, ready to learn, good work ethics... These characteristics can come from a local or foreign graduate.

>You hold the importance of education in very high regard. 

Yes - even within my community in Jeli, the constituency I am MP for, I focus on developing human capital.

I run and fund the Darul Falah programme, which provides free tuition for students between 10-12 every Friday and Saturday. The focus is on English, Maths and Science.

The centre actually operates out of my house in Kelantan, it started about 15 years ago. I also have three other centres which have been up and running for three years now.

It is important in a rural area like Jeli, the children get some exposure. There has been improvement, but I am still not happy with it.

The programme has expanded to offer free computer classes, we hold camps, essay writing competitions in both Malay and English - I give prizes to the winners.

Last year when I was in Perth for work I met a number of students and one of them, a JPA scholar, came to me. She said she was an alumni of Darul Falah. Her father was a customs officer who used to send her back and forth on a motorcycle to Darul Falah when she was 10.

She is now a scholar reading Commerce at the University of Western Australia and she aspires to be a Partner at PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

It's moments like those that underline my conviction that education is the best investment.

>Do you have any advice for Gen Y looking to make a living in Malaysia?

Be prepared to start small, meaning, accept any job and learn while doing it. Shine in your job, by which I mean outshine others.

Discipline and passion are very important qualities. You need to be disciplined. Work ethics, passion - in my view, these are qualities some graduates are lacking. Passion and commitment are important.

The technical knowledge you earned is important, of course, but so are passion, discipline and commitment.

By TASHNY SUKUMARAN tashny@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

Rightways: National Instruments to set up its largest R&D facility ...

Jul 27, 2012

Rightways: Riding the hi-tech waves

Aug 23, 2012

National Instruments to set up its largest R&D facility outside US in Penang
 Supporting Engineering and Science Education Worldwide 

Freedom & hate speech hypocrisy

Freedom per se has no value. It is what freedom is for. It is the use to which it is put. It is the sense of responsibility and restraint with which it is exercised. 

THE crude and disgusting video by some American citizens mocking Prophet Muhammad has caused great anguish to Muslims around the world. Blasphemous provocations by some media mavericks in France are adding insult to injury.

Even before the sacrilege perpetrated by the video Innocence of Muslims, the deeply-wounded Muslim community was living in humiliation and helplessness.

The 65-year-old American-aided genocide in Palestine continues to rage unabated.

In Syria, Western mercenaries are leading the civil war with overt and covert help from the Western alliance. Iran is under daily threat of annihilation. In blatant violation of international law, American drone attacks continue mercilessly to murder innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

There is in most Muslim minds a perception that Islam is under attack; that Muslims are under siege; that behind the beguiling rhetoric of democracy, human rights and the war against terrorism, there is a cunning plan to re-colonise Muslim lands and seize their wealth for the insatiable appetite of Western economies.

It is in this background that the exploding Muslim rage against blasphemy must be understood.

However, understanding something does not mean justifying it. Human life is sacred and no idea and no theory can excuse the murder of innocents.

It is with sadness and shame that I note the violence and deaths resulting from the airing of the obnoxious video. Equally painful is the mindless damage to Buddhist religious places in Bangladesh because of Facebook insults to Islam.

Having said that I must state that we all have a duty to show respect to others and to not denigrate what they hold as sacred.

We have a duty to censor ourselves when we speak to others about what lies close to their hearts and souls.

Blasphemy violates the sacred; it trespasses boundaries that must exist in every civilised society; it causes pain to millions.

God and all His prophets must not be defiled. Blasphemy should be a punishable criminal offence in much the same way sedition and treason are.

Unlike free-speech advocates who place this freedom at the heart of their new abode of the sacred, I think that freedom per se has no value.

It is what freedom is for. It is the use to which it is put. It is the sense of responsibility and restraint with which it is exercised.

Blasphemy is a form of hate speech. Andrew March admits that “many in the West today use speech about Muhammad and Islam as cover for expressing hatred towards Muslims”.

Geert Wilders and makers of Innocence of Muslims are hate mongers, not human rights pioneers.

Behind hate speech is the ideology of racial or religious superiority. Hate speech amounts to discrimination.

It promotes denigratory stereotypes. It attacks basic premises of the human rights system, premises as deep as equal human dignity, respect for others and equal protection.

It must be asserted that Islamophobia is a new form of racism.

Further, the claims by Western leaders, including President Barrack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that the constitutional principle of free speech permits no state interference is an overstatement.

In the US, the First Amendment of the Constitution has since the beginning been interpreted to mean that “prior restraints” on freedom of expression are not allowed.

But this does not exclude the legal possibility of post-event prosecutions and sanctions. For example, defamation is actionable. Contempt of Court is punishable.

For much of its history the USA has had a Sedition Act. Supreme Court decisions over the decades have vacillated between various criteria for determining the justification for invasion of free speech.

But there has always been the possibility of post-event restrictions to avoid danger to society. There is freedom of speech but sometimes no freedom after speech!

An Espionage Act exists. Whistleblowers are prosecuted. Under the Obama administration, six prosecutions under this Act were all directed against journalists exposing government wrongdoing.

At the Food and Drug Administration, they spy on their own employees’ email. At the Department of Defence any soldier who speaks about government lies in Afghanistan or Iraq is jailed. Twenty-seven laws exist to monitor social media content.

The State Department blocks Wikileaks with its firewall. The founder of Wikileaks is being hounded.

European record is even more reflective of double standards. Public order laws are used regularly in Britain and Germany to criminalise “politically incorrect” expressions or pro-Nazi ideas and to punish any comment, research or analysis that departs from the officially sanctioned version of the holocaust.

In February 2006, Austria jailed British historian David Irving for three years for denying the holocaust.

Overt and covert censorship is very much part of Western societies. Only that it is more refined; it is non-governmental; it is de-centralised. Its perpetrators are publishing houses, financiers, advertisers, interest groups, editors, publishers and other controllers of the means of communication.

Obviously free speech in the USA and Europe is not absolute save when it demonises, dehumanises and denigrates Islam and Muslims. Then it is part of the new abode of the sacred.

COMMENT
By PROF SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM

Related:

Fearful of China's rise?

PETALING JAYA: China may overtake the United States as the biggest economic power in the next four to six years but this does not mean that it will instantly become the world's superpower, says a leading expert on China.

Dr Martin Jacques, 67, author of the global bestseller When China Rules the World: the End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order, said it would take several decades, from between 2030 and 2040, before it could even achieve developed state status.

“It'd be a long way to go as a superpower,” he said at a talk on “China As Global Superpower: What It Means For Asia and The World”, hosted by the Asian Centre for Media Studies, based in Menara Star.

The second edition of his book was released recently and 40% of its content was new.

“This includes an extensive chapter analysing events after the 2008 financial crisis,” he said.

Expert on China: Dr Jacques presenting a talk hosted by the Asian Centre for Media Studies at Menara Star.

 

His first was shortlisted for two major literary awards.

Dr Jacques said Westerners were fearful of China's rise due to scant knowledge and understanding of China and that it was a communist country.

They fear the country might throw its weight and its military power around.

However, Dr Jacques pointed out that China had no major interest in developing military power after Deng Xiaoping took over the country from the late 1970s to 1990s.

On fears that a communist country was not democratic, he argued that being democratic had not stopped Europeans from conquering others.

“Although China has a lot of problems now, it doesn't mean that it can't be humane and more democratic,” said Dr Jacques.

“Maybe, it will develop universal suffrage without following the Western way.”

Dr Jacques pointed out that the China Development Bank and China Export-Import Bank gave loans of more than US$110bil (RM338.415bil) to other developing countries in 2009 and 2010 while the World Bank only made loan commitments of US$100.3bil (RM307.65bil).

Dr Jacques, a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the London School of Economics (University of London), visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy, Washington DC, was the former editor of Marxism Today, deputy editor of The Independent and a co-founder of the think tank Demos.

Fresh insight on China

PETALING JAYA: China continues to grab world headlines and dominate international news for many reasons. The world's second largest economy is now expected to be the biggest in only a few years, with many far-reaching implications to follow.

World-renowned author and academic Dr Martin Jacques (pic) will be presenting a fresh look at the new China in a talk at Menara Star in Petaling Jaya at 2pm on Thursday.

His talk titled “China As Global Superpower: What It Means For Asia and The World” is hosted by the Asian Center for Media Studies, based at Star Publications (M) Bhd.

Dr Jacques is the author of the global bestseller When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order, which has been translated into 11 languages, shortlisted for two major literary awards and described as the best book on China in many years.

To keep track of the rapid changes in China, Dr Jacques has just released the second edition of his book, incorporating the latest data and an extended analysis which includes a new section.

The discussant for the talk will be Dr Lee Poh Ping, a Senior Research Fellow in the Institute of China Studies at Universiti Malaya.

Dr Lee has written and published extensively on East Asian affairs and presented university seminars on Dr Jacques' work.

The talk will be moderated by The Star's associate editor Bunn Nagara.

The event at the Cybertorium in Menara Star is open to the public free of charge, with no registration required

 The Star/Asia News Network

Pussy Riot and Malaysian foreign-funded NGOs

Bizarre as it seems, two prominent Malaysian NGOs have something in common with Pussy Riot – the support of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

WHO loves Pussy Riot? Paul McCartney, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sting are in the long list of celebrities supporting the so-called Russian feminist punk rock outfit.



But Madonna appears to have made the biggest impact with her brazen display of endorsement.

Midway through her 1984 hit Like a Virgin during a concert in Moscow last month, she stripped to exhibit the words “Pussy Riot” written across her back.

Her show did little to prevent three members of the group – Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich – from being jailed for two years.

They were found guilty of hooliganism and inciting religious hatred in an orthodox Moscow cathedral.

There has been much global media frenzy over their perceived persecution.The international condemnation has come from Amnesty International, the White House, the European Union, the British and German governments and an assortment of human rights groups.

Among the latest to join the chorus are Yoko Ono, wife of ex-Beatle John Lennon, and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The story as being spun by the mainstream global media is that of three young innocent women who were merely expressing their freedom being jailed by the dissent-silencing president Vladimir Putin (ex-KGB, remember?) and as such, need the support from all the outraged freedom-loving, justice-seeking and human rights-embracing people of the world.

After presenting the Lennon Ono Grant for Peace award to Tolokonnikova’s husband, Ono said: “I thank Pussy Riot in standing firmly in their belief for freedom of expression and making all women of the world proud to be women.”

Oh yeah? Let’s look at what they did to earn such an honour. On Feb 21, they stormed the altar of Cathedral of Christ the Saviour wearing balaclavas and bright outfits to “perform” what has been reported as a “punk prayer to the Virgin Mary”.

In reality, it was a grossly blasphemous parody of a Latin hymn, the English lyrics of which read: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts 


Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest

What they yelled during their “performance” was this:

Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! St Maria, Virgin, become a feminist ...*Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin *(The Russian Orthodox Church’s Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, whose secular name is Vladimir Gundyaev)
 B****, you better believe in God!

The group is an offshoot of another known as “Voina”, or “War” in Russian, which has since 2008 staged several offensively shocking events in the name of “performance art”, including painting a mural of a penis on a bridge, having group sex in a museum, throwing live cats at workers of a McDonald’s outlet, overturning of police cars and firebombing buildings. They also stole a chicken from a supermarket and performed a lewd act with it.

It’s highly doubtful that the information would be revealed by the Western media when the case comes up for appeal on Oct 1.

Imagine the repercussions if such a group entered a mosque, church, or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Malaysia to similarly “express their freedom”.

People who commit such acts in the US or in most European countries would also be arrested, charged and jailed, so what’s the big deal about these women?

For one thing, they seem to have powerful backers, in the form of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Yes, the same entity supporting Bersih and Suaram, which is now being probed over its sources of foreign funding.

According to conspirazzi.com, Pussy Riot and Voina have open links to the NED through Oksana Chelysheva, who is deputy executive director of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society funded by the NED and George Soros-funded outfits.

The NED was created in 1983, seemingly as a non-profit-making organisation to promote human rights and democracy but as its first president Allen Weinstein admitted to The Washington Post in 1991, a lot of what it does overtly used to be done covertly by the CIA.

In the words of ex-CIA officer Ralph McGeehee, it subsidises and influences elections, political parties, think tanks, academia, publishers, media and labour, religious, women’s and youth groups.

Russia has since introduced a new Bill to label NGOs that get foreign funds and are involved in politics as “foreign agents”, with their accounts subject to public scrutiny.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, says the US, too, has laws which require foreign interests to register as foreign agents but this does not always apply to all Israeli lobby groups.

“There are no political parties in the US that are funded by foreign interests. No such thing would be permitted. It would be regarded as high treason,” he was quoted as saying by Pravda.

So, if outsiders are not allowed to fund and interfere in US politics, why should we allow its agencies to meddle in ours?

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER
By M. VEERA PANDIYAN

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan sees the wisdom in this quote from Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard: People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Related post

Foreign funding for political purposes in Malaysia

New global currency wars warning!

The recent money-pumping measure by the United States has been criticised by Brazil as a protectionist move which will adversely affect developing countries.

THE recent announcement by US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke that the United States would be renewing its pumping of money into the banking system has been acclaimed by some parties as a move to revive its faltering economy.

But the Fed’s measure to revive “quantitative easing” is not being welcomed by all. It has instead caused anxiety in some developing countries.

Their fear is that a large part of the massive amounts of money being unleashed into the financial markets may fail to boost the US economy but will find its way as unwanted capital flows into some developing countries.

Bernanke announced that the Fed would purchase US$40bil (RM124bil) per month of mortgage-linked assets from the market, and do so continuously until the jobs situation improves.

The hope is that cheap and abundant money will encourage entrepreneurs and consumers to spend more and spark a recovery.

However, previous rounds of such quantitative easing did not do much for the US economy.

A large part of the extra funds were placed by investors not in new US production but as speculative funds in emerging markets or in the commodity markets, in search of higher returns.

In developing countries that received the funds, adverse effects included an inflation of prices of property and other assets, as well as appreciation of their currencies which made their exports less competitive.

On the other hand, the US dollar depreciated because of the increased supply of US dollars and the reduced interest rates, making US exports more competitive.

Brazil has been in the forefront of developing countries that are critical of the US money pumping. Last week, the Brazilian finance minister Guido Mantega called the US Fed measure a “protectionist” move that would re-ignite global currency wars.

Mantega told the Financial Times that the third round of quantitative easing would only have a marginal benefit in the United States as the already high liquidity in the United States is not going into production.

Instead, it is really aimed at depressing the dollar and boosting US exports.

Japan has also decided to expand its own quantitative easing programme in response to the US move, and this is evidence of tensions and a currency war, said Mantega.

In previous rounds of liquidity expansion in recent years, Brazil has been one of the developing countries adversely affected by sharp currency appreciation, which reduced its export competitiveness and facilitated import increases.

Recently, Brazil’s currency, the real, has weakened from the high of 1.52 real to the dollar to the present two real, which has improved its competitiveness.

But the new liquidity expansion in the United States may again cause a flood of funds to enter Brazil and reverse the currency trend.

In such a situation, Brazil may be forced to take measures to stop the real from appreciating, said the minister.

Previously, the country had taken capital controls to discourage inflows of foreign funds.

What has irritated Brazil even more is an accusation by the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk that Brazil has become protectionist in raising some tariffs, even though the Brazilian measures were within its rights in the WTO framework.

Brazil’s Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota last week wrote to Kirk pointing out the unfairness of a protectionist US accusing Brazil of protectionism.

“The world has witnessed massive monetary expansion and the bailout of banks and industrial companies on an unprecedented scale, implemented by the United States and other developed countries,” said Patriota.

“As a result, Brazil has had to cope with an artificial appreciation of its currency and with a flood of imported goods at artificially low prices.”

He pointed out that the United States was a major beneficiary, as it almost doubled its exports to Brazil from US$18.7bil (RM58bil) to US$34bil (RM105bil) from 2007 to 2011.

“While you refer to WTO-consistent measures adopted by Brazil, we, on our side, worry about the prospect of continued illegal subsidisation of farm products by the United States, which impact Brazil and other developing countries, including some of the poorest countries in Africa.

“The US has managed in a short period to remarkably increase its exports to Brazil and continues to reap the benefits of our expanding market. But it would be fairer if those increases took place in an environment not distorted by exchange rate misalignments and blatant Government support”.

As the quantitative easing from the United States and Japan is only going to take effect in future, it remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself – it will have minimal effect on the United States and Japanese economic recovery but will cause problems for developing countries – or whether it will be different this time.

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR

 Related posts:

Currency wars: Scholar acccuses U.S. of hypocrisy ..
Currency wars 'hurt global markets', World leaders seek ...
Currency Wars: U.S. Economy Needs More Fiscal ...