Thursday, October 20, 2022

Economic War with Russia

Russia is at war with Ukraine. It is also at war with the U.S.

That war spells trouble for Biden and Democrats. 

Washington Post
Russia can use its oil to weaken our economy and make inflation worse. That forces the Fed to raise interest rates to slow the economy. The economic effect is double-misery: Stagflation. The political effect is to make Biden less popular and to elect Republicans. 

College classmate Sandford Borins is an economist and a Professor of Public Management Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He described how Putin could do this. This blog looks at campaign craft and message management. No amount of deftness in that arena would have as much affect on the course of American politics as would a period of profound economic distress. It's the economy, stupid. In retirement Borins posts his observations at his blog site https://sandfordborins.com.


Guest Post by Sandford Borins. 

Our Long Economic War with Russia

Borins
It is easy to imagine that when western central banks raise interest rates, stock markets tank, and economic growth slows, there are feelings of elation in the Kremlin that go far beyond schadenfreude. Indeed, one could imagine Russian state investors gleefully shorting western indexes and individual stocks. (In this post, I will use “west” or “western” to refer to the loose alliance of nations in Europe, NATO, and the OECD that oppose Russia.) It is this scenario that leads me to speculate about the course of the economic war between the west and Russia.

Leader for Life?

There is rampant speculation about the outcome of the military war in Ukraine. My expertise is in economics rather than military or strategic studies, so I will focus on the economic conflict.

Many experts are conjecturing that the failure of the Russian military on the ground in the Ukraine will jeopardize President Putin’s hold on power. If so, the question is what sort of leader would succeed him. If his successor is a Gorbachev one could imagine the possibility of a major diplomatic and economic rapprochement between Russia and the west. But leaders with views like Gorbachev are more likely to be in prison, like Navalny, than contenders for power within the Kremlin.

Stale Chips

If a hardline government is in power in the Kremlin, then even if the fighting stops in the Ukraine, the economic war between Russia and the west will continue. The key element of the western nations’ war with Russia will be a continued embargo on technology. By technology I am referring to computer chips, artificial intelligence, software, computers, and consumer and capital goods with embedded technology, such as commercial aircraft. These goods represent our comparative advantage relative to Russia. One motive for this embargo will be to punish the Russians for their war crimes against Ukrainian civilians. A second is to prevent the Russians from adapting our technology to use in future wars against civilians.

The Russian response will be to develop their own technology, but in most areas, Russian technology has been inferior to western, and the technology gap will be exacerbated by the ongoing exodus of Russia’s best technical minds. A second alternative is to import technology from other countries, especially China. Russian imports of Iranian drones and possibly Iranian ballistic missiles is an immediate example of this.

Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark

Russia will fight the economic war by depriving the west of oil and gas and by trying to keep the price of oil and gas as high as possible. Russia’s strategy of being a plentiful supplier of oil and gas to Europe has been upended by the war. Russia’s shutting down and then sabotaging its own pipelines (the latter likely, but not yet confirmed) have marked it as an unreliable energy supplier, and Europe will never turn to it again. Russia’s response to the loss of its energy customers in Europe will be to try to find them elsewhere, especially China and India.
Russia is an active player in OPEC Plus and will exert pressure on the cartel to limit production and raise prices. Increased prices bring in more revenue because of the relatively inelastic short-term demand for oil. With the west now dealing with higher rates of inflation than experienced in the last 40 years, increases in the price of oil will contribute to the new inflation. Increased inflation reduces the popularity of political incumbents and spurs western central banks to use monetary policy (quantitative tightening to increase interest rates) to slow economic activity. From Russia’s point of view, the recent OPEC Plus initiative to cut production is a trifecta. It increases revenues for Russia, reduces the despised President Biden’s popularity just before the midterm elections, and helps to bring about a recession in the west.

If energy is a key battlefield in the economic war with Russia, there are short-term tactics and long-term responses the west can adopt. The U.S. Government’s deployment of its strategic oil reserve is a short-term tactic to lower prices. Attempting to form a buyer’s cartel is another, though it is unclear how effective or enforceable this will be. Reducing dependence on Russian, or indeed any other sources of oil and gas is the best long-term strategy.

One key policy instrument in both the long and short term to reduce dependence on oil and gas is a carbon tax. A planned increase in the carbon tax becomes politically infeasible if the price of oil or gas has already increased enormously. A carbon tax raises revenue but then redistributes it through per capita grants. A reasonable substitute for a carbon tax would be a tax on windfall energy industry profits. It too gives the government a source of revenue that could also be redistributed through per capita grants. The challenge to western governments is to establish and administer a tax on windfall energy industry profits and to work out its relationship to planned increases in carbon taxes. Whatever technical solution to this problem finance ministries develop must be sold to a skeptical public that is worried about inflation.

We face enormous policy challenges in preventing the Russian energy war from weakening our economies and from achieving our climate change goals. We should prepare for a long war.

 


 

[Note: To get daily home delivery of this blog go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]


 

4 comments:

Low Dudgeon said...

“Reducing dependence on Russian or indeed any other sources of oil and gas is the best long-term strategy”.

Biden’s first acts as President included shuttering the Keystone Pipeline in the West, foregoing his veto over the Nord Stream II pipeline to Russia, forbidding oil and gas harvesting on wide new viable areas under U.S control, crippling existing U.S. production with makeweight obstacles to leases and licenses, and denouncing not only fracking, the wellspring of U.S energy independence, but oil and gas companies across the board. Now he goes hat in hand to the Saudis to beg to for ramped up foreign production, and recklessly raids our own Strategic Reserve for an election season mess of pottage. All of this was observed and predicted in 2020. Biden’s own prediction was that Putin would not undertake military aggression; then, that Western sanctions would deter Putin from a larger-scale war; then, that a concerted Western response would cripple Putin economically and end hostilities accordingly.

It’s going to be an ugly, even disastrous November for Democrats. Only long-term Green priorities behind the scenes could remotely justify this catalogue of woes. That won’t save the House or Senate next month.

Michael Trigoboff said...

From what I have seen over the past few decades, the world is never going to reduce CO2 emissions significantly enough to mitigate the problem. China, for instance, is building one new coal-fired electrical generation plant per week.

If we can’t slow down the emission side of the CO2 cycle, there is something else we can still do: speed up the uptake side of the CO2 cycle. Ocean fertilization is the most promising way that we might be able to do that.

Phytoplankton pull CO2 out of the ocean to build their calcium carbonate skeletons. When they die, their skeletons rain down on the ocean floor and form limestone, sequestering the carbon.

The limiting factor of phytoplankton growth is iron. Experiments have shown that seeding the ocean with soluble iron enormously increases phytoplankton growth. Iron is the most plentiful element on this planet. It is very cheap. Fitting out cargo ships to seed the ocean with iron would be very cheap and easy.

Why aren’t we already doing this? Green ideology. They don’t like what they refer to as “technofixes.“ they don’t like tampering with the sacred planet.

But if the claim is that global warming/climate change is such a big f***ing emergency, maybe it’s time to start taking emergency measures. And if it isn’t time yet, are they actually serious about the emergency?

Rick Millward said...

There is one other actor: the Russian people.

This is a war fought by Putin for his own agenda, not some expansionist wish of the majority, so one possibility will be a revolt by the people, as the price they are paying becomes intolerable. There must be forces in the country who see that this path is unsustainable and are working towards ending the regime and replacing it with one that will be a responsible member of the international community.

Whatever happens here in November, it will be necessary for the West to come together and implement energy conservation and other strategies to outlast Russia and I expect that we'll start hearing about this soon. If we do that and the Russians push back harder on their leaders we could hope for this to end soon.

Otherwise it will be a long, cold Winter.

James Stodder said...

Clearly, a carbon tax would be better than Putin's price hikes -- since the proceeds could be redistributed equally and/or reinvested in clean energy. But Russia and the Saudis hiking oil and natural gas prices does much the same work as a disincentive. Granted, it also makes them both richer.

Of course, these hikes also put an end to Russia's role as the West's most "reliable" and "stable" energy partner. I once heard Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, proclaim this glorious role at an international conference in October 2013 -- a few months before Russia invaded Crimea.