8 Dec 2023

Question mark raised over the world’s most important financial market

Nick Beams


The current edition of the Economist, one of the world’s leading financial magazines, carries an extraordinary headline.

It poses the question: “Is the world’s most important asset market broken?”

US Treasury Department Building, Washington, D.C. [Photo: Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division]

The article deals with significant problems in the $25 trillion US Treasury market where government debt is bought and sold, and which forms the key foundation for the entire global financial system.

Those problems have surfaced in a series of crises in recent years. In 2019 there was turmoil in the repo market where holders of financial assets use them as collateral to obtain cash short-term, sometimes overnight, as part of their daily operations.

Interest rates in these usually routine transactions, which grease the wheels of the financial system, rose to unprecedented heights, as much as 10 percent at one point, before the Federal Reserve intervened to stabilise the situation.

Then came the market freeze in March 2020 at the start of the pandemic when, in a so-called “dash for cash,” no buyers could be found for US government debt, supposedly the safest financial asset in the world, for several days.

The Fed intervened injecting $4 trillion into the financial system—at one point it was said to be spending a million dollars a second—and became the backstop not only for US Treasury bonds but many other forms of debt.

The intervention not only stabilised the situation but created the conditions where financial oligarchs were able to rake in hundreds of billions of dollars during the worst period of the pandemic.

Since then, there have been problems with the issuing of new government debt. The Treasury modified its last issue of debt earlier this year somewhat away from the longer end of the market in order to mitigate against turbulence.

Last month a cyber-attack on ICBC, a Chinese bank, disrupted settlements in the Treasury market for several days.

The Economist article describes the Treasury market as “a network of mind-bending complexity” which touches almost every financial institution.

“Short-term bills and long-term bonds… are issued by Treasury. They are sold to ‘primary dealers’ (banks and broker dealers) in auctions. Dealers then sell them to customers: foreign investors, hedge funds, pension funds, firms and purveyors of money-market funds. Many buyers raise money to buy Treasuries using the overnight repo market, where bonds can be swapped for cash. In secondary markets high-frequency traders often match buyers and sellers using algorithms. Participants, in particular large asset managers, often prefer to buy Treasury futures—contracts that pay the holder the value of a specific Treasury on an agreed date—since it requires less cash up front than buying a bond outright. Each link in the chain is a potential vulnerability.”

As a result of the recent crises, regulators are seeking to impose new controls under conditions where the debt market has grown by leaps and bounds and the conflict in Congress over the “debt ceiling” continually threatens to push the US into a debt default.

Government debt is now equivalent to around 100 percent of GDP, up from 71 percent a decade ago. Servicing it now comes to a fifth of all government spending and is one of the fastest growing categories.

On the regulatory front some minor changes have been introduced by the Treasury, the Economist characterises them as “fiddles,” which provide greater data, with the main push coming from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The SEC has directed attention to the so-called basis trade which links the market for Treasuries to the futures market. Because there is a very slight difference in price there is the opportunity for profit and it has been eagerly seized on.

Hedge funds can go short by selling a futures contract and then buying the Treasury bond in the market when the contract becomes due at a marginally lower price. They can then go to the repo market to obtain more cash to finance more basis trades. Because the price differences are so small, this requires a large amount of borrowed money to make it profitable.

As long as everything goes smoothly, there are large profits to be made. But in times of turbulence, futures exchanges will make margin call—that is demand that borrowers put up more cash. This is believed to be one of the reasons for the “dash for cash” in 2020, which led to the Treasury market freeze.

The SEC is proposing that the hedge funds that are most active in the market are designated as broker dealers meaning they are subject to stricter regulations. It is also considering rules that would limit the amount they can receive from banks to finance their operations.

As could be expected, the hedge funds are having none of it, with Ken Griffin, the head of Citadel, one of the largest and most profitable funds, saying the SEC was “searching for a problem.”

The hedge funds developed their highly profitable operations under conditions where interest rates were at an historic low and they could count on the Fed to come in as the backstop to the market if trouble developed.

But these conditions have changed with the lifting of interest rates since March 2022. On top of this, there is a question of how far the Fed can go in continually bailing out the financial markets when there is growing concern about its stability.

This is reflected in the rising price of gold in recent days as the question is increasingly raised: how long can the US go on just issuing new dollars at the press of a computer button to finance itself? This is inherently unsustainable and that being the case then, as the old saying in financial circles has it, being unsustainable means at some point it must stop.

The increase in interest rates is having an impact in the broader economy—an issue which was the subject of analysis by Bloomberg financial columnist John Authers this week.

He began by noting that there had been a strange non-event in that the widely anticipated wave of corporate defaults because of rising interest rates had not eventuated, at least not yet.

But there have been two of major significance. The recent bankruptcy of WeWork was the largest by a US company since the global financial crisis (GFC) while the demise of the Austrian real estate group Signa was Europe’s biggest post-GFC insolvency.

Both these major developments proceeded “relatively quietly.”

However, the calm may not last as Authers cited research on the worsening debt position of US corporations in the higher interest rate environment.

According to one metric devised by New York University academic Edward Altman, in the last century more than half of all American companies were strong and healthy.

“That number had now dropped to below 10 percent for the first time on record,” Authers wrote, adding that “the number of companies that are imminent risks for bankruptcy has been rising consistently, and has reached a new high.”

In the era of low interest rates, companies had become “more and more accustomed to taking risks with their financial health and getting away with it.”

He also cited other findings on so-called “zombie firms,” that is companies that do not produce enough profits to cover their interest expenses.

The research found that over a three-year period, “slightly more than a fifth of US companies” fell into this category.

On the surface the capitalist economic engine may appear to be running smoothly as finance capital rubs its hands at the prospect of rate cuts. But lift the hood and from the Treasury market to the gold market and the corporate world, there are growing signs of a major malfunction.

Growing tensions between Ukrainian President and army leadership as staggering death toll comes into view

Jason Melanovski



Zelensky on August 22, 2022 [Photo: Ukraine Presidential Archive]

Following the catastrophic failure of the “counteroffensive” the Zelensky regime is facing a disastrous political situation amid growing popular opposition to his government, and escalating conflicts with the military leadership.

A recent article in the Economist citing internal Ukrainian government polling data revealed that support for President Volodymyr Zelensky has crashed to just 32 percent, following the failure of the country’s counteroffensive over the summer and the outbreak of open political struggle with the military led by General Valery Zaluzhnyi. The Economist went on to characterize the relationship between Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi as “terrible.”

Conversely, support for Zaluzhnyi stood at 70 percent. Even the head of Military Intelligence Kirill Budanov polled better than Zelensky with an approval rating of 45 percent.

So far Zelensky and his entourage have responded to such reports by blaming “Russian propaganda.” However, on Monday, Ukraine’s major online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda, released a report documenting the growing rift between Zelensky and the military, and his fears of Zaluzhnyi’s entry into politics.

According to the article titled, “War vs. Politics: What is really going on Between Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi,” Zelensky and his cabinet first began to view Zaluzhnyi as a problem in spring of last year as government polling continued to show rising support for the military and Zaluzhnyi specifically. 

Unnamed “Western” organizations cited in the article have clearly been following the decline of Zelensky and rise of Zaluzhnyi. “Some foreign organizations recently conducted focus groups in Ukraine to see for themselves what political niches have now appeared in our country,” an unspecified Ukrainian high-ranking official told Ukrainska Pravda, who asked the influential outlet not to specify either his name or his position.

In April, the relationship drastically turned for the worse when Zaluzhnyi attempted to create his own charity to support the war effort, raising the ire of the head of the President’s Office, Andriy Ermak. The outlet detailed Zelensky’s meddling in military decisions and his attempts to undermine Zaluzhnyi by creating “parallel tracks” of communication with other rival military officials such as Alexander Syrsky, commander of the ground forces, and Air Force Commander Nikolay Oleshchuk.

Tensions between Zelensky and the army leadership further grew when, earlier in August, Zelensky dismissed the country’s regional draft commanders following a corruption scandal in which military officials were reportedly accepting bribes of up to $10,000 to avoid conscription. Since then, there has been a sharp drop in conscription and staffing levels, deepening what is already a severe shortage of man power at the front.

Now, Ukraine is reportedly considering a new mobilization plan that will include the conscription of teenagers, elderly men, women and the forced return of Ukrainian men of military age across Europe, who fled the country to avoid fighting in the bloody NATO-backed war.

In October, Zaluzhnyi came out with an essay and a major interview with the Economist, admitting that Ukraine was in a disastrous military situation and that the war had reached a “stalemate.”

Shortly thereafter, Zelensky and his entourage decided to cancel the presidential elections due to be held next year. In an open endorsement of dictatorial forms of rule, Zelensky stated at the time, “And if we need to put an end to a political dispute and continue to work in unity, there are structures in the state that are capable of putting an end to it and giving society all the necessary answers.”

The same day that Zelensky announced that the elections were cancelled, one of Zaluzhnyi’s closest assistant and friend blew himself up with a hand grenade that had been delivered to his home as a “birthday gift” by someone in the military. Zelensky also initiated another purge of the military. 

The political crisis of the Zelensky regime is a symptom of a much broader crisis of the entire Ukrainian ruling class and the disastrous war, waged by the imperialist powers in the country, against Russia. The first signs of growing opposition to the war have emerged with protesters across the country demanding that a time limit be set for deployment to the front. With virtually every household affected and the staggering human toll of the war, the widespread and growing reluctance to fight within the Ukrainian population are becoming all but impossible to deny. 

Last week, Zelensky’s former political advisor Alexey Arestovich revealed that between 200,000 and 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed in the war, while discussing the failure of a proposed peace agreement reached in Istanbul in Spring 2022. An agreement that was subsequently squashed by UK Prime minister Boris Johnson. Arestovich stated that NATO is unlikely to offer Ukraine a full membership anytime soon while Ukraine suffers the burden of fighting and dying. “Where is NATO? Does it accept us or not? And will it accept us? ... Then the 200 thousand [Ukrainian servicemen] or whatever, 300 thousand, would still be alive.”

Never before has someone so close to the Zelensky regime as Arestovich even admitted to the massive losses of life suffered by Ukrainian forces in the war. The numbers appear to confirm the figures cited by the Kremlin, which claims that over 125,000 soldiers have lost their lives since the start of the counteroffensive in June alone. Ukraine’s pre-war population stood at around 40 million, 300,000 deaths constitute 0.75 percent of the total population; many more are wounded and permanently crippled. 

Arestovich further suggested that 4.5 million Ukrainian men, nearly half of the Ukrainian male population, had fled abroad to avoid military service and that 30 to 70 percent of military units consist of “refuseniks” who have gone AWOL. A woman in Ukraine told the WSWS that some front units have only two to three, instead of the required 30 soldiers fighting. 

Earlier in October, the Centre for Economic Policy Research in Europe released a report titled, “The impact of the war on human capital and productivity in Ukraine,” detailing the huge socioeconomic losses as a result of the war from which Ukrainian society may never recover. 

The report stated, “Rebuilding damaged and destroyed physical infrastructures is estimated to reach 130% to 330% of Ukraine’s pre-Covid GDP .… It may take even longer and prove more difficult to offset the negative consequences of the war on Ukraine’s human capital.” The report continued “For Ukraine, losses in human capital are estimated to peak between now and 2035 at around 3.6% (0.9% due to learning losses and 2.7% due to skill losses of workers). The effect will last around 35 years and will diminish until the last cohort affected retires from the labour force at the age of 65 in 2085.” 

These figures are all the more staggering since they were calculated without knowledge of the true casualty toll, which is a closely guarded secret within the Ukrainian ruling class. Figures such as those cited by Arestovich, who is cynically attempting to build his  own political brand in opposition to the increasingly unpopular Zelensky regime, give only an inkling of the true death toll of the conflict. 

Nevertheless, Arestovich’s claims, combined with a devastating report this week from the Washington Post detailing the failure of the summer counteroffensive, are clear evidence of the disastrous military situation and the criminality of the imperialist war pursued by NATO against Russia in Ukraine.

GROW (Graduate Research On Worldwide Challenges) PhD Program 2024

APPLICATION DEADLINE:

31st January 2024 at 23.59.59 CET .

Tell Me About Award:

We are a network of internationally collaborating universities from the Netherlands with longstanding collaborations with our partners at the African continent.

We will launch an international PhD programme that offers tomorrow’s leaders a unique opportunity to do high quality and novel research, related to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals on the African continent.

Supervision for the PhD students will be provided by globally renowned professors, supported by societal actors and academics from our African partners. With the projects we aim to make a real contribution to understanding and addressing the urgent worldwide challenges.

For GROW, five high ranking Dutch universities have joined up with 22 African academic and 17 non-academic partners to raise funds for 51 four year PhD positions with candidates from anywhere in the world to pursue scientifically challenging research that in some way links Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) in Africa with Europe. Funding from Marie SkÅ‚odowska-Curie Actions COFUND programme of the European Union has been granted. The possibilities are manifold, as fellowships are available in the Natural Sciences, Social Sciences & Humanities, and Engineering. The Triple-I design of the GROW programme offers the PhD students the chance to equip themselves with an advanced, future-proof set of scientific and complementary skills that they will take with them as they pursue high-flying careers in a world that is becoming ever more complex and interconnected.

TYPE:

PhD

Who Can Apply?

  • No doctoral degree: Eligible candidates must not have a doctoral degree at the date of their recruitment. Researchers who have successfully defended their doctoral thesis but who have not yet formally been awarded the doctoral degree will not be considered eligible.
  • Nationality: Candidates of all nationalities and countries of origin are eligible, unless national, international, or European legislation or embargos prohibit specific (combinations of (sub) disciplines and) countries of origin. The appointed PhD students must comply with the following mobility rule: they must not have resided or carried out their main activity (work, studies, etc.) in The Netherlands for more than 12 months in the 36 months immediately before the deadline of the co-funded programme’s call. Compulsory national service, short stays such as holidays and time spent as part of a procedure for obtaining refugee status under the Geneva Convention113 are not taken into account.
  • Entry Requirements: Applicants must have completed a university degree that entitles them to embark in a doctoral programme in the Netherlands (Master of Arts (MA), Master of Science (MSc), or Master of Laws (LLM)). The degree must be dated less than 10 years prior to the call deadline. The eligibility window can be extended by 6 months per child for the mother, (additional) maternity or paternity leave (actual time up to 6 months per child), training for medical specialists (3 years), compulsory and reserve military service (actual time), or for refugees/ researchers at risk (up to 3 years). Documentation providing evidence must be included with the application.
  • Enrollment: The Candidate must be available to enroll full-time in the PhD program at the Host institution in The Netherlands; eventual suspensions for family or personal reasons shall be discussed with the granting authority.
  • English Certificate: Doctoral Candidates are required to have high level in the English language (if not native speakers). English level of short-listed applicants can be assessed during the selection interview and a mandatory passed test could become part of the Go-No Go decision after year 1 of the project.
  • Affinity with Africa: Doctoral Candidates will need to demonstrate a strong connection with the African continent and / or an understanding of the context of Low and Middle Income settings.
  • Network: After selection, we expect the PhD students to actively participate in the events organized by the programme, such as training/network events, and outreach activities targeting different audiences. The candidates are aware of and adhere to the principles set out in the Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers.

WHICH COUNTRIES ARE ELIGIBLE?

  • Candidates of all nationalities and countries of origin are eligible, unless national, international, or European legislation or embargos prohibit specific (combinations of (sub) disciplines and) countries of origin.
  • Doctoral Candidates will need to demonstrate a strong connection with the African continent and / or an understanding of the context of Low and Middle Income settings.

HOW MANY AWARDS?

51

What Is The Benefit Of Award?

The GROW programme is a four year international PhD programme that offers tomorrow’s leaders a unique opportunity to do high quality and novel research with supervision from globally renowned professors on pressing issues affecting the people of Africa, and make a real contribution to understanding and addressing worldwide problems, notably the UN – Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

HOW LONG WILL AWARD LAST?

4 years

How To Apply:

Application Portal is open. Click here

Learn more about the GROW Programme and how to apply in the webinar 5 Dec 2023 10-12 AM CET. Click here to register.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

6 Dec 2023

A huge jobs massacre is unfolding in Germany’s auto industry

Dietmar Gaisenkersting


A jobs massacre is unfolding in the German auto industry, the likes of which the sector has not seen since the Second World War. For some time now, manufacturers in Germany and their suppliers have been using the transition to electric vehicles (EV) to cut jobs and increase exploitation. In the meantime, they have fallen behind in the global competition because their competitors offer cheaper and technically more sophisticated models.

Ford workers demonstrate after the announcement of the closure of the Saarlouis plant, June 22, 2022

On Friday, the Munich-based Ifo Institute reported a further decline in business expectations in the German automotive industry based on a company survey. To ensure that their returns continue to rise, shareholders are now unequivocally demanding that the 800,000 or so workers employed by manufacturers and their suppliers must take a beating.

No jobs, no social benefits, no working conditions, no wages are safe. Studies predict that up to 40 percent of jobs will be lost as a result of the switch to EVs, which would mean more than 300,000 jobs going.

The harbingers of this earthquake are becoming ever clearer. In 2022, the Federal Statistical Office reported a year-on-year decline in employment of just over one percent, or 11,800 employees, in companies producing motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts. Most recently, 774,300 people were employed in this sector, 60,000 fewer than in the record year of 2018.

The supplier industry is particularly affected. The decline in employment there was 6 percent compared to the previous year, the sharpest fall in percentage terms since 2005. With an average of 273,900 employees, the level of employment among suppliers fell to its lowest level since 1997.

Reports in recent weeks indicate that this trend is set to worsen.

Volkswagen

The Volkswagen Group has sales problems, especially with its electric models. At a general meeting in its Wolfsburg headquarters at the beginning of the week, VW brand boss Thomas Schäfer declared that “the VW brand” was “no longer competitive.”

The “efficiency programme” pushed forward by VW Group CEO Oliver Blume aims to save €10 billion by 2026 and increase the VW core brand’s return on sales from 3.4 percent to 6.5 percent. This can only be achieved through massive job cuts. Schäfer emphasised that it was therefore necessary to “tackle the critical issues, including personnel.”

At the VW software subsidiary Cariad, 2,000 of the 6,500 jobs will be cut over the next two years.

VW’s Zwickau site, which employs 10,000 and is the first to exclusively produce electric cars, is cutting back production due to weakening demand. Production of the ID.3 and the Cupra Born is being paused for the rest of the year, as the production target has been completed. After the temporary contracts of 269 employees were not extended this year, 500 temporary jobs are to be cut next year.

Meanwhile, the IG Metall union and the works council are working at full speed on new mechanisms to cut thousands of jobs. VW personnel director Gunnar Kilian, who came over from IG Metall, warns: “We have to reduce our costs and manage with fewer staff.” He wants to make the targeted use of partial retirement to cut jobs.

Works Council Chairwoman Daniela Cavallo supports the cutbacks and wants to implement them in a “socially responsible” manner. VW brand boss Schäfer urges: “Now we have to finalise the key points of the agreement together with the employee side by the end of the year.”

Ford

At Ford in Cologne, it is still not clear which electric model will be built and when in the completely remodeled factory. Thousands of jobs will be cut in research and development and administration. In development alone, around 1,700 of the 3,600 employees are to leave the company over the next three years. The research centre in Aachen, which most recently employed a good 200, will be closed in just over six months.

At a plant meeting on Thursday, it was announced that the entire product development operation at the Cologne-Merkenich site will be outsourced to a separate limited company. This is usually the first step in downsizing or divesting a business unit.

Meanwhile, the works council in Saarlouis is winding up the Ford plant there. Since the company announced a year and a half ago that the plant would be closed, the works council has been stringing along the workforce until investors supposedly arrive and at the same time cutting jobs. This year alone, 650 jobs have been cut, and on January 1 the number of employees will fall by a further 250 to 3,850.

Nobody believes in new investors anymore. The works council, led by Markus Thal, is crafting a so-called “social collective agreement” for 2,850 employees in Saarlouis, who will lose their jobs by mid-2025 at the latest. A thousand are to be able to continue working on a short-term basis until 2032.

Opel

In the meantime, it is apparent that Opel will disappear from the market in the short- rather than the medium-term. Sales of Opel and its British sister brand Vauxhall have almost halved to 428,000 vehicles in Europe in the last seven years. Since the takeover of Opel by the French group PSA (Peugeot/Citroën)—now Stellantis—in August 2017, many thousands of jobs have been cut at the car manufacturer.

In particular, the development centre and the administration in Rüsselsheim are gradually being wound down. At the end of 2021, 7,000 people still worked there, but parts have now been sold and thousands of jobs have been cut. Last week, around 100 employees in the Computer Aided Design (CAD) department were informed, in part via video conference, that their department would be closed.

In Italy, the Stellantis Group, which was created in 2021 through the takeover of Fiat Chrysler Automotive (FCA) by PSA, plans to cut 15,000 of the remaining 45,000 jobs.

ZF Friedrichshafen

ZF Friedrichshafen, Germany’s largest supplier after Bosch, is currently playing out all possible redundancy scenarios in order to put pressure on its 165,000 employees worldwide. In this context, the management is threatening to cut more than 7,000 jobs at the Saarbrücken plant. Around 10,000 employees there currently still produce transmissions almost exclusively for vehicles with combustion engines.

Plant management and works council representatives are using these threatening scenarios to develop so-called “target image processes” for future orders. Based on these fictitious plans, massive concessions are then extorted from the workers and supposed “plant safeguarding contracts” are agreed that are not worth the paper they are written on. This is what happened, for example, to the 5,500 employees in the commercial vehicle division at the Friedrichshafen site. Truck, railway and marine gearboxes are manufactured there, among other things.

The 590 workers at the Eitorf site near Bonn in North Rhine-Westphalia and their 350 colleagues in Gelsenkirchen will lose their jobs over the next few years. The Group Works Council expects the shock absorber plant in Eitorf to close its doors by 2027 at the latest.

The ZF site in Gelsenkirchen, which has long been threatened with closure, will close even faster. As production of the remaining steering systems and cable harnesses is now coming to an end, ZF management says that “the basis for production at the location will be lost in the coming months.” In these two ZF plants, job security will end at the end of the month.

Mahle

Piston specialist Mahle (with almost 72,000 employees at the end of 2022) is also restructuring its production. It was only in August that the Stuttgart-based company sold its entire thermostat division with around 600 jobs. Thermostats are used to regulate the cooling water temperature of internal combustion engines and are therefore less in demand with the move to EVs.

Just a few weeks ago, Mahle concluded a new future collective labour agreement with IG Metall, which rules out compulsory redundancies at the German sites until 2025. But in Germany, jobs in large companies are rarely destroyed using compulsory redundancies. An army of trade union officials and works council reps are working on plans and mechanisms to achieve this using different means.

Mahle is now also taking a different approach. In Wustermark, Brandenburg, where pump systems are produced, the company has converted the site into a limited company. IG Metall has announced that Mahle could separate the entire site from the corporation and sell it.

Vibracoustic

The 410 employees of Vibracoustic in Weinheim (with around 12,000 employees worldwide) were informed in mid-November that their jobs would be relocated to France and India. They manufacture rubber anti-vibration systems and air suspension systems to reduce noise and vibrations in vehicles.

Tire manufacturers

The tire industry in Germany is also under threat of redundancies. There are currently 12 tire factories in the country, four of which are to be closed in the coming years.

The US company Goodyear is ending its production in Fulda and Fürstenwalde, which have a total of 1,800 employees. French manufacturer Michelin is closing its truck tire plants in Karlsruhe and Trier by the end of 2025. In addition, the production of new tires and semi-finished products will be discontinued in Homburg. Michelin is relocating its customer centre from Karlsruhe to Poland. More than 1,500 will be affected.

The automotive supplier and tire manufacturer Continental had previously announced it would be eliminating 5,500 administrative jobs worldwide, 1,000 of them in Germany. From 2025, €400 million are to be saved annually. Continental employs more than 100,000 people in the automotive business, around a quarter of them in administration.

These announcements are just the tip of the iceberg. But with all this bad news, the managers and executive board members can count on the support of their “social partners”, i.e., the trade unions and the works councils, with whom they will “coordinate” the jobs massacre.

IG Metall and its works council reps take on the task of suppressing opposition within the companies and sabotaging any struggle in defence of jobs. They promote the reactionary view that workers and their exploiters share the same interests and that production sites can only be maintained by working together with the management to reduce “costs” and cut wages and jobs.

The trade unions and their works council reps divide workers between plants and play those in one country against those in all the others, like the Ford works council in the so-called bidding contest between Saarlouis and Valencia to see which plant would cut the most costs. In the end, there is nothing left on either side. While workers are made redundant with a pittance, the shareholders stuff their pockets, and the works council and trade union officials also make a handsome return.

Australian government seeks to rush through new citizenship cancellation laws

Mike Head


In what amounts to a double ultimatum to the Australian parliament, the Albanese government is demanding the passage this week—the scheduled final parliamentary session of 2023—of two sweeping bills that eviscerate fundamental democratic and legal rights.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks to the media after meeting with Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in London, Friday, May, 5, 2023. [AP Photo/Frank Augstein]

One bill attacks the right to citizenship and the other bill attacks the right not to be imprisoned without trial. Taken together, they constitute a warning of a turn by the ruling class to dictatorial measures amid mounting political disaffection.

The twin ultimatum has been accompanied by a foul witch hunt that, in effect, demonises refugees and other immigrants, depicting many of them as a danger to society. A reactionary climate of emergency is being whipped up by the very same forces that are backing the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

The Labor government, the Liberal-National Coalition and the corporate media are vying to outdo each other in branding as “murderers,” “sex offenders” and the “worst of the worst” all the people who could be thrown back into indefinite immigration detention as a result of the two bills.

One is the preventative detention bill, due to be tabled tomorrow. Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil proclaimed last week that the bill, then still to be drafted, had to be passed by both houses of parliament by this Thursday, or parliament would be kept sitting until it did so.

That bill, reportedly cynically rebadged as a “Community Safety Scheme,” is a transparent bid to flout a November 8 High Court order. Unanimously, the seven judges partially overturned the reactionary three-decade regime of indefinite immigration detention of asylum seekers and other non-citizens who had been stripped of visas.

A government spokesperson blatantly declared yesterday that the bill would re-detain most of the 148 or so detainees that the government was forced to release as a result of the seven judges’ unanimous ruling. The bill would allow the immigration minister to apply for a court order to re-incarcerate an ex-detainee on the flimsy allegation of “a high degree of probability” that “the offender poses an unacceptable risk of seriously harming the community by committing” what the bill classifies as “a serious violent or sexual offence.”

Clearly, by its spokesperson’s boast, the government is not waiting for a court to pass judgment on individuals, even by that arbitrary test. This amounts to punishment for a thought crime, based on an accusation of what the person might do in the future, not on what they have actually done.

The other bill is a no less far-reaching operation to evade two other recent High Court rulings that outlawed powers legislated in 2015 by the previous Coalition government with Labor’s assistance. That legislation allowed the home affairs minister to strip dual citizens of their Australian citizenship for allegedly committing acts deemed to “repudiate” their “allegiance” to Australia.

Last week, in partnership with the Coalition, the Labor government rammed the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 through the House of Representatives in a single day and is demanding that the Senate rubberstamp it by this Thursday.

That is despite the vast implications of stripping someone of their citizenship, which even one of the High Court judges described as a punishment amounting to “civil death.” Without citizenship, no other political or civil right currently exists, including to vote, reside, travel and not be detained without trial, and the same goes for access to employment, health and welfare services.

In two cases in 2022 and 2023, known as Alexander and Benbrika, the High Court overturned parts of the 2015 legislation that blatantly violated the limited protection of the colonial-era 1901 Constitution.

This constitution contains no bill of rights whatsoever. But it contains a formal separation of judicial and executive powers. That essentially forbids most forms of punishment, which includes cancellation of citizenship, from being imposed without a court order, except in wartime.

Labor’s bill hands vague and politically-loaded powers to judges. Acting on a government application, they will determine whether a person’s “serious offences” have “repudiated their allegiance” to Australia by repudiating “Australian values.”

These values are said to consist of “values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties that underpin Australian society.” Yet, the bill itself demonstrates the readiness of the ruling class and its political servants to override “democratic beliefs, rights and liberties.”

The “serious offences” listed in the bill include terrorism-related acts, advocating mutiny, treason, espionage, foreign interference and foreign incursion. These offences have the potential to be used to lay charges against opponents of any war waged by the Australian government, on the grounds, for example, that their political activities serve the interests of the enemy.

The bill’s definition of “serious offences” also applies to a broad range of offences that include preparatory conduct, that is, alleged plots or behaviour which have not resulted in a crime.

There is a threshold that a person must have been sentenced to at least three years’ imprisonment, but most of the listed offences carry sentences that can far exceed that.

The danger to democratic rights is highlighted by threats that have been made to charge people with crimes, such as “giving material support” to terrorism for opposing the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Accusations have been made that denouncing the massacres of Palestinians constitutes assisting Hamas, which has been listed by successive governments as a “terrorist organisation” under Australia’s sweeping “counter-terrorism” legislation.

Because of the broad legal definition of terrorism, a person could lose their citizenship for supporting the right of people in Gaza to resist the Israeli onslaught. Likewise, the extensive “foreign interference” offences could cover anti-war and anti-government activists.

The government and the Coalition rode roughshod over proposed amendments in the House of Representatives last Wednesday. Independent Kylea Tink sought to raise the age of those who could lose their citizenship from 14 to 18. Another “teal” independent, Zoe Daniel, tried to have the section on “values” struck out. Both were brushed aside.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said: “It’s one of the most fundamental issues, the bedrock of democracy in this country, and we get an hour to debate it—and, as a result, someone can lose their citizenship!”

These objections only produced a doubling down. Opposition leader Peter Dutton wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last Thursday demanding that further offences be listed as “serious” in the bill, including advocating terrorism or genocide, and training with a foreign military.

Citizenship-cancellation powers are being used with little or no media coverage. According to figures released under Freedom of Information legislation by the Home Affairs Department last year, 59 people have had their citizenship revoked by governments since 2007, when the first cancellation powers were introduced.

So far, citizenship-stripping legislation has been restricted to dual citizens—those holding citizenship of another country. But that covers millions of Australians in an increasingly diverse population. Moreover, the High Court rulings do not legally prevent any extension to sole citizens.

German government prepares huge social cuts

Peter Schwarz


Following the Supreme Court judgement ruling the climate fund to be unconstitutional, which has torn a billion-euro hole in the federal budget, the government is preparing social cuts on a massive scale. Health, education and housing are to be gutted to pay for the horrendous levels of armaments spending and billions in gifts to the rich.

Robert Habeck, Olaf Scholz and Christian Lindner [Photo by Bundesregierug / Denzel]

Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Social Democrat, SPD), Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) and Finance Minister Christian Lindner (Liberal Democrat, FDP) have been negotiating behind closed doors since Sunday afternoon on how to plug the hole. Scholz therefore returned from a trip to the Middle East a day earlier than planned and Habeck cancelled a planned visit to the World Climate Conference in Dubai. By the time the cabinet meets on Wednesday, the tripartite group wants to present an agreement in principle so that the 2024 budget can be passed this year. However, it is questionable whether this will succeed.

The Supreme Court sent a political signal with its ruling on November 15. It has become the ultimate judge in budgetary matters, which are traditionally the prerogative of parliament in democratic states. Based on the so-called debt brake, which the grand coalition of the SPD and Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) had jointly enshrined in the constitution in 2009, it declared the supplementary budget for 2021, which the Bundestag (parliament) had passed retroactively, to be unconstitutional and null and void.

As a result, the Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF), which finances climate-friendly technologies in the steel industry, battery and computer chip factories, the modernisation of the railways and numerous other projects, is missing €60 billion. These projects must now be cancelled or financed directly from the budget through savings elsewhere.

However, the judgement not only affects the climate fund. Some of the federal government’s 29 special funds, which together amount to €870 billion, are also affected. This applies in particular to the €200 billion Economic Stabilisation Fund (WSF), used to subsidise gas and electricity prices, among other things, which have risen as a result of the sanctions against Russia. In addition, there are similar special funds operating in the federal states.

The Supreme Court has also made clear that it will keep a close eye on the federal government’s budget policy in future. The judgement states that it is subject to “full supreme court review” as to whether an extraordinary emergency situation exists. The Bundestag can decide on such an emergency situation so that the government can circumvent the debt limit.

The Supreme Court judgement means one thing above all: the government must squeeze the billions it is spending on arming the military, financing the war in Ukraine, subsidising large corporations and similar projects even more brutally out of working people than it already has.

The current draft budget already provides for the most severe social cuts in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. Measured against inflation, the real budget is set to fall by 11.8 percent. The healthcare budget alone has already been cut by three-quarters compared to 2022, from €64.4 billion to €16.2 billion. The education budget has been reduced by 5.4 percent and housing by 5.1 percent. These plans are now to be vastly overshadowed.

The Supreme Court is acting as the direct mouthpiece of big business and the rich, who have been demanding this for a long time. It is only “independent” in formal terms, as it is not bound by instructions from the government. Politically, however, it is anything but independent. The two judges who had a decisive influence on the ruling, rapporteur Sibylle Kessal-Wulf and Peter Müller, were both nominated for office by the CDU/CSU, which filed a lawsuit against the supplementary budget. Müller was CDU state premier of Saarland from 1999 to 2011 before moving to Karlsruhe as a supreme court judge.

Although the judgement is causing difficulties for the federal coalition, it is by no means inconvenient as it is also determined to intensify the attacks on workers’ incomes and social benefits. Now it can appeal to an “independent” authority, the Supreme Court.

The SPD, which has been a member of the federal government for 25 years with one interruption and heads the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, is responsible for the “Hartz IV” welfare and labour “reforms,” which worsened welfare provisions and employment protections, increased the retirement age to 67 and carried out numerous other social attacks. As a result of its policies, the number of poor and low-wage workers has reached record levels. Now, together with the FDP and the Greens, the SPD is initiating a new stage of social cuts. The sums involved in the budget give an idea of their dimensions.

The government has adopted a supplementary budget for the current year that exceeds the permitted debt ceiling by €44.8 billion. To make this possible, the Bundestag is to declare an extraordinary emergency for 2023, citing the energy crisis and the costs of reconstruction following the flood disaster in the Ahr valley two years ago.

The finance minister has ruled out the possibility of another declaration of an extraordinary emergency for the coming year. According to Lindner, €17 billion would then have to be saved in the core budget. Other estimates assume much higher sums. According to the Federal Audit Office, the government will have a shortfall of €48.5 billion in the coming year. To make up for this, 8 percent of all expenditure would have to be cut or refinanced.

The government and opposition categorically rule out increasing taxes on the incomes and assets of the rich, which have been growing steadily for decades. The government will also not cut defence spending, which will amount to over €89 billion in the coming year, including ancillary budgets. Chancellor Scholz has just promised Ukraine a doubling of annual military aid to €8 billion.

The government will also hardly touch the expenditure summarised under the collective term “subsidies.” On the one hand, there are powerful lobbies behind them—such as the tax exemption for aviation fuel (€8.4 billion) and diesel (€8.2 billion) and the concessions for large industrial electricity consumers (€13.6 billion).

The abolition of the commuter allowance (€6 billion) would hit workers with a long journey to work particularly hard. The government has already stopped the electricity and gas price brakes (€6.3 billion), which will further increase electricity and energy costs for private households.

According to Scholz, the government intends to maintain the promised subsidies from the climate fund, some of which are simply trade war measures. Here, €19 billion is earmarked for the promotion of heat pumps and solar roofs, €4 billion in subsidies for the chip industry, €3 billion for hydrogen projects and €2 billion for charging stations.

The government, however, will not touch the interest payments to banks. At 8.7 percent, they are the third-largest item in the federal budget and have exploded in the last two years due to rising interest rates—from €4 billion in 2021 to €40 billion in 2023.

Instead, social spending is at the centre of the savings efforts, accounting for 42 percent of the core budget at €185 billion. Pensions account for the largest share of this.

Representatives of the CDU/CSU and FDP are already calling for massive cuts to basic child benefits, Bürgergeld (a form of social assistance) and pensions. The SPD is still reluctant, but everyone knows that the party of Hartz IV and the Agenda 2010 cuts programme is prepared to do so.

Finance Minister Lindner always mentions the social budget first when asked about possible cuts. Baden-Württemberg’s state Finance Minister Danyal Bayaz (Greens) has questioned the mothers’ pension (€19 billion) and paying pensions at age 63 (€13 billion).

Bavaria’s Minister President Markus Söder (CSU) called for the increase in Bürgergeld planned for January to be postponed by one year and completely rescheduled. Refugees and asylum seekers, including those from Ukraine, should no longer receive Bürgergeld at all. CDU leader Friedrich Merz expressed similar views.

The wage settlements in the public sector, railways and postal services, which are far below the level of inflation thanks to the help of Verdi and the other trade unions, also serve to pass on the costs of militarism and the enrichment of the wealthy to the working class.