China did not convene its so-called “Third Plenum” meeting in the fall of 2023 and has not yet scheduled a date for the eagerly awaited plenary session. That is a “pretty big deal”, according to Stephen Roach, a senior fellow at Yale Law School — who says this may be a sign the country is struggling to find solutions to the challenges it is faced with.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has utilized the plenum gatherings to unveil a plethora of reforms to establish the tone for his leadership, and while not all of those policies have been executed, they conveyed a message about the country’s future, Roach conveyed to CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Monday.

“The failure to take advantage of that opportunity at a time like we have today in China, which is actually a much more serious set of challenges that China faces, I think, you know, indicates the fact that they may have run out of imaginative solutions to tough problems,” Roach said.

China is grappling with an array of issues, not least economically. Defying expectations, the world’s second-largest economy has struggled to regain momentum following the coronavirus pandemic.

This encompasses the country’s real estate sector, which has been in disarray as construction projects remain unfinished and developers grapple to make ends meet. Recent data has hinted at an economic deceleration, which coupled with persistent deflation and a sluggish stock market has left many market participants pondering whether to invest in China’s economy.

Other challenges encompass China’s aging population and productivity, Roach pointed out.

“China’s got an aging society and it’s got productivity issues and it needs more productivity growth to offset the loss of workers and how are they going to do it?”

“Xi Jinping has been talking about you know new models and new sources of production, but we need to see something more specific, and the lack of a third plenum to give us that specificity I think is troublesome,” Roach remarked.

The Chinese Embassy in London did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

What is China’s ‘Third Plenum’?

While Chinese authorities have announced some measures to bolster the country in recent months, including cuts to the benchmark five-year loan rate that mortgages are often pegged to, observers have said the measures are not far-reaching enough.

China’s “Third Plenum” meetings typically see senior party officials come together in the fall around a year after new leadership takes office, or current leaders are confirmed. A meeting would therefore have been expected to take place in the last quarter of 2023.

Plenum meetings have been a hallmark of China’s political system, with seven of them usually taking place during the five-year term of the ruling Central Committee, which is elected by the National Congress. Each meeting tends to cover a specific theme, with the third one typically focusing heavily on economic issues.

Observers often take clues about the potential path ahead for the government and what its priorities are from the plenum meetings. At times, statements released following the plenum meetings have been deemed as too vague, with a lack of concrete action plans.

On other occasions, however, they have been viewed as economic turning points, with policies targeting growth and expansion setting the scene for years to come. This has raised questions about the delay of the 2023 plenum amid the sluggish state of China’s economy.

China’s annual parliamentary meetings, which cover topics such as government policy plans and targets and are known as the “Two Sessions,” begin this week. Investors are paying close attention to any signals about economic stimulus that may come out of the meetings.

In a move that broke with traditional Chinese political procedure, Beijing on Monday announced that Premier Li Qiang would not be giving a press conference at this year’s parliamentary meeting. They would also not happen during the remainder of the congressional term — which is set to last three more years.

World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiators remained deadlocked on major reforms despite prolonged talks in Abu Dhabi, reflecting a prioritization of national interests over collective responsibility, according to some delegates.

The negotiations, which ran overtime, concluded on Saturday after five days without significant progress on crucial issues such as agriculture, fisheries, and others. However, there was a two-year extension of the moratorium on imposing tariffs on e-commerce data transmissions, offering some relief to businesses.

“Achieving consensus on critical matters like fisheries and harmful subsidization, crucial for the WTO’s mandate, proved elusive due to a lack of willingness to compromise,” remarked a senior European official. By the fifth day of the ministerial meeting, most ministers had departed, with only India’s trade minister Piyush Goyal, and European Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis remaining until the conclusion.

Dombrovskis expressed disappointment over the lack of consensus on fisheries, agriculture, and broader reforms, and pointed fingers at India for the impasse.

“Agreements were within reach, supported by an overwhelming majority of members, but ultimately blocked by a handful of countries – sometimes just one,” he stated. Goyal, who stood firm on these issues, appeared jovial, exchanging pleasantries outside a meeting room late on Friday as delegates congregated near a coffee stand.

India pressed for a longstanding promised permanent resolution on public holdings of agriculture stocks, a stance opposed by some developed nations. “We have not lost out on anything. I go back happy and satisfied,” Goyal remarked to reporters as the talks approached their conclusion.

Delegates characterized the discussions as intense and contentious at times, yet WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala attempted to inject a positive note into the challenging week, stating during a closing session, “We’ve worked hard this week, we have achieved some important things and we have not managed to complete others.”

Initially resistant, India and South Africa opposed extending a moratorium on digital trade tariffs, despite widespread support from most governments and businesses. However, they later relented following an appeal from the host country, the United Arab Emirates.

Past WTO ministerial meetings have faced similar setbacks, and this year’s negotiations, hosted in the oil-rich Gulf state of the United Arab Emirates, have underscored divisions among some of the world’s leading economies.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s trade chief, Katherine Tai, expressed concerns in an interview with Reuters late on Thursday that the failure of talks could exacerbate fragmentation within the BRICS group.

India and China, key members of the BRICS nations, have been at odds on crucial issues, particularly regarding investment. India’s commerce minister joined the negotiations two days after they commenced, following the departure of his Chinese counterpart from Abu Dhabi.

Pacific island nations voiced grievances during the talks, feeling marginalized and overlooked by major powers, arguing that proposed measures fell short in safeguarding fish stocks. However, Fiji’s delegate received a standing ovation at the close of the ceremony after urging countries to endorse future negotiations on fisheries. Under Biden, the U.S. has reaffirmed its support for global trade and multilateral organizations like the WTO.

Nonetheless, negotiators remained wary of the possibility of former President Donald Trump, who disrupted the multilateral system, winning a second term in the U.S. presidential election in November. John Denton, head of the International Chamber of Commerce, cautioned that the lackluster outcomes from the meeting should prompt a reevaluation of the role of trade in society, both locally and globally.

He emphasized, “No country stands to gain from a weakened multilateral trading system.” Earlier in the week, even the formal acceptance of completed negotiations on improving investment was stymied, reflecting the requirement for consensus among all 164 members of the organization.

A consensus on significant agreements would have bolstered the UAE’s standing as a global intermediary, aligning with its current emphasis on multilateralism and dialogue, a departure from its assertive foreign policy stance of a decade ago.

A federal judge declined AstraZeneca’s legal challenge against Medicare’s newfound authority to negotiate prices for specific high-cost prescription medications with manufacturers.

The ruling marks another legal victory for the Biden administration amidst an ongoing legal clash with the pharmaceutical sector regarding the constitutionality of these pricing negotiations. Central to the Inflation Reduction Act, these negotiations represent a pivotal policy endeavor aimed at enhancing medication affordability for seniors, potentially impacting pharmaceutical companies’ profits.

Although this ruling favors the administration, the legal battle is far from concluded, with manufacturers indicating their intent to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. The judge’s decision arrives just before a critical deadline, as manufacturers of the initial ten selected drugs for negotiation, including AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, have until Saturday to respond to Medicare’s initial price proposals for their treatments. Final negotiated prices for this first batch of drugs are slated to take effect in 2026.

In a comprehensive 47-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware highlighted that AstraZeneca failed to pinpoint a constitutionally protected property that would be jeopardized by the pricing negotiations.

He emphasized that AstraZeneca’s engagement in the Medicare market is voluntary, dismissing the notion that the company’s desire or anticipation to vend its drugs to the government at previous higher prices establishes a protected property interest.

Connolly underscored the significant incentive for manufacturers to engage in price negotiations with the government, given the expansive market encompassing more than 49 million Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. He refuted AstraZeneca’s contention that participation amounted to coercion, emphasizing it as a discretionary economic opportunity.

In response, AstraZeneca expressed disappointment with the court’s ruling and its potential adverse effects on patient access to future life-saving medications. The company indicated it is assessing its options moving forward.

AstraZeneca’s lawsuit argued that the negotiations would compel the sale of medications at substantial discounts, below market rates, violating due process under the Fifth Amendment, which mandates reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use.

This ruling adds to the setbacks faced by the pharmaceutical industry, which has lodged numerous lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of these negotiations. It follows a recent decision by a federal judge in Texas to dismiss a separate lawsuit contesting the pricing talks. Another federal judge in Ohio previously denied a preliminary injunction sought by the Chamber of Commerce, a prominent lobbying entity, to halt the negotiations before October 1.

While some cases remain pending, on March 7, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Johnson & Johnson will present their oral arguments to a federal judge in New Jersey during the same hearing.

The debt burden of the United States has been increasing at a faster rate in recent months, with approximately $1 trillion being added every 100 days.

According to data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the nation’s debt surpassed $34 trillion on January 4th, after briefly exceeding this milestone on December 29th. This marks a significant acceleration, considering it reached $33 trillion on September 15, 2023, and $32 trillion on June 15, 2023. Before this, the journey from $31 trillion to $32 trillion took about eight months.

The U.S. debt, representing the funds borrowed by the federal government to cover its operational expenses, currently stands at nearly $34.4 trillion as of Wednesday. Michael Hartnett, an investment strategist at Bank of America, predicts that this pattern of a $1 trillion increase every 100 days will persist, with the debt likely moving from $34 trillion to $35 trillion.

“Little wonder ‘debt debasement’ trades closing in on all-time highs, i.e. gold $2077/oz, bitcoin $67734,” he wrote in a note Thursday.

Spot gold is currently hovering around $2,084 an ounce, while bitcoin was recently around $61,443. The cryptocurrency in February closed out its best month since 2020, briefly trading above $64,000 on Wednesday before pulling back. Inflows into crypto funds are on course for a “blowout year,” with an annualized inflow of $44.7 billion so far this year, Hartnett noted.

Moody’s Investors Service lowered its rating outlook on the U.S. government to negative from stable in November due to the rising risks of the country’s fiscal strength.

“In the context of higher interest rates, without effective fiscal policy measures to reduce government spending or increase revenues,” the agency said. “Moody’s expects that the US’ fiscal deficits will remain very large, significantly weakening debt affordability.”