The worry is not so much that Trump is declared guilty, or innocent, but that in the Republican primaries that follow the court case and in the court of public opinion, a large number of Americans declare him to be their champion.

It is not impossible that Trump is sent to prison and wins the 2024 presidency from there (to my knowledge, the US constitution does not prohibit anyone who has been convicted, indicted or in jail, from running and becoming president, though constitutional lawyers and potentially Congress might try to use the 14^th amendment to bar him from holding office’.

As always, the only winners will be the lawyers, and perhaps the media (Twitter, or X, will soon allow paid political ads).

My interest is what the reaction of the world beyond America could be to its potential descent towards a deep civil schism and, if opinion polls are to be believed, a presidential candidate who has vandalized all of the sacred, historical tents of American democracy. A victory for Trump is one thing, but an American public that detonates the foundations of the US is quite something else. We would lose America as we know it.

I could write reams on how bad this could all be, and others surely will. The relevant point is that with March 4th set as the date for the Trump trial, other countries, notably the autocracies, are already preparing for a difficult period for American democracy (as are many in Washington), and the possibility of a highly controversial year in American politics.

Some European leaders like Emmanuel Macron, who has plenty of experience with Trump, have already flagged the risks of the above scenario, but other European states like Ireland are so deeply tied to America (last weekend Notre Dame played the Navy in an American football game in Dublin) that the shock would be enormous.

European leaders have already contended with Trump and indeed, with a range of policy surprises from the Biden White House (IRA Act, AUKUS) but in general working relations between Washington and Paris/Brussels/Berlin are good now.

In general, Europe has risen (slowly) to meet the challenge of autocrats (European foreign, security, enlargement and industrial policy have changed dramatically in response to Russia), though it could be all the more decisive with Viktor Orban. ‘Losing America’ as we know it would be chilling, but some governments and policy experts in Europe are beginning to brainstorm this possibility and there is a long list of ‘to dos’.

Autocratic economies are faring much worse than democratic ones, a trend that highlights the first risk of a popular wave of support for Trump, that its consequences could lead to a loss of faith in US financial assets. Imagine if Trump declared that the US had no obligations to the overseas holders of its debt, and or ordered the Navy to occupy Greenland.

The euro and European government debt might likely become more of a safe haven asset, some wealthy Americans might move to Europe and the UK, and the difficulty of running economic and foreign policy in the US may well mean a period of heightened uncertainty is ahead.

Geopolitically, Europe may want to pre-empt some of the risks associated with this scenario by eradicating as best as it can Russian influence within European countries like Germany and Austria, and in my view should take a much more severe stance on Hungary’s government. Poland, which holds elections in October will be a vital cog in this setup, as will the Baltic states. A more aggressive stance would be to surge military support for Ukraine, across different domains (cyber, financial, hard weapons).

Operationally, Europe also needs to accelerate and deepen the implementation of its Economic Security Act and to bolster it with much greater, and more ruthless resourcing of banking and payments oversight. The coming US election will make the risk focused EU AI Act look sensible, especially as the use of AI in social media and politics is concerned (though the Act won’t be in force by then).

In this respect, even the threat of another Trump presidency could be the forcing element that defines the multipolar era, when Europe finally realizes that it must rely on its own resources – as it is increasingly doing. There would likely be little change in Europe’s relationship with China, which is based on ‘de-risking’ rather than ‘de-coupling’.

If this scenario comes to pass, we will badly miss America as we know it, but there is no excuse for this outcome being a surprise.

Have a great week ahead

Mike

If you are still on holidays or about to pop off for a few days before the ‘back to school’ period, and are looking for a good book to read – perhaps one that titillates with stories of abbots cavorting with young ladies- then I can heartily recommend The Decameron, which does all that, and more.

Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron was one of the first literary masterpieces of the Renaissance. It is set in a villa outside Florence, at the height of the Bubonic Plague. Seven women and three men flee the Plague, ensconce themselves in a villa and spend ten days flirting, philosophising and debating. It originally came to my mind in May 2020, the third month of the COVID lockdown as I searched for templates for what the post-COVID world might look like.

The Black Death radically changed Europe, largely through the demographic effect that a 30% reduction in population had – in England nearly 40% of land changed hands, a shortage of labourers meant a rise in wages and innovation in farming methods and produce.

Rising wages for those who survived the Black Death altered the social mix (Walter Scheidel’s The Great Leveler is very good here) to the extent that the wealthy begun to dress more extravagantly in order to distinguish their social standing and in this were helped by regulation (i.e. England’s Sumptuory Laws 1363).

The Black Death also upset the geopolitical map of Europe (similar, much earlier plagues like the Athens Plague and Antonine Plague had profound geopolitical effects), led to trade and banking revolutions and spurred the rise of cities like Madrid and Genoa, and the demise of others like Winchester.

COVID has also changed many things. In May 2020 I thought that if there was to be a post COVID ‘Decameron’ thesis it might revolve around at least three elements – a return of pricing power to workers and corresponding uptick in consumer spending, a broad based improvement in human development and a renaissance in culture and technology.

To tackle the first one, COVID has most certainly disturbed developed world labour markets – where initially retention payments have distorted markets giving way to a very strong labour market, such that it is untypical for unemployment to be as low in face of aggressive interest rates hikes. One sign of this is the welcome reversal of the ‘she-cession’ where proportionately more women than men lost jobs during the COVID period, but female workforce participation in the US is now at a record high.

The overall impression is that workers, especially skilled workers, have more pricing power. The notion of working from home has certainly granted many more ‘liberty’ in how they work and has led to transformations in real estate markets, work practices and eventually I hope, better infrastructure for rural areas. In terms of wages, over the past three years nominal wages have risen handsomely, but parsing recent work by both the ECB and IMF, real wages have not risen much across the developed world. At this point however with inflation ebbing (but expectations of inflation remaining high) we may well be on the cusp of an upward wage spiral.

The second element of the Decameron thesis is the extent to which the COVID crisis will usher in a trend towards improving human development – in developed and developing countries. The components of human development – from life expectancy, to education and healthcare, to economic development – came to the fore during the coronavirus crisis and the value of good, accessible healthcare systems has become abundantly clear. I might even stretch the point to say that well educated leaders, who take science seriously, were better performers than those who did not (Bolsonaro, Trump, Boris).

Having attended a lecture at Trinity College on Monday by Angus Deaton and Anne Case, whose focus is (famously) on morbidity and mortality, it is hard to be convinced that human development is advancing in the US (for instance there is a stark difference in death rates and quality of life between well-educated and less well educated Americans). Life expectancy in the US has dropped precipitously, a development that I think is only matched by the fall in Russian life expectancy in ‘fall of communism’ aftermath.

What is concerning is that there is a broad picture of falling human development. In the two years after the COVID pandemic for which there is data, the UN’s HDI indicator fell for the first time in its history (since 1990), with 90% of countries recording a drop in their HDI score. This reverses the overall rise in human development over the past five years. What is also a concern, is that to my reading, the idea of human development as a policy pillar seems to be absent from political debates in the major economies.

The final aspect of the Decameron thesis I want to touch on is the extent to which there is a renaissance in ‘the way we live now’.

AI, quantum computing, the space economy and bio-engineering are now coming into the public domain, and the strategic competition between the US, China and Europe means that these and other sectors like green energy will receive a huge funding boost, though strategic competition between the regions means that these innovations will develop in a fractioned way.

What is also striking is the frivolity with which some actors invest capital. Last week India managed to land an unmanned spacecraft on the south pole of the moon, for a project cost of USD 75mn, USD 15 mn less than the price Saudi football club Al-Hillal spent on Neymar.

The wealthy should be careful how they spend their money. The idea of wealthy people secluding themselves in a villa to avoid a highly contagious disease is as unpopular today as it was in the 14^th century. Again, as Walter Scheidel has pointed out, the Bubonic Plague was eventually a leveller of inequality in the 14^th century though plenty of periods of unrest (La Jacquerie in France in 1358 and the Peasants Revolt in 1381 in England).Social and political volatility may well be a feature of our future.

 Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Forecasting, as they say, is difficult, especially about the future. Two recent examples spring to mind. First, the DGSE (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure) or the French secret service was lauding itself that it had spotted and followed the Wagner rebellion in Russia, but it seems it badly missed the other Wagner rebellion (against French interests) in Niger.

Second, tacking away from the DGSE to DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) models, which are the basis of how policy makers try to frame and forecast economic progression, the Bank of England has slapped itself on the wrist and called upon Ben Bernanke to lead a study into the poor forecasting ability of the Bank, which missed the 11% rise in inflation over the course of the past eighteen months (19% rise in food prices) and has scrambled to raise interest rates in order to compensate.

There is an element of irony here as some ten years ago Mervyn King the former governor led a similar inquiry into the monetary policy framework of Sweden’s Riksbank. To be quite fair to the Bank, which has long been regarded as a standard bearer in the monetary policy community, its governance framework encourages such a review and it would be a very good idea if the European Central Bank would carry out a similar, necessary post-mortem. Instead, I suspect it will carry on, in the hope that the European public have not noticed its blundering.

With those brave words, I acknowledge that I also get things wrong, from time to time. For the moment, I am happy to stand by the prognostics in the year ahead outlook ‘War by Other Means’ I penned with David Skilling last December. The central tenet of the note is the way in which the strategic rivalry between the US and China will shape military, industrial and commercial interests.

Surprisingly, the big moves in this domain have come from the EU, with its AI Act and EU Economic Security Policy. The other theme is inflation and the way in which governments are dealing with it. Bond markets are decidedly unimpressed with the view that inflation is dead and yields (US ten year) are rising to levels where they have previously provoked stress in the economy.

In this respect, one prediction for the second half of this year is that we will hear more about debt sustainability – which I define as the ability of companies, households or governments to meet their debt payment obligations without help (through assistance, default or forbearance).

That the US government now spends more on debt repayments than defence, shows the toll of indebtedness, and its geopolitical implications. I have written about the rise in indebtedness for some time and have a theory that upon the centenary of the word debt conference of 1924, we may need another ‘conference’ in 2024 (my forecasting might be a little off). I am going to spend a good deal more time talking about debt in the coming months.

Another deepening of an existing theme to watch for the remainder of 2023 is the tension between democracy and populism, which in many countries is a close-run thing. As a general trend Europe (except the UK which looks ready to move centre-left) is moving to the right, and in those countries where this move is sticking, politicians are carefully navigating the issues upon which to sound ‘populist’ (identity) and those where it is less advisable (economy). The risk is that their guile induces the public to sleepwalk into a state of mind that permits the enfeebling of laws and institutions.

In the US, the alarming element is that, according to opinion polls, a large group of people are prepared to support Donald Trump (who willingly denigrates democracy) and Ron DeSanctis (who witlessly does so), in apparent disregard for the withering consequences for America’s institutions and reputation (this may have been one factor that prompted the Fitch downgrade of US debt). By the end of the year the 2024 presidential campaign will be in full swing, and the commentariat will devote endless pages to the prospect of Trump II.

As a final word, a recurring theme this year has been the ways in which artificial intelligence will disrupt our economies and lives (i.e. One Man and His Dog). As the year develops, I expect to see at least two sub-trends materialize. The first will be the race to set the rules, regulations. and possibly the institutional architecture around how AI is used, and here I think the UK is in an interesting position, if only its government knew how to ‘play’ this.

The other is that as the weight of high interest rates on economies builds, and activity levels falters, there will likely be more chatter as to how AI can replace humans and make companies more efficient. My One Man and His Dog theory is that AI can help rather than replace skilled humans, and that there is plenty of room for humans to work with skilled, intelligent non-humans (dogs or robots). The fear that AI could displace workers may actually be a positive force in pushing a debate on how to frame its use, notably in China where unemployment and diminishing productivity are another issue to watch.

For the time being, granted the holiday period, the ‘Levelling on Sunday’ will pause for two weeks, returning on Sunday the 27^th August.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike 

Two of the key, recent headline stories have related to climate, and central banking. We cannot escape the dramatic evidence of climate damage across the world, and recurring high temperature records. In central banking, both the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve raised rates last week in attempts to cool economies (inflation). If they succeed, they might even temper the heatwaves that grip many parts of the earth.

What is interesting about climate damage and central banking is that since the early 2000’s, both have embarked on trend changes. As the Hadley Centre database shows, excess world average temperatures have broken away from the levels of the past one hundred and fifty years, and now the average annual temperature of the earth’s land is about 1.5% higher than the long-term average. Similarly, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the balance sheets of the major central banks, notably the Federal Reserve, expanded dramatically as central banks enacted quantitative easing (QE) programs, even more so through the COVID crisis.

It is tempting to say that the liquidity provided by QE programs provided the fuel to drive climate damage. I am not sure that this is the case in a strict econometric sense, though QE has enabled a lot of poor or suboptimal investment (and possibly excess consumption). It is correct, I think, to say that both the existence of QE (as a sign that economies and financial systems were too fragile and required monetary morphine) and manifest climate damage, are warning signs that the world economy is reaching the limits of modus operandi, and possibly its very existence.

In particular, the contribution of QE was to buy ‘peace’. To paper over cracks or deficiencies in financial systems (the euro-zone), to create a wealth effect (for the wealthy) and to flatten the implications of tail-risk events – from the initial Russian invasion of Crimea to most notably COVID. As a form of ‘glue’ that kept the de-globalizing world together it was a success, but it created a deep dependency and dulled politicians and corporate leaders to rising risk factors.

What is new is that not only is QE in retreat (central bank balance sheets have again recently begun to edge backwards), but the policy framework behind QE is beginning to change. There were two new developments last week.

One was that the Bank of England, long the benchmark for other central banks, finds its credibility dented across various areas. Its forecasting ability is now subject to a post-mortem, led by Ben Bernanke, because according to comments from some members of the monetary policy committee, the banks forecasting models work well on the past, but are not suited to the future.

More alarmingly, in accounting terms, the Bank has made losses of over GBP 150 bn on its QE led market interventions. I am surprised that populists in the UK have not made more of this (they are perhaps more occupied with NatWest), though in Italian politics there are now frequent verbal assaults on the ECB.

Another notable move is the Bank of Japan’s (BoJ) attempt to loosen its control on the long end of the Japanese bond market (‘yield curve control’), which has so far not detonated any major volatility across bond markets. The BoJ is significant in at least two respects. First, it owns just over half of the entire Japanese bond market, and secondly it has been the last hold-out in the trend towards monetary policy normalization.

The upshot of all of this is that in a world where inflation has been curbed but not controlled, the consequences of higher rates will become increasingly obvious, at first in specific sections of the real estate market, and within some household segments. There has so far been a near miraculous absence of credit risk internationally, but I find it hard to see how this can continue, and there is plenty of scope for markets to reprice this.

Central banks, when they prosecuted QE, were the indispensable friends of the political classes – effectively removing the urgency to deal with pressing issues (reform of the euro-zone and national economic structures for instance). Now, the consequences of their (necessary) actions makes life more difficult for incumbent politicians (witness the UK housing market).

I expect that in the political economic landscape, central bankers will be less and less popular, at least until they have to ‘rescue’ the world when the next crisis arrives. A healthy development might be that they stop stretching their mandates to encompass policy topics like climate change (Lagarde) and unemployment (Yellen) that governments should and need to deal with, and that way we might get somewhere on climate damage control. 

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Last Thursday the UK held three by-elections, notably one in Uxbridge to replace the disgraced former prime minister Boris Johnson. While the Tories held this seat (and lost two others to Labour and the Lib Dems), it was reassuring that the ‘ interplanetary space warrior’ candidate ‘Count Binface’ won more votes than UKIP and than Jeremy Corbyn’s older brother Piers. What was even more encouraging was the fact the new Labour MP for Selby is a 25 year old.

It is a welcome sign in a world where political systems, notably in the two main Anglo-Saxon countries, are becoming ossified – that is concentrated, perhaps mired, around a two-party system, and around age-old political dynasties and networks.

In other countries, ossification has taken hold in different ways. In France for example it will, in the light of recent events, surprise readers that nearly half of the members of the Assemblée Nationale are first time deputies (it was a remarkable 75% in 2017) and they are collectively younger than previous political generations (seven years younger than the 2007 batch). Yet, in France, the ossification occurs lower down in the political system (mayors) and in the running of the state.

However, like Germany and a range of other European countries, there is a fluidity and even Darwinism in the party system, with old parties (French Socialists) being easily culled and new ones springing up. One to watch is the resurgent Vlaams Belang party in Belgium (they are fighting for Flemish independence and might just be the end of Belgium as we know it).

The idea of new parties springing up, and in some cases spanning borders is something I had devoted a few pages to in The Levelling, though arguably it is one trend that has not quite materialized in the way I expected.

For instance, I had expected to see a coordinated, cross-nation ‘Heimat Party’ (‘old values’, right wing) across northern countries, but instead these parties are currently emerging in southern European countries (watch Vox’s performance in Spain this weekend). Notably there is international coordination on the right – nefariously between Marion Marechal Le pen and Steve Bannon, and slightly less so between Giorgia Meloni and Mike Pompeo.

In the UK and US, there have been several attempts to set up new parties. Some years ago I sat in on a few meetings of United for Change, a new centrist party in the UK that was well funded, had an impressive list of potential candidates but never got off the ground, much like Chukka Umunna’s Change UK.

This month in the US, a new organization called ‘No Label’ has been launched, with great promises of policies and new presidential candidates to be announced in coming weeks, though what has so far been communicated is unsatisfying.

In the US, the prospect of another Biden vs Trump contest should energise new candidates. Some of these will simply come forward to plant the seeds of future national careers and others should be genuine contenders. In our November 5th 2022 note we stated ‘that the really interesting political figures are found at the mayoral and gubernational levels – Mike Duggan in Detroit and Francis Suarez in Miami’. True to form, Suarez has recently announced a presidential campaign and is one to watch for the future.

To those who desire to break the ossification of political systems in the UK and US, there may be hope ahead. In the US, there are rumours and hope that the CEO of JP Morgan Jamie Dimon might run for President. While I have no insight into whether this is possible, Dimon has enough name recognition, money and support from the business and media establishment to mount a credible ‘Unite America’ presidential campaign. One to watch.

Then in the UK, back to Shelby. It is very likely that a general election in the UK (summer 2024?) could elevate Labour to power, potentially in a coalition with the Lib Dems. This might in time lead to a change in the electoral system, away from the first past the post system and towards proportional representation. This could be Labour’s contribution to revolutionizing British politics, it would allow smaller parties to thrive, likely provoke a split in the Tory party, and usher in an age of consensus built, coalition governments.

Count Binface would approve.

Have a great week ahead

Mike 

Often a little stress can sharpen the mind. A recent journey, by train, from Paris to Oxford was disrupted by first a cancelled train and then predictably, a delayed one. This complicated an otherwise pleasant day because I was supposed to be sitting in front of my laptop participating in the aperture 4X4 discussion forum on AI (artificial intelligence). Instead, I found myself nearly hanging out of the window of the train trying to get good phone reception as I spoke at the forum.

In order to compensate for the poor connection I felt obliged to say something colourful and interesting, and thus put forward the view that the best comparison for understanding how humanity can use AI is the tv programme ‘One Man and his Dog’.

One Man and his Dog was a very popular, though quirky, BBC programme based on sheepdog trials across Great Britain and Ireland, which at its peak in the 1980’s had some 8 million viewers (still running on BBC Alba). In very simple terms it is a sheepdog trial, with farmers herding sheep with the help of their sheep dog, or in technical terms, humans performing a complex task, under pressure, with the aid of a trained, intelligent non-human.

While the comparison of AI with ‘One Man and his Dog’ was initially speculative, the more I think about it the more I consider it apt as a framework to understand how humans should use AI. I have not herded sheep, but imagine it can be as or more difficult as sorting data, as unlike data sheep have minds of their own. The combination of (wo)man and dog as a very productive team illustrates how the best uses of AI are beginning to emerge – by doctors, soldiers and scientists deploying AI to second guess and bolster their own decision making.

In addition, like AI, dogs can be trained to attack and defend, but while dogs make valuable companions I struggle to see how AI/robots can fulfil this function. There is a persuasive argument of how this could happen in book The LoveMakers, and in the behaviour of many people who find the metaverse an appealing place to ‘live’ (I am worried by the appearance of the LOVOT family robot in Japan and by the growing use of the AI relationship app Replika).

While dogs can sense our emotions and perhaps intuit what we are thinking, the increasingly alarming aspect of artificial intelligence is that it can determine what we are thinking. A recent edition of Nature journal described how AI can be used to analyse human brain activity, and translate this accurately into words and images.

If the analogy of sheepdogs and AI is less eccentric than readers might have initially thought, it does I hope highlight the need for society to have frameworks and rules of thumb to parse the use and impact of AI.

Economically, AI is already leading to a repricing of the role of people, like software engineers, whom it can replace, but also to a reappraisal to the training and role of those who can use it to be more productive. I suspect that such is the rate of deployment of AI that in time many of the products and solutions it creates will quickly become commoditised.

The practical aspects of this phenomenon are gathering speed – in the last week alone KPMG has announced a partnership with Microsoft to drive the use of AI in its businesses and the role of Palantir on the side of the Ukrainian military is becoming more clear. Also, actors and screenwriters in Hollywood are striking at the prospect that some of their work could be replaced by AI.

In addition in China, measures have been announced to control the use of generative AI by requiring firms producing these tools to be licensed by the government where these tools are targeted at ‘the general public’.

This move is consistent with my broad thesis that the US, EU and China will increasingly tackle new trends (notably technologies) in very different ways. America has the AI stock bubble (see Nvidia), the EU has its recent AI Act and now China is controlling the production points of generative AI.

In the US, regulators are beginning to catch up with international counterparts. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether OpenAI’s ChatGPT produces false information. More broadly, the OECD has warned of the negative effects of AI on labour markets.

My view is that if they want to see how humans and robots should work together, One Man and his Dog is a good place to start.

It is always good for the ego and the learning process to revisit bold statements written in the past. This time last year, I wrote in Democratic Twilight that ‘French democracy is in a much better place than its two Atlantic neighbours’

How do you say ‘humble pie’ in French? Humble tarte?

The eruption of two waves of violence in France in the past couple of months – one in reaction to the government (On est lá Macron! ) and the other against the state, has shattered the idea that France is calm politically, though depressingly the US and UK are still not far off the French benchmark.

Having witnessed many of the defining events in Paris in the last ten years (terror attacks, the fire at Notre Dame and many protests to name a few) the latest episode of violence is deeply frustrating. It has implicated many of the facets of French society – its mayors, police, social structure of its cities, its firefighters (tragically) and others. In particular, my frustration is directed at the extreme left to extreme right in French politics and the foreign press.

It is very tempting to spend time assessing who is at fault for this bout of violence, and to wonder how a socio-economic system that is very redistributive and that registers low levels of income inequality, and a city that is seeing massive investment in its suburbs, could prove so fragile at the edges. Many experts and policy officials are busy on this question, so I would rather pose two different ones – why do the French appear to protest so much (and indeed why do other nations not protest), and what are the longer term implications of the rioting for France and its neighbours.

One clue as to why the French appear to protest so much is that the French state is so overwhelmingly present in their lives – it does nearly everything for them. The state provides education, healthcare and pensions and cheap transport, and in most cases does a good job of. It also regulates the lives of its citizens with a fair bit of ‘fait pas ci, fait pas ça’. This relationship leaves little room for flexibility and in general is not one that is built on trust.  It is a distant but dependent relationship that provokes friction.

In this context, it is worth noting that France is running out of fiscal space. With government debt rising and state spending (%GDP) close to 60% there is little room to quell discontent with spending. France’s fiscal constraints may soon start to tell, and one way out of this might be political innovation, but perhaps not before more riots. Another alternative would be to emphatically embrace a pro-growth, reindustrialisation economic philosophy, but I don’t see this happening given it is alien to the average French policymaker’s mindset.

Changing policy mindsets is difficult in France, and Emmanuel Macron deserves credit for trying. The debate on pension reform was an attempt to ease the burden on the state, and in that sense is an attempt to ‘modernise’ France fiscally. What is distinctive about France from an international point of view is that the French right do not have strong views on the economy (there are few proponents of low taxes for instance), but tend to get excited on questions of liberty and identity.

For that reason, the recent riots play to the politic of the right (Jean-Luc Melanchon’s left-wing NUPES group has generally lost credibility in the past two weeks)

For the right at very least, the 2027 race for the Elysée has been kick-started by the riots and notably the divide between left and right will grow, with the right becoming a more crowded space.  

Having written about the rise of the far-right in last week’s note (Spode), one element I am watching of is the extent to which the main runners on the right (Ciotti, Wauquiez, Philippe) will succumb to the temptation to become more nasty on issues like identity and immigration. Michel Barnier, a normally mild-mannered politician could not resist doing so in 2022, and in the US, Ron DeSanctis has recently recorded a disgraceful anti-gay promotional video.

On the right in France, Edouard Philippe is the front runner, and during his career has shown himself to be dignified, and his patience will be tested by overly simplistic proposals from the far-right. It might be said that the great challenge for politicians for the centre-right is to try to address the multi-faceted aspects of issues like immigration in a thoughtful way, amidst a barrage of bile from the extremes of the political spectrum. 

Internationally, the images of the riots (overegged by the foreign press in my view) are damaging for France, and take the allure off its prestige and foreign policy projection. Emmanuel Macron admitted as much, saying such a spectacle would likely not have taken place in Germany.

Yet, while some countries may enjoy the cooling of France’s panache, they must also recognise that the factors that drive the protests – inflation, immigration and integration to name a few, are bubbling up in many other countries, and this weekend have scuppered the government of Mark Rutte in the Netherlands. These factors pose yet another trial in the great democratic recession.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike 

In 1940 PG Wodehouse was (as he might be) spending the summer in Le Touquet, when he found himself surrounded by German troops and interned. Naively, he agreed to be interviewed by a Nazi propaganda team about his internment, and the subsequent diffusion of this led some in England to denounce Wodehouse as a traitor. He was stoutly backed by the likes of George Orwell (who wrote an essay ‘In defence of PG Wodehouse), but Wodehouse’s denigrators left him disenchanted by England and he spent much of the rest of his life in the US.

There should have been little doubt as to where Wodehouse stood on fascism. His 1938 book ‘The Code of the Woosters’ is famous for his comic undermining of the character Spode, a black shorted fascist, most likely modelled on Oswald Mosley.

There are a few other examples of the deployment of comedy to bring fascists to earth, the best of which is Charlie Chaplin’s ‘Great Dictator’, which I strongly recommend. Then, there is the recent Putin/Lukashenko production of ‘Wagner’, which has (by their own admission) confused the best spies in the West, and drained the credibility of Russia’s dictator.

Unfortunately, that is not the end of fascists, electoral systems around the world are spewing them out. Take a few examples. While the main outcome of last week’s Greek general election in Greece was the majority that New Democracy has garnered, 12% of the seats in parliament are held by far-right parties including the badly disguised neo-nazi Golden Dawn party.

In the forthcoming Spanish election, the far-right Vox party may be crucial to the formation of a government and in German the ugly AfD is on the rise. I distinguish these groups from ‘right wing’ parties by the fact that they shamelessly cultivate links to fascists.

In this context we have to ask what is prompting the significant rise in support for the far-right, how ill it will shape national and international politics, and in the context of Wodehouse, we should not be naïve in the face of this new trend.

In Europe, the first wave of far right political support is generally understood to have come in reaction to the global financial crisis, and a group of German researchers have detailed this. Now it appears to be a reaction to immigration, inflation, identity politics and in some cases a sense of overbearing government. Many of the far right parties in Europe are generally mute on the issue of economic policy and most, while lauding family values, appear to want to make their countries unfriendly to families.

There are few if any far right parties who have entered government and left with their country improved, and in this respect the rise of the right is a concern. In recent years, their track record is Brexit and the ransacking of American democracy.

In the greater scheme of things, the rise of the right is part of the battle against liberal democracy and a marker of this is that in some countries – gay rights and women are coming under attack by the far-right.

In the near term, the political implication of the rise of the far right is that right wing and centrist parties will be tempted to move further towards the right – and this debate is accelerating in France this weekend.

Centre-right parties should however bear in mind that an important lesson from Brexit and indeed the career of Donald Trump is that the rise of the far right is often supported by their co-option by the right (i.e. the Tories enabled Nigel Farage and then became a bastion for the likes of Suella Braverman). In that respect the outcome of the forthcoming Spanish election will be interesting (in so far as the PP are willing to go into power with Vox.

Whilst the far right have typically copied the Spode approach when it comes to political theatre, a new element is that they are increasingly linked across countries. Steve Bannon has worked with Marion Marechal on a ‘school for the far-right’ and Giorgia Meloni and Mike Pompeo are close. Operationally, many far right parties use the same rhetoric, ideas, social media tactics and often have the same backers. At a far murkier level there are ties between the far right in Hungary and Greece and the underworld, and in many countries, these parties have tendrils to Russia. 

In the end, the far-right usually defeats itself, the question is whether the damage they inflict on society and the democratic process is too much, and if so how to curb them. Preventing far right parties entering the democratic process would itself be undemocratic, but they (together with mainstream politicians – I am thinking of Boris) should be subject to stricter campaign finance laws, oversight of their use of social media and full disclosure of their links to foreign states.

In a week where Jair Bolsonaro has been banned from politics for eight years, voters and parties of the centre need to react to the rise of the far right and adapt to it in the knowledge that as a movement it has created rather than solved problems.

Have a great week ahead

Mike 

‘Whatever form a new war may take, whatever part is taken in it by aviation, by gas, by the different destructive processes of modern warfare, there is one imperious necessity, and that is to prevent the violation of our territory by enemy armies. We all know the cost of invasion, with its sad procession of material ruin and moral desolation’.

In an age where we watch on the violation of Ukraine, wait to be annihilated by AI powered robots or sit patiently for the South China Sea war to kick off, the above quote strikes a chord. It comes from a speech in January 1930 by André Maginot, then French Minister for War, who at this stage had been lobbying actively for the barrier that bore his name.

Maginot had fought in the first world war (effectively losing a knee), where heavily fortified structures and defensive lines had slowed the Germans, and the conception of the Maginot line relied largely on history – in the previous thousand years the Germans has predictably charged across the space that the line occupied. In May 1940 Rommel sped through Belgium and the Netherlands, around the Maginot line, and by June German troops were on the outskirts of Paris.

Today, the Maginot line might be the large navies of China and the US, or the web of artificial island bases that China has constructed. What is sure is that we are now in a multi-threat age (of total war) where single use Maginot lines can be rendered useless by multi-domain attacks.

One important and complex element here is that Europe is beginning to build its defences for the consequences of a multi-polar world. Last week it announced the skeleton of its EU Economic Security Strategy, whose aim is to protect key EU technologies, identify and pre-empt economic security threats to cyber, intellectual property, and economic coercion against Europe. The framework is designed to allow states to ‘risk manage’ their diverse exposures to these risks, with a steer from the EU. In effect the initiative builds on a number of more specific Acts – such as the EU Chips Act and 5G Security framework.

In practice the initiative has been motivated by cyber warfare from Russia, the implications of the invasion of Ukraine (and financial flows in and out of Europe to Russia) in addition to the threats to EU intellectual property from foreign states (namely China). We can now expect to see more intensive screening of the export of key technologies from Europe, financial inflows and of inward investment. Watch out next week for the announced risk framework to be debated at an EU leader’s summit on 29/30^th June.

The initial implementation of the framework will be interesting, and my sense is that it will initially be used to bring expertise from ‘strong’ states, through the EU, to shore up weak points – from Chinese data centres (i.e. TikTok) in Ireland to foreign ownership of EU infrastructure to the allocation of research funding, to financial flows through Austria’s trust system.

As readers will know I am inordinately focused on the Irish case, and it is a country with multiple ‘Maginot weak points’. The changing world order has uncovered multiple vulnerabilities in Ireland’s security framework – the susceptibility of large technology facilities to espionage, unguarded trans-Atlantic cable lines and a wide-open airspace to name a few. There is now a public consultation process on security ongoing in Ireland, and a suspicion that its defensive frailties are already being filled by NATO countries.

In the EU, one practical implication of the new economic security framework will be the extent to which practices by ‘strong’ states (for example the Netherlands has been very aggressive on protecting the semiconductors industry and on screening Chinese students) will be carried across to other countries, and to the extent that the ‘weakest link’ states have their security and economic infrastructure fortified.

What is not yet absolutely clear (even though institutions like the WTO are mentioned in the announcement) is the extent to which the EU will work with international partners like the US in terms of collaborating more closely on disrupting questionable financial flows for instance. This has been an area of technical weakness across the EU and embarrassingly many of flows of ‘bad money’ in and around the EU have been detected by the US.

In typical European style, this initiative is just a start. It is porous and easily circumnavigated, to stick with the Maginot analogy, but in the longer term points to even greater coordination across states, greater scrutiny of investment flows and I hope, greater collaboration across countries.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

A couple of interesting events happened in the venture capital industry last week, that tell us much about how capital flows, and the impact it will have on our society.

In Paris the Sista Fund investment conference took place, the aim of which is to focus attention on the need for the venture industry to provide capital to female founders, and additionally to support female investors. Some of the statistics flagged at the conference are startling –across Europe just 7% of start-up funding goes to female-founded start-ups, and for larger growth companies, less than 1% of large funding tickets (Eur 50mn and more) went to all-female founders in 2022.

Then, in the UK, the Black Seeds fund – a VC fund designed to raise capital for black business founders in the UK raised a total of GBP 5mn. Sadly, this is a miniscule amount of money compared to the size of funds across the industry, not to mention the amount that is wasted on projects of pure fantasy (for a more informed view on this please see the excellent Sinéad O’Sullivan’s recent articles on space and crypto funding in the FT).

At the same time, four French ‘AI bros’ whose new venture Mistral.AI has only been up and running for four weeks received some Eur 105 mn in funding for their venture at a valuation of Eur 240mn. Given the difficulty of raising funds at the moment this is an impressive raise, reflecting both the background of the team and the eco-system of state, business, media and entrepreneurs they have backing them, most of whom are French, highlighting the highly ‘networked’ side of French business.

However, that Mistral.AI can raise Eur 105mn in a few weeks, and Black Seeds takes in only USD 5mn, and no-one is willing to give have the ‘better’ half of the population investment capital, is not a good thing. On one hand it shows how capital gravitates faddishly to the prospect of financial return rather than economic return, and it also shows that while the majority of VC funds and investors wrap themselves in the banners of sustainability/equality and ESG, they are shy of committing real capital to these causes.

In an age where developed countries want to attract qualified migrant workers, and where productivity gains are in short supply, ‘diverse’ (by which I mean ‘not AI bros’) founders need to be able to access investment capital.

A cynical response to the above development is for female entrepreneurs for instance, to cloak their projects in AI, and I suspect that this is already happening such that mind-numbingly, every pitchdeck contains multiple mentions of the word ‘intelligent’. A better piece of advice for VC funds and entrepreneurs is to follow the example of Mistral. AI and build an eco-system of government, corporate and entrepreneur supporters. The best VC’s that I know have done this.

Another angle of attack is AI itself, and specifically the data that various AI applications run on. Some years ago, I wrote about Joy Buolamwini’s Algorithmic Justice League that seeks to adjust algorithms for the biases they are programmed with. To be very speculative here, a corrective approach to AI could be taken a step further and have algorithms programmed exclusively by women, for application in female specific cases in industries like insurance and health, and to have guardrails also programmed by women. Such an approach might make the AI craze more responsive to different segments of society.

The impact of AI has already become an area of intense focus and last week the EU Parliament signed off the EU AI Act, whose main contribution is to divide the application into four pillars from harmless to very harmful (akin to China’s use of AI for social credit scoring). There has been some backlash against this already from businesses across multiple sectors that apply AI and who may find themselves being classified as AI companies (and hence liable to the regulation).

The other group to protest is unsurprisingly, the French AI bros, who fear the Act will crimp their creative flair. With a growing number of Emmanuel Macron’s former ministers joining VC firms and start-ups, I fear the AI bros might win again.