A Land Full of Vibrancy and Hope

Avid readers of the ‘Levelling’ book will know that some years ago, I wrote

Latin America remains part of the satellite region of the US pole. Sadly, it has been overlooked by Washington. The prime example of this neglect is Venezuela. The country is failing and in the grip of an underreported humanitarian crisis. Economically, this crisis may lead China to take a deeper role in Venezuela and in its oil production. Diplomatically, the lack of a comprehensive reaction from Washington brings to mind an article entitled “The Forgotten Relationship” that Jorge Castaneda published some years ago in Foreign Affairs in which he bemoaned the deteriorating relationship between Latin America and the United States.

Finally, my pleas are heard, and the White House is organizing a rescue (by gunboat) of Venezuela, and possibly much of Latin America.

While it is hard to know how the new engagement between the Trump administration and the fifth largest repository of oil reserves is going to play out, this administration is different to many of its predecessors in taking an active interest in Latin America – note the partisanship with regard to Brazil, generally good relations with Mexico, a chumminess with Milei and the likely support for the new president of Chile.

Despite very active backchannelling between the US military and the Venezuelan army the course that events might take is unclear, and laden with risks – the chaos of popular unrest in Venezuela, the risks that criminals in Venezuela and surrounding countries become involved (and strike in the US), or indeed the risk that other actors or countries use any regime change in Caracas to hurt the US, cannot be ruled out. Another risk is that some of Venezuela’s allies – Iran, China and Russia – become obstreperous, and dig in with Maduro and his cohorts, or that they use any change of government in Caracas to further their own ends. It is worth noting that only last week China launched a policy document entitled ‘Latin America and the Caribbean: A Land Full of Vibrancy and Hope’.

This is a significant risk of the Trump administration’s fetish for a spheres of influence motivated foreign policy. In the recent school boyish ‘National Security Strategy’, which has caused great anguish in the diplomatic parlors of Europe, the document refers to the ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine.

For context, the Monroe Doctrine was likely the first coherent, muscular expression of American foreign policy – at the time it was aimed at keeping the Spanish and other pesky European powers out of Central and Southern America. Indeed, the dithering by the large European powers (notably France) over the long running Mercosur trade agreement, suggests that the European dare not go back to Latin America.

The NSS document gives a good deal of attention to Latin America, and this tilt will have the active support of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Like it or not, Latin America is now in Washington’s sphere.

However, more generally, the establishment of a spheres of influence mindset in international relations may give the likes of Russia and China the sense that they may do as they wish in their own spheres of influence. In the same way that the invasion of Iraq, on the basis of flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction, apparently led Vladimir Putin to believe that the West was no longer respecting the rules of the international order, the ‘Trump Corollary’ strategy is a green light for bad policy actors.

That would of course be bad news for Taiwan, and perhaps Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who all to some extent count on the notion of a US security guarantee for Taiwan. It may also prove confusing for the US military which, when not loitering off the coasts of Cuba and Venezuela, is organized around the concept of a grand battle in the South China Sea.

Beyond the obvious implications for Ukraine, there are plenty of other open questions – will China take the ‘Stans’ from Russia, and who gets Africa? Russian mercenaries have forced France out of at least seven countries and China has a hand in nearly every African economy. The cancellation of US AID is already having deadly consequences for human and animal life.

A world of spheres of influence might conjure the diplomacy of the Great Game, but it would leave many countries worse off, and the nondemocracies of the world free to abuse their military and economic power.

A forlorn reminder of this was the jailing of Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong democracy activist last week. Few Western governments were audible in protesting this act, save Britain, which used to count Hong Kong as part of its sphere of influence (Lai has British citizenship). The silent snuffling out of democracy in Hong Kong is the act that brought the curtain down on globalization in my view. An American spheres of influence foreign policy will sow further chaos.

Have a great Christmas week ahead, Mike (there won’t be a note next week, we return on the 4th January)

The UnRavelling Rule

Amidst the slew of corporate earnings and macro-economic data released in the past week, two developments struck me, both of which give the impression of the tectonics of geopolitics pushing against each other.

First, in the past year the number of children born in the US has caught up with the EU, at close to 3.6 million babies each (though the EU has a much bigger population). For comparison, Nigeria – whose population is less than half that of the EU – welcomed 7 million babies last year.

Second, in recent months the trend rate of consumer inflation in Japan has surpassed that of the US for the first time in decades, signalling a long awaiting shift in the Japanese economy that has been accompanied by a rise in long-run bond yields (a potentially critical development for the international financial system).

These two examples will give a sense of the rise and fall of nations, that is accelerating since the fall of globalisation (which I date to the effective end of democracy in Hong Kong). This rise and fall – think of countries like football clubs – is also associated by an unravelling of the world order. For example, in a recent note ‘Atlas Shrugging’, we detailed how the independence of the Federal Reserve was being undercut by the White House, and the attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Fed’s rate setting committee confirms that Donald Trump wants to direct the Fed as an engine of his economic policy (as a giant bond buying machine I suspect).

The independent Fed has been one of the pillars of the globalised world system of the past forty years – and the snuffing out of its independence heralds the unravelling of that system. In the same way that the period of globalisation was characterised by low inflation and the absence of major wars – the presence of inflation and conflict today, is a sign that we are moving into ‘something else’.

In that context I find myself playing a mind game which I call the ‘Unravelling Rule’. Very simply, it is to identity the principal factors that have supported globalisation and that are positive outcomes of it and identify if and how they are unravelling. The crisis of democracy is one such trend (the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index has fallen to its lowest level in twenty years).

Other certainties are also unravelling – notably the assumption that the USA is an unflinching ally of Europe and many Asian countries, and the possibility that it could even actively undermine them. In this regard, the fact that the Danish government had to summon the US ambassador over the conduct of three Americans in Greenland is troubling and reflects very badly on the White House.

The danger with the ‘Unravelling Rule’ is that in a chaotic world, it is tempting to see unravelling everywhere. It is more obvious though in the case of world institutions – the United Nations, IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation, who are frequently ignored by the very large economies, and sometimes badly undermined by them (the WTO is an example). These institutions need to be recast, most likely for the benefit of the populous emerging economies.

On a more speculative basis, there are at least four trends that have marked the past forty years, and that are now worth watching for a change of course.

The first is poverty. It is an underestimated facet of globalisation that it helped a billion people rise out of poverty, according to the World Bank. My concern is that in a world where the major economies (2/3 of the world’s GDP) have debt to GDP ratios above 100%, economic precarity may return, and this time to developed countries. We have already noted (The Road to Serfdom) the extremely high level of inequality in the US and broad economic vulnerability. In Europe, British and French policymakers conjured the spectre of IMF intervention in their economies (it would have to be a new, bigger IMF – which under this White House is unlikely). In that respect the growing disparity in incomes in the UK regions (relative to London) bears watching.

A second is corporate governance and the rule of law as it extends to international business. We have not seen a rule of law or broad governance crisis in sometime, but the rise of decentralised finance (i.e. crypto), the new idiom of the ‘art of the deal’ in the US, and the geopolitically tinged trade relationships that China is developing worldwide. As a global ‘way of doing things’ gives way to more regional or localised approaches, the watertightness of contracts and the oversight of business relationships is something that businesses will need to consider more carefully.

A true litmus test of the ‘Unravelling’ hypothesis will be the role of US multinationals in the world economy. Described as the ‘B-52s’ of globalisation in the late 1990’s by a prominent trade economist, they have shaped the world economy and come to dominate financial markets. I have lost count of the number of charts circulating that declare that Nvidia for example is worth more than the major European stock markets together. Whilst cash rich, they now face a number of challenges – the difficulty of selling into China as it broadens its technological self-sufficiency, and the collateral damage to overseas sales from the Trump trade and foreign policies, and the rise of more specific local tastes in markets like Africa and India.

A final unravelling, and one I would welcome, is for the EU to unleash its nasty side. In the past forty years the successes of the EU – enlargement, holding the euro together and the creation of a European identity (based on borderless travel the Erasmus programme for example). The likes of Poland and Estonia have benefitted greatly from this, and it is fair to say that the UK would be better off ‘in’ than ‘out’. But the emphasis has been largely on soft rather than hard power, and in a ‘harder’ world, the EU will need to take a tougher stance in terms of how it projects itself.

There are many challenges but three in particular are the potential exclusion of existing and prospective member states like Hungary and Serbia who habitually refuse to act in accordance with EU values and interests, a specifically more aggressive approach to countering sabotage by Russia (and at times China and Iran) in Europe, and then a retaking of the narrative as to what Europe stands for.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Did no-one see it coming?

In November 2008, in the darkest hour of the global financial crisis, Queen Elizabeth II asked an audience at the London School of Economics ‘Why did no one see it coming”. We might ask the same question today in respect of Donald Trump’s tariff war, where he has diminished the things that he was reputed to hold dear – the economy, the stock market and the dollar.

One disturbing template that might offer insight into the path that the American economy takes is Brexit. As noted by the current prime minister of Canada, Brexit was not the solution to the problems that Britain faces. Certainly, the disengagement of the US from the world trade system is becoming as soap operatic and sometimes ludicrous as Brexit was.

An even more pertinent example might be Britain at the turn of the 19^th century when there was a palpable sense that the might of its empire was peaking. At the time tariffs and trade were widely debated, and leading politicians like Joseph Chamberlain proposed the idea of an ‘imperial preference’, a lower tariff on trade with its colonies, to create a trading zone that would buffer the rise of the US and Germany.

To a certain extent, tariffs and trade became the issue of the day, but in the 1906 general election the public voted overwhelmingly for liberal, open trade (less restrictive tariffs) candidates. This I suspect was also the intention of those who supported Donald Trump in November last – keep the economy and markets strong, whilst evening up the status quo (a little). That tariff rates set by the US (and China) are at levels only last seen in the 1920’s completes the shock, and rhymes with history.

One reason tariffs were a popular policy tool one hundred years ago is that the fiscal side of the economy was not well developed (only a small proportion of Americans paid tax) and, in some cases, central banks did not exist. Today, tax systems are well developed and as small, open economies show, they are the best mechanism to reduce inequality, and to entice investment, both stated objectives of the Treasury secretary.

This particular market crisis is interesting because it is nearly entirely man-made. Turkey has taken a similar path in recent years, all but eviscerating its bond market and currency, but these are inconsequential compared to the depth of US markets. Whilst the president has stepped nimbly and profitably (some say) away from the financial brink, he still risks contagion of his actions in a number of respects.

Two such risks loom on the horizon, an economic war with China and a crisis of credibility in US financial assets.

We are now led to believe that ‘it was China all along’, but it would have been easier to tackle China with the support of America’s former allies in Canada, Japan, the UK and Europe.

For its part, China has plenty of tools to respond to the US with – it can allow its currency to weaken further and through supply chain disruption can inflict higher consumer prices, shortages of goods and lower (Chinese) demand on the US. Informal boycotts of American goods, investigations of US service firms and rare earth restrictions are just a few other tools at China’s disposal.

Should an economic war between the US and China materialise, my sense is that a supportive response from the Federal Reserve has been made less likely by Wednesday’s tariff capitulation by the White House, which demonstrates how arbitrary policy is under this administration.

In the longer-run, the actions of the Trump team could manifest themselves in a capital crisis in the context of the way they have undermined confidence in the US and by extension its financial system. What the likes of Peter Navarro seem not to have grasped is that the quid pro quo of America’s trade deficit is its enormous financial power – the role of the dollar and Treasuries as lynchpins of the international financial system, the dominance of US financial systems and its integral role in the fabric of capital markets, and the capital that overseas investors provide them.

With Mr Trump behaving in the way that some might caricature as ‘emerging market’, If we apply an emerging market stock market valuation rating to US stocks, the SPX index would be half its current size for instance. Equally, the mid-week selloff in Treasuries which was most likely the result of hedge funds unwinding positions, but the poor performance of bonds underlines the sceptical view that markets are starting to take on the administration.

In this context, we may be at the beginning of a great unwind of American financial power.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Remember the Washington Consensus?

Does anyone remember the Washington Consensus? Such a phrase might seem odd in today’s world but in the early 1990’s the notion of a ‘Washington Consensus’ was very powerful as a method for globalisation, and hotly debated by the left.

Globalisation worked well because, to be overly simplistic, it was facilitated by a very clear world order that helped to establish the rules of the ‘globalisation game’ and the norms associated with this. At their core, these rules were American, or at the very least they were made in Washington within the institutions that were set up to marshal the post-World War II world order, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the World Bank and the United Nations in New York. America held the purse strings of these organisations and regular meetings at these institutions became a means of schooling ministers from both developing and emerging economies in the ways of American economic power.

These discussions aired what soon became known as the ‘Washington Consensus’ – effectively an approach to world economic development and globalisation, that was denounced by critics on the left as a neo-liberal policy recipe book. With the benefit of hindsight today, the Washington Consensus was valuable in the sense that it was a consensus, it encapsulated an approach that many countries were content to go along with as part of their first foray into real economic development.

Today, the Washington Consensus is in disarray. The institutions that it was built around, like the IMF are defunct, and others like the WTO have been undermined by both China and the US in recent years. The decision of the US to leave the World Health Organisation is another blow. The ‘Consensus’ is dead because there are now other competing methods as to how countries can develop, and of the independent paths they can take.

Here, an important milestone was Xi Jinping’s China Dream speech, in November 2012, which well before MAGA (Make America Great Again) coined the term ‘China Dream’ during a visit to the National Museum of China. Now, countries like Indonesia or Nigeria can try to follow the classical Western model of development, or China’s non-democratic, state led approach. Or, like Argentina and El Salvador, they can pursue the ‘Trumpian’ model that is taking a grip on Washington, but that is anything but a consensus.

Without going into day-by-day developments coming from the White House, the second Trump presidency can be seen as an early stage in the post-globalisation world order.

Globalisation was based on American economic and political strength and promulgated by the ‘Washington Consensus’ and the B-52’s of American capitalism (multinationals). Eventually globalisation ran out of steam, and events like Brexit, the first Trump presidency and the snuffing out of Hong Kong’s democracy shattered it. We are now in a multi-polar world where at least three large powers (EU, China and the US) do things increasingly differently (look at how they treat AI).

Uniquely, this Trump presidency represents an attempt to do something new and can be seen as an early chapter in the formation of the new world order, and to an extent its success depends on the will and the coherence of the groups of people that are driving the Trump project (from sectors like private equity, innovation and wealthy families). One stark difference with globalization is already clear. Globalization was built on the US being umbilically tied to much of the rest of the world, and vice versa, by flows of ideas, money, trade and people. In contrast, it now seems that Trump 2.0 relies on American exceptionalism, attempting to rise above the rest of the world, and in the process severing the relationships and ties built up since the end of the First World War.

For example, consider the words delivered to Canadians by President Kennedy in May 1961 ‘Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies’ and how remarkably different they are to the way the Donald Trump has treated Canada.

In that context, the rest of the world may increasingly choose to avoid America, and the risk to ‘Exceptional America’, notably with the dollar as strong as it is, is that its financial power ebbs, in the way that of many other empires has. The template for this is expertly laid out in Barry Eichengren’s ‘Mars or Mercury’ paper that analysed the link between empires and their monies, though I feel that in the absence of obviously strong competing currencies, this thesis could take time to play out.

A more plausible side-effect of ‘exceptional’ America, is the advent of a new point of economic gravity, pinpointed at the UAE (United Arab Emirates). This is my ‘Fourth Pole’ thesis – that the UAE together with India and Saudi Arabia has the makings of a new pole of trade and commercial activity, with low regulatory barriers and that encompasses a potentially huge market (Prof Afshin Molavi calculates that there are 2.5bn bn people within five hours flying time of Abu Dhabi). The Mercosur trade deal between Latin America and the EU might also be the basis for a new trade corridor.

The other necessary outcome in a world where America is going its own way, is that Europe stops trying to contain Trump, and takes a far more aggressive stance with respect to its risk environment, notably Russia. The German election in two weeks’ time might be the start of that stance.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

The Diplomacy Crash

US stock market valuations have only been as high as in 2001 and 2020, market concentration is more extreme than in the late 1920’s (the top ten companies now make up 38% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 index), and money manager surveys show US households to be the most bullish on future returns from equities since the survey began in the early 1980’s.

So, given this precarious euphoria, when is the crash?

My response is that crashes come in unexpected places and times and one idea that has not had much coverage but that might become current is the idea of a ‘diplomatic crash’. By this I mean that a host of countries have invested diplomatically, or in terms of soft power, in institutions, partnerships and causes. The acceleration of a multipolar world by the second Trump presidency will crash the value of many of these diplomatic investments.

An example might be the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US, the seeds of which were sown by Roosevelt and Churchill during the second world war (Churchill coined the term in 1946), and later cultivated by Thatcher/Reagan and then the Bushes and Clintons with both John Major and Tony Blair. Today, it is very hard to see any personal chemistry, or philosophical common ground between Donald Trump and Sir Keir Starmer. If the ‘special relationship’ were a stock or even a crypto coin, its value would be at a historic low.

In more detail, the idea of the ‘diplomacy crash’ came to me the night before I voted in Ireland’s general election. Ireland is a very quirky, even eccentric country from a geopolitical view in that unlike many other European countries there is close to no debate in Irish politics on defence and security, and its defence capability is miniscule compared to benchmark countries like Norway and Sweden.

In that context Ireland, like many other mid-ranking developed countries, is about to suffer a diplomatic crash. It has, correctly, invested heavily in the UN and the rules-based order. Some of the pillars of this order, like the World Trade Organisation – effectively built by an Irishman (Peter Sutherland) – are in a state of dereliction. It may well be the case that the UN ceases to be effective in dispute resolution between states, world health policy and great power coordination.

In addition, together with Spain and Norway, Ireland has spent significant geopolitical capital supporting Palestine (all three countries recently recognized Palestine as a state). Here, it cannot be ruled out that a grand peace deal is made in the Middle East, between Israel, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, whose goal is to create greater investment and commercial flows between these countries and strategically disable Iran, but whose outcome is to render the ‘two-state’ solution unachievable. This new, harsh reality would leave the humanitarian led foreign policies of many European countries well ‘off-side’, compared to the stance of the Trump administration.

Ireland is just an example here, and there are plenty of other crashes in diplomatic capital – Germany’s trade policy with China, and potentially Japan’s relationship with the USA, France’s relationship with Africa and in general the cultivation of the rules-based order by democracies.

In finance, when a market crash occurs, investors become structurally risk averse, run for safe assets and generally retract positions. This might be the same in diplomacy. The risk then is a more unsure, less engaged diplomatic world, and worryingly one where the international rule of law is ignored.

In Europe, reflecting the lessons of the euro-zone financial crisis, this may imply that EU foreign policy becomes more consistent across countries (though perhaps not yet unified) and more focused (Katja Kallas is perhaps the most forceful foreign policy chief that the EU has had). In addition, new policy coalitions and leadership groups will form, notably so in the case of the Nordic and Baltic states on defence and immigration.

The EU also needs to stop geopolitical hedging by its members. Hungary under Viktor Orban has become notoriously close to Russia, and whilst Serbia had tried to play both sides it seems more comfortable as a bona fide EU nation (it is an accession state).

Once Ireland’s election result is clear, the first task for its leaders may be to choose sides – solidarity with Europe and active participation in the EU defence effort, or a singular, eccentric relationship with the Trump administration.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Coherence

Kim Hong-Kyun is not a name that very many Europeans know, but they really should, given his grave diplomatic intervention last week. Hong-Kyun is the South Korean ‘first foreign minister’, who last week summoned the Russian ambassador to Seoul to register South Korea’s displeasure at the news that up to 12,000 North Korean soldiers are in or on their way to Russia to fight in Ukraine.

While North Korea’s contribution to the Russian war effort is already known (their armaments industry is producing as many shells as Russia itself – and more than all of Europe), the prospect of an Asian state sending soldiers to fight in a European country is unprecedented, and I am perplexed that European governments have not reacted to this (though South Korea, Australia and Japan sent representatives to a recent NATO meeting).

The South Koreans have pledged to arm Ukraine if North Korean troops fight there, raising the complicated prospect of an Asian proxy war in Europe – again something that would have been inconceivable years ago, and that also tilts us towards the notion of a world war.

Whilst some readers might find this an exaggeration, we are at a moment of coherence, when threads that have been developing over the years become clearer and begin to describe the contours of the emerging geopolitical order.

One of the notable formations here is the SCO or Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which I wrote about in the Levelling (p. 245) describing them as a geopolitical ‘gang’ of the future and sort of anti-NATO coalition, or at least an anti-AUKUS group. Despite this, few of the university post-grads in international relations I have come across in recent teaching sessions knew of the SCO.

There is a sense that the shadow or the logic of the SCO was lurking behind last week’s BRICS meeting, given the perception that the BRICS is becoming an anti-Western alliance, which in reality is not true. Reinforcing this are the very different cultures across the BRICS countries, and the risk to their project that relations between them depend on individual autocrats rather than institutions or peoples.

Yet, a sign of the times is the manner in which large emerging nations like India and Turkey are hedging their bets in the sense of maintaining good relations with Russia and the US. For India in particular, the BRICS meeting was a chance to begin to repair relations with China.

They could be forgiven for doing so granted the impact that the outcome of the US presidential election will have on international relations. The choice is one between an effective continuation of the foreign policy of the Biden/Democrat administration in the context of growing pushback against American power, versus a Trump foreign policy that is unsure, opportunistic and likely goes against the deep grain of Republican foreign policy as established by Ronald Reagan, George H Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

2025 will hopefully see the end of wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, following which the notion of the coherence of rival systems will come into sharper focus. It is increasingly clear that the leading autocratic states (Russia and China) are hell bent on undermining the democratic world, and any nations that toy with the idea of joining it (witness the heavy handed Russian interference in last week’s referendum on EU membership in Moldova, and it’s obvious interference in Georgia’s election which takes place this weekend).

The danger is that the sharpening coherence of the SCO is like the development of AI – it has been gathering pace amongst specialists for some time, and then a public event (the launch of ChatGPT) brings it into the public domain.

One of the obvious casualties of the emergence of the SCO and indeed the geopolitical trials the world is suffering, is the diminished influence and credibility of world institutions like the UN and WTO (World Trade Organisation), which are being reduced to the role of bystanders in this emerging geopolitical contest.

The scene is set then for the November 5^th election to either reinforce or undermine the world order.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Druk!

Winter it seems, across much of Europe, has come early. Two instincts that grow as the evenings darken are the inclination to have a tipple in the evening and to watch a good film. One Danish work that captures both sentiments is ‘Druk’ or ‘Another Round’, which won the Oscar for best international film in 2021. I recommend it.

In the film a group of four school teacher friends decide to test the hypothesis of a Norwegian psychologist that humans have a deficiency of alcohol in their blood, and the protagonists undertake an experiment to maintain a ‘warm’ level of alcohol in their blood. It is an experiment I attempt often, but the real lesson today is with central banking.

It seems that central bankers have decided that in the spirit of ‘Druk’, the liquidity in the world financial system is not sufficient and have set out to administer near daily injections of cheap money. The number of central banks changing policy (i.e. to negative) is the greatest it has been, apart from the global financial crisis and the COVID period. In September alone there have been 24 rate cuts from central banks around the world.

Chief amongst these has been the 50-basis point cut from the Federal Reserve and the very dramatic, multiple policy moves by China. In short China has cut rates, infused the banking system, made mortgages cheaper and generally tried to spread liquidity over the emerging cracks in China’s economy. In the spirit of ‘Druk’ it is the equivalent of going on a five day bender in order to cure a serious disease.

Nonetheless, the easing in policy from the Fed and China, together with what will likely be a couple of more rate cuts this year from the European Central Bank mean that the world financial system is flush with liquidity. Chinese markets – hitherto the worst performing markets of a major economy – show the impact and importance of liquidity. The market cap of the Hang Seng index has grown by a quarter in less than two weeks. China has overtaken the US in terms of equity market performance to date.

There is no change to fundamentals – I don’t see this policy move having a decisive impact on the downward trend in Chinese earnings, but that doesn’t matter in the near term – liquidity is coursing through the pipes of the Chinese financial system, and in turn might bring a temporary easing to conditions in the property market.

For all the analysts who devote time to measuring earnings and calibrating valuations, the reality is that in this era of ‘quick to please’ monetary policy, liquidity matters a lot for asset prices. My rule of thumb in constructing a measure of liquidity would encompass money supply, the state of central bank balance sheets, the key role of the dollar and net issuance of debt by treasuries.

The arcane notion of financial liquidity has attracted enough attention that the Financial Times recently ran an article breaking down its component parts. A couple of top-flight economics consultancies run their own measures of liquidity – such as LongView Economics and Michael Howell at CrossBorder Capital. The latter holds that we are on the cusp of a significant upswing in global liquidity.

If that is true, the implication for markets is ‘Druk’- a persistent giddyiness whilst central banks keep rates low and liquidity flush, amidst an acceptable level of GDP and profit growth. Friday’s job market figures in the US were very strong, suggesting that in fact there was no need for a large rate cut. This is the kind of macro climate we have seen in the mid and late 1990’s, and one that tends to dampen the market implications of turbulent geopolitics.

From the point of view of asset prices, there are a couple of possible trajectories. Historically, the Fed has started to cut interest rates when the price to earnings ratio on the S&P 500 has been close to 10 times (1960’s to 1990’s). Now, like in 2000, it is in the mid 20’s which suggests that extra liquidity now could run asset prices in bubble territory proper, and cultivate the next bout of inflation, something the central banks’ bank, the BIS, has warned about (helpfully the BIS has taken a counter view to that of its members ahead of a number of crisis).

For the time being, the upturn in liquidity may be most meaningful for capital markets activity and assets in the private economy. They have been in the doldrums. If the ‘Druk’ hypothesis is working we should see a rise in IPO activity into 2025, and intensification in private equity deals and a rise in funding activity (beyond AI firms) in venture.

Then, later in 2025, the hangover will arrive.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Another Tea Party?

The Boston Tea Party is an early example of how a trade dispute can reshape an economy (Boston) and foment political change. It is iconic enough that the first presidency of Donald Trump was prefigured by the rise of the Tea Party as a disruptive force in Republican politics.

With the presidential election not far off now, tariffs form the spear-end of Donald Trump’s economic strategy, potentially because he can implement them unilaterally (without the approval of the Senate). In addition, many of his acolytes, from Robert Lighthizer to Peter Navarro, are ‘trade’ obsessed, and have recently published books like ‘No Trade is Free‘ to underline the ways in which they would re-order the international trade system.

In addition, other members of the Trump entourage such as Robert O’Brien, the National Security Adviser (2019-21) has in the July edition of Foreign Affairs Journal invoked the idea that American can bring peace to a disordered world through ‘strength’. In this vision, strength comes in the form of 60% tariffs on Chinese goods and export controls, a message that has repeatedly been emphasised by Trump himself.

In that context, a second Trump presidency could begin with a trade war, and a verbal assault on the currencies of ostensible allies that have weakened in recent years, such as the yen. American consumers and potentially the bond market might pay the price of tariffs (we wrote last week that Trump wanted to fund the development of a sovereign wealth fund with revenues from tariffs).

Trade wars are generally not successful, and while Trump may have in mind America’s trade spats with Japan (1987), the weight of past trade disputes going back to the Smooth Hawley Act suggest that there are better ways to guard American economic power. China could respond with measures that cripple supply chains for at least a couple of years. In this scenario, a trade confrontation between the US and China would decisively shatter the axis of globalisation as we know it, and finally render the WTO (World Trade Organisation) obsolete.

A US-China trade war might have many other consequences.

One might be the rise of populous south Asian (and southeast Asian) from India to Bangladesh to Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, with Singapore as their organising locus. Many of these countries are urbanising and rolling out infrastructure, most of them need but distrust China, and in most cases aspire to closer commercial ties to the USA. Tariffs on China by the USA will accelerate supply chain de-risking by Western multinationals towards these countries, though this could well complicate their relationship with China.

A second consideration is Europe. The EU has been caught by surprise by the consequences of several Biden administration policies – the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act – which illustrates that US international trade policy is usually made with a view to domestic politics. A second Trump presidency should be no surprise to Brussels, and there is a small but important team of officials working on a policy response to a potential trade war on Europe by Trump. Europe’s trump card may lie in its role as a partner with the US against China. It will be difficult for Washington to reshape trade relations with China, Europe and potentially Japan by taking each one on. Stymieing China is better done in collaboration with Japan and Europe, and Trump should really see the constraints of the policy situation that faces him.

A second Trump presidency will be different to the first in the sense that he has had time to prepare for it, and crucially, his supporters have had four years to concoct a policy strategy (‘2025’ seems to have dropped out of headlines). In the same way, a Harris presidency comes with deeper reserves of policy experts, and to a large sense on the international trade and economic outlook, the Harris case represents ‘more of the same’ in terms of the techn0-strategic economic policy that is currently pursued by the White House.

An idealised, and though I like the idea a lot, too lofty rendition of this policy is Walter Russell’s Mead’s September Foreign Affairs essay entitled ‘The Return of Hamiltonian Statecraft’ which argues for the very un-Trumpian notion of ‘enlightened patriotism’.

In this context, a Harris White House would use trade and investment policy to laser focus on America’s race with China for global supremacy. Driving Chinese economic and investment activity further inwards might be one goal, and ironically anything Washington can do to make Chinese public life more closed and repressive, the better (because it curbs innovation and wealth creation).

At the same time, the US and Europe, would both pursue parallel strategies of ‘strategic autonomy’ or what Trump refers to as ‘strategic national manufacturing’ focused on sectors like defence, new computing power (quantum, AI, data storage and management), batteries and new power sources and revolutionary medicine. Europe’s challenge is to find a way of reducing long-term energy costs.

Kamala Harris, who has trialled a few incoherent policies (taxes on unrealised capital gains, price controls) is likely to be more constrained in her fiscal policy – because her government is likely to instinctively focus more on tax and spending changes, for which she will need the help of the Senate (which in turn could tilt towards the Republicans). As such her fiscal policy will focus on not increasing the national debt, and like many other governments, encouraging the private sector to work with government to build out strategic technologies.

I am so far surprised that markets do not seem to price in uncertainty over trade policy, possibly because they are more focused on falling interest rates in the US, Europe and China. However, the next month will start to reveal how seriously financial markets take economic rhetoric of each of the presidential candidates.

The End of Globalization

In last week’s note(s) I focused a lot on France, to the exclusion of mentioning other debates that are live around the world. One that preoccupies me is that of globalization – which for most readers will seem so esoteric and distant, that they may rightly care little about it. It is in my view worth stopping to think about the direction of globalization – given the way it has shaped the past thirty years. I sense that as globalization crumbles, we are already starting to miss its notable characteristics – peace, low inflation and international prosperity.

Three things happened last week that have globalization, or its demise, back on my mind.

First at the Rencontres Economiques, I had a row with a former German economic minister who claimed that a new wave of globalization was about to start. This claim seemed fanciful, not least that the German economy is cleaven between a reliance on China, a need to be better aligned with the US, a disastrous energy policy and a fascination with Russia that has still not been broken by the war in Ukraine.

Granted that globalization refers to a world that is interdependent and interconnected, it is wrong to hold that we live in a globalised world when dependencies are shifting (the US and Europe want to be much less dependent on China for instance) while the US and China barely have any political and policy connections, and are, in the minds of many, about to embark on war.

The second encounter that set me thinking about globalization was that I ran into Prof Barry Eichengreen, the international authority on foreign exchange, financial flows and who was passing through Europe on his way back to the US from India, where he had delivered a paper entitled ‘Globalization and Growth in a bi-polar world’. Whilst I believe it impossible to enjoy globalization in the context of a world that is severely divided, I was much more careful to pick an argument this time, given Barry’s great mind.

In the paper he charts how trade (relative to GDP) – one of the tenets of globalization – has faced severe headwinds but remains at high levels and has changed course somewhat (trade and investment flows have pushed out to countries like Mexico and Vietnam). Capital and financial flows have retraced even more, and the Eichengreen paper details China’s efforts to deepen its financial markets and boost the use of its currency (though its political economy is a major obstacle to this).

The Eichengreen paper, based largely on what we see in trade and capital flows, paints a picture of the contours of globalization as we have come to know it, as remaining in place. However, I would add to the argument other metrics of globalization – the flow of people, the flow of tourism and overseas education, the flow of ideas and of political and diplomatic discourse between nations. On many of these criteria, walls are going up, and it is impossible to speak of there being a consensus on one global system or way of doing things. Markedly, most of the institutions of the globalised world order (IMF, WHO, World Bank to name a few) are defunct.

My argument is that globalization is not to be confused with the ongoing growth of trade, or the business cycle, it is a very specific form of interconnectedness of nations and regions that is breaking down. It started with the fall of communism, and mostly likely died with the snuffing out of Hong Kong’s democracy in 2020.

This idea was part of a great discussion I had with Chris Watling of LongView Economics as part of their podcast series. LongView is perhaps the best independent markets and economics research firm, and one of the elements they tend to capture very well is the idea of (short and long-term) cycles of risk appetite in markets and economies. In that context, the idea that we are passing from one long-running economic ‘regime’ (globalization, to something else, was apt.

The Interregnum will be a period of breaking (down the imbalances that have built up with globalisation such as climate damage and debt) and making (new world institutions and the integration of technology into economies and societies). It will be a noisy, chaotic process and its success is not yet a given.

For the moment, the very least we should do is accept that globalization has passed and start to think about the future.

Have a great week ahead.

Mike

Re-emerging Risks

I started the week chatting with one of the leading experts on globalisation, or deglobalization’ as it is now. He is a little older than me (he won’t mind me saying) but we share much the same formative experiences, notably an internalising of the way the world worked in the 1990’s and 2000’s.

Back then, the big project was the construction of the euro, to the chorus of debates on global imbalances, fiscal strength (Hans Tietmeyer the former Bundesbank chief would be horrified by Western economic policy today). Elsewhere in the late 1990’s forward guidance of monetary policy consisted of analysing the size of Alan Greenspan’s briefcase and there was a healthy debate on whether central banks should act to burst asset bubbles (today central banks seem to trade those bubbles).

The point of this reminiscence is twofold.

The first is to demonstrate that compared to previous decades (and indeed the long-run of economic history) today’s economic landscape is an aberration, out of kilter with most long-term expectations of how economies behave.

The second point is to illustrate that for very long periods, economies follow regimes of behaviour where very different norms can endure for some time. It is often the correction of these norms that triggers large scale shifts in asset allocation, and volatility. One marked echo of market behaviour today, with the early 2000’s is that the equity risk premium (the benefit of owning equities over bonds) has fallen to its lowest level since 2000, and the performance of smaller companies (to very large ones) is the weakest it has been since 2001.

In general, the 1990’s and 2000’s were periods of rising expectations, whereas today that is not generally the case across countries. A notable feature of the sense that ‘things were on the up’ in the 1990’s was the growth of emerging markets.

Indeed, that period has given us at least two economic miracles – the rise of China as an economic and geostrategic power, and the rise of small, emerging states (Singapore and the Emirates). Neither of these ‘miracles’ is given enough credit by the West for what they have done in such a short space of time.

Specifically, last week was highly instructive in the case of emerging economies – three elections registered high market volatility. Mexico has elected a new president amidst fears that the institutions of the state, and its democracy will be further undermined, combined with a leftward tack on economic policy. The peso reacted badly.

India surprised most commentators (the consensus view on Modi has been far too bullish) by failing to ‘ordain’ Modi’s third term in office with a wholesome majority. While this may be positive from the point of view of India’s democracy, it means that the Modi economic steamroller has less momentum.

Then, the failure of the ANC to regain their majority in South Africa should not be a surprise given the failure of that economy to grow much in the last fifteen years (GDP per capita is at the same level as it was in 2010).

In the cases of India and Mexico, markets appear to be pricing democracy very differently – less of it in Mexico is bad, but the checking of Modi’s near absolute power is also bad (at least for the notion that he could have forced through another round of government spending).

Similar to governments across many emerging countries, investors appear to be torn between the strong man model and the Western oriented rule of law one. This is just one parameter where emerging economy governments will be forced to choose – another is between the US and China, and a further one is how to build an economy (and cities) around new technologies and in a more efficient way.

Of the three countries, South Africa is a depressing warning to others, and I see very little hope that it can put in place a coherent developmental model. What is more reassuring is that there are plenty of examples of countries that have made the journey from emerging markets to stable economies – Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states are good examples, and the cohort of Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia is on its way. Other emerging economies like Nigeria and Argentina are ‘experimental’.

What is also interesting is that emerging markets show that investors are becoming more sensitive to political and institutional risks (institutional investors in Turkey have all but given up). In this respect the important question is whether they start to more severely price in the macro risks associated with some of the developed economies.

If my notional 1990/2000’s investor was to return to the marketplace today, he/she would be confounded by valuations, low volatility and miniscule credit risk, and might start to believe that markets should treat the developed world economies with the same mercilessness it has shown to emerging markets this week.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike