Change of Guard

I was at the Knicks game (against Orlando Magic) at Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night, which offered a glimpse of iconic New York, with Spike Lee courtside to underline the fact.

Madison Square Garden was probably not the place to look for a reaction to Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral election victory, though across Manhattan I found many people exercised about the event (as well as the recent Epstein release).

Having last been in New York only two months ago, it has certainly not become less expensive, and to channel last week’s note (‘Pear-shaped’) on the K-Shaped economy that described how the holders of capital are doing well and labour is doing poorly, Mamdani is the beneficiary of this Marxian contrast, and he has the rhetoric to go with it.

Mamdani had the right level of charisma, decent organization and the perfect context. He may struggle as mayor, notably in terms of his authority with the police and emergency services, his economic acumen and moreover, in curbing the big picture macro issues that are beyond his control, as well as a hostile federal government.

Yet, for all the attention that his election has garnered, I do not think he is the only story in American politics (Seattle’s mayoral election also deserves attention for example), nor do I think he is the answer to the Democrats’ losing ways, and there are a number of other events to consider.

The first is the death of Dick Cheney, a day before Mamdani was elected. Cheney, or ‘Angler’ to give him his secret service codename (there is a good book on Cheney of that title, by Barton Gellman), is now an important reference point in American public life.

Cheney embodied the idea of someone who served the public and private sectors (almost at the same time), and who spent his life embedded in the industrial-defence-political complex. He had served several Republican presidents as a foreign policy and defence hawk, and when George W Bush asked him to lead the search for a vice-presidential candidate, Cheney could find no-one better than himself, and thus spent eight years as ‘W’ Bush’s vice president, with the suspicion being that it was he who called the shots (literally).

At the time, Cheney was regarded as a right-wing hawk, but as American politics changed, he and his courageous daughter Liz (also generally right wing) were two of very few Republicans who had consistently stood up to, and repeatedly condemned Donald Trump. Amongst other policies, Cheney as a Cold War warrior must have found it very difficult to understand and stomach the approach of the current White House to Russia.

That Cheney ended his life as a critic of Trump is a sign of how far the MAGA crowd have taken the Republican party. In itself, that should not mean that the Democrats fight the next elections from the far-left, as the result in New York hinted.

Indeed, two interesting results, the victories of Mikie Sherrill (now New Jersey’s first female Democratic governor) and Abigail Spanberger (Virginia’s first female governor) suggest that the Democrats can do well in the centre, with credible candidates. Both are role models – Sherrill is a Naval Academy graduate, flew helicopters and is the mother of four children, while Spanberger has three children and worked as a CIA agent.

In the current context, it is encouraging to see these very capable female candidates succeed, and even Marjorie Taylor Greene is displaying a form of reckless courage in veering away from the White House script.

Whilst the Democrat party is in disarray and dispute (following the vote to end the government shutdown), it is in need of a change of guard, notably so given the announcement that Nancy Pelosi will retire from public life. In that respect, serious candidates of the calibre of Sherrill will note three developments that might encourage the sense that a ‘change of guard’ is in the offing.

First, the president’s entanglement with Jeffrey Epstein is sapping his patience and political capital. Secondly, national security will become a more real issue as it is very clear now that China and Russia have only malign intentions towards the West, despite the fantasies of pseudo-Kissingerians in Washington. Third, and most importantly, the direction and timbre of the economy is the key political issue, with affordability at the top of the docket.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

The Road to Serfdom

I was sauntering through the centre of Vienna last Wednesday, admiring its stylish cafes and bars, and Friedrich Hayek came to mind.

Hayek argued against the suffocating role of government (‘central planners’) on the economy and for greater individual liberty, and his arguments still contain a grain of truth in the context of many European economies. Ironically, Austria’s brand-new finance minister had previously worked as an economist for a trade union and might well prove to be an ‘anti-Hayek’.

Hayek was one of the inspirations (after he won the Nobel Prize in 1974) behind what many American libertarians call the ‘Austrian’ school of economics, and his book ‘The Road to Serfdom’ is undoubtedly on the bookshelves of the most ardent members of team Trump, alongside works like Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged ‘.

In the Americas, Hayek is a favourite of the ‘chainsaw’ economists, with a large dollop of irony given the push for total control of the economy by an elite. Indeed, the risk for Americans is that the dismantling of the government led economy in America risks turning Americans into serfs of the private sector. But, this scenario is not yet immediately obvious given the way public attention remains focused on Ukraine and the victims of American tariffs.

In the past six months, a very strong international narrative has spread around the notion of ‘American exceptionalism’. The US is exceptional in a few domains – fighting (military), finance and its multinationals. Donald Trump is using these exceptional pillars to influence other countries and to set in train his vision for a more isolationist America. The response from America’s erstwhile allies has been to rapidly re-arm and re-finance.

An important sign of this was the announcement by Friedrich Merz (with the SPD’s Lars Klingbeil and the CSU chief) of a new defence spending plan, which largely swerves the issue of the debt brake. That German and Japanese bond yields rose suggests that markets are pricing the reallocation of the bill for security as an international public good to America’s former allies.

The return of war as a topic in European debate will alarm many people, and it should not be underestimated. One of my recent notes highlighted how Europe likely faces an ongoing campaign of harassment, sabotage and destabilisation from Russia. The idea that Europe is on its own is now quite starkly taking hold.

While the drumbeat of war will add to stress in our lives, it is not (yet) part of them. For the great majority of people, the geopolitical debate remains one between elites, and so far, does not impact their everyday lives.

This is where European leaders need to pay more attention and try to reset the international narrative. If America is strong in fighting and finance, it is weaker in areas where Europe is strong, and we might say that the two continents are the mirror opposite of each other. In my view, Europe is strong in the areas that matter to most people, most of the time. Specifically, Europe, as a social democracy is the best place to live in the world (6.6% of the world’s population live in ‘full’ democracies), has generally free education and healthcare and its societies are peaceful (according to the UN, the murder rate in the US is 14 times that of Italy). Life expectancy in France for instance, is four years ahead of the USA. Health spending per capita in the US is well over double what it would be for a European country (13k vs. 6k).

In this context, my counterintuitive argument (to the ‘chainsaw economists’) is that America needs less Hayek, and more ‘Europe’.

The absence of a deep social security system in the US, and the difficulty of accessing decent healthcare at reasonable prices means that a huge number of Americans live in precarity. Demolishing the department of education and cutting state aid to veterans are just two measures that increase vulnerability.

The trend that is emerging, and which will become starkly visible in a recession, is of an American society where a small but important number of households (say 20%) are wealthy enough to live well and access high quality education and healthcare, 40% of households live with the stress of becoming economically vulnerable and a further 30% live in serfdom in the sense that they have no leisure time (Newsweek estimates that one third of American workers has a second job).

Income inequality in the US is at historically very high levels, and the share of total income garnered by the top 1% of the workforce is tipping levels only seen in the 1930’s. Viewed from the point of view of wealth, 38% of the world’s millionaires live in America and over half of the ultra-high net worth (wealth over USD 50mn) individuals in the world are American. Indeed, the top 1% of wealthy Americans own 18.5% of all wealth in America, while the ‘bottom’ 50% of Americans own just 3% of wealth.

As such, the Trump 2.0 programme may not free Americans from serfdom to the government but will make them serfs of a private sector.

As a parting shot, Europe might need a little dose of Hayek. To that end, social welfare systems, state pension plans and healthcare spending may need to be streamlined across Europe as the security agenda becomes more prominent.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Humphrey

I’m glad to mention that my ‘GoldenEye’ note generated a lot of feedback, some of it cursing my good luck to spend a week in the Caribbean. To atone, I spent four days last week in the foggy cold of England, touring from Oxford to Manchester to the Cotswolds and finishing in London. Many of the places I visited are points of reference that I have known for a long time. Some have changed for the better (the Elizabeth line in London is very useful), some for the worse (this Manchester United team is indeed the worst ever), and some have not changed at all (the food at Pepper’s Burgers in Oxford is just as good as it was thirty years ago).

Economically and politically, Britain is worse off. Brexit has been a terrible mis-step, and the new Labour government is struggling to even diagnose the sputtering economy. Real-wage growth is feeble, productivity is at multi-decade lows, the fiscal deficit dominates policy making and the bond market is more troubled than when Liz Truss was prime minister. The only saving grace is that Britain isn’t Germany.

In foreign policy, while Britain is an active supporter of Ukraine and still a UN Security Council member, it is at risk of becoming lost geopolitically – Britain is stranded outside the EU and the special relationship between Washington and London is all but dead politically in the Trump 2.0 era.

However, Britain is good at remaking itself. I think that at some point it will have its ‘Brian’ moment when, to borrow from the Monty Python film (The Life of Brian), a political leader will emerge, haphazardly or by design, with the force of personality and ideas to right the country. Nigel Farage is not this person, and without being unkind, I am not sure that Keir Starmer is either.

It used to be the case that Britain didn’t need talented politicians, it had a large, expert civil service to run the country. Instead of ‘Brian’s’ it had ‘Humphreys’ after ‘Sir Humphrey Appleby’ the fictional cabinet secretary in the excellent 1980’s tv series ‘Yes, (Prime) Minister’. The series revolves around the art of non-decisions and the careful practice by civil servants of keeping elected officials far from the levers of power.

When the engine of the economy was whirring, the job of the ‘Humphreys’ was to keep politicians from putting a spanner in the works. Now that productivity is dead across the UK (below the US, Germany and France) due to a lack of investment in capital and skills, the country needs to be inspired by new ideas. Thankfully, two of them came along last week.

The first was the latest in a series of notes on the UK economy by the excellent LongView Economics. In brief their diagnosis is that Britain faces several, long-growing problems – to many ‘Humphreys’ or rather too much regulation and bureaucracy (government spending is at seventy year highs), the death of risk capital and the need to re-generate investment flows across the British economy and the financialization of the economy.

Two of the solutions flagged by LongView are the needs to reform the NHS and to cut bureaucracy across government. This might happen sooner than many think because the second inspirational idea to come out of the UK was the launch a week ago of the UK AI Opportunities Action Plan, which in effect was authored by the venture capitalist Matt Clifford with a little help from the likes of Sir Demis Hassabis. It is applied and well thought through enough that it could not have been written by civil servants. In a week where the USD 500bn Softbank/OpenAI/Oracle AI investment has grabbed the headlines, the UK AI Plan deserves much closer attention and in my view, is the best framework for an AI value chain.

Whilst there are fifty recommendations in the report, all of which have been endorsed by the government, the main ones involve ‘feeding’ AI models by making high quality data more available (changing copyright laws), accelerate investment in data centres and also set up an AI Energy Council to plan the energy sources to power the data centres. There are also plans for a national data library and for the use of AI in the NHS.

One striking element, announced this Tuesday, is the use of AI assistants to speed up public services, with data-sharing deals across siloed departments; and a new set of AI tools — dubbed “Humphrey”. The aim is to speed up and make the work of civil servants more efficient – with the stated aim of saving GBP 55bn (this is very ambitious and if achieved would cut significantly into the budget deficit).

The plan, at least, is ambitious. Whether or not the Labour government can implement this plan is very much an open question but at least they have in their hands a blueprint for investment and perhaps the beginning of something better for the British economy.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

W.E.N.A

A few weeks ago, it would have been inconceivable to most foreign policy experts that Israeli aircraft could bomb Syria at will with their tanks apparently in shooting distance of Damascus, all the while a new Islamist regime installed itself there. This latest turn in the topsy turvy geopolitical world gives a glimpse of some of the regime shifts to come and the fragility of erstwhile brutal, long-lasting dictatorships.

I absorbed the implications of the event in Abu Dhabi, which in terms of its success and trajectory, underlines the view of some that there are ‘two middle easts’. At the same time, Abu Dhabi has risen to a point of influence that it will be the lodestar in building the economic structure of the region once a viable peace plan for Israel/Palestine has been found.

The surprise departure of Bashir al-Assad will likely accelerate the reordering of the region and give food for thought to other ‘strongmen’. It may eventually be that a gang of them ends up living out of the Ritz Carlton in Moscow.

Indeed, a couple of academics have tracked the flight of deposed dictators and state that ‘we find that dictators are more likely to go into exile in states that are close neighbors, have hosted other dictators in the past, are militarily powerful, and possess colonial links, formal alliances, and economic ties. By contrast, fleeing dictators tend to avoid democratic states and countries experiencing civil conflict’. More specifically, in Europe the top three destinations for dictators are Russia, the UK and France!

Despite Assad’s fall, Syria itself is not out of the woods – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham may be media sensitive, but they are also deadly, conservative Islamists. They have manifestly been given a firm helping hand by Turkey, which is re-establishing itself as a regional power.

Turkish foreign policy is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery. In the past I have written how, in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, many countries in north Africa wanted to follow the ‘Turkish model’ of development. Since then, Recep Erdogan has enfeebled the country’s institutions and its economic backbone and has turned a foreign policy that used to be based on ‘no trouble with neigbours’ to one of ‘trouble with neighbours’.

However, Erodgan is a key player now – especially in terms of how he negotiates Russia’s military withdrawal. There remain many open questions, notably how the fall of Syria further weakens Iran and what implications this has for Iraq. Larger regional countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will welcome the toppling of Assad and the further undermining of Iran, but now have to face up to the prospect of a regional peace deal where the strength of their support for Palestine will be tested.

If in 2025 a peace deal is struck that keeps in place the two-state formula, then the prospect of a regional economic recovery, led by the UAE (or Abu Dubai as some call it), may not be far off.

Visits to ministries, financial institutions (including Abu Dhabi Finance Week) and infrastructure players, with Prof. Afshin Molavi and several other economists and writers, gave a sense of the ambition of the region. In particular compared to previous visits to the region, two things stood out as ‘new developments’.

The first is a growing sense of independence on the part of the UAE to go its own way in terms of how it makes policy (as opposed to being a policy taker from the US and the EU). This is evident in finance, infrastructure, labour markets and trade. On trade specifically, the UAE has to be geopolitically ambidextrous in how it builds relationships with the US and China, though when it comes to technology, the sense is that it is very much plugged into America.

The second element worth commenting on is the idea of ‘The Fourth Pole’. I have written on this in the last year, and the idea is that in a multipolar world made up of three ‘poles’ (US, EU and China) there is room for a fourth pole made up of India, the Gulf States and other players across the ‘region’ (which we could define as those countries a five hours flight away from the UAE, which includes some 2.4 billion people across Asia, Africa, Southeast Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean).

The notion of the ‘Fourth Pole’ is gathering pace around the very close relationship between the UAE and India (the very popular Hindu Temple in Abu Dhabi is just one sign), and the web of trade, finance and infrastructure deals they are engaging in across the region. This relationship may not ultimately become as deep as that of the EU countries, but it is beginning to look like a modern version of the ‘Coal and Steel’ community. The risk however, is that they overbuild capacity in the face of a forthcoming economic shock or recession.

As a final word, the best indication that I had that the UAE is feeling both confident and more independent is that some well-connected government advisors have come up with an acronym for the west – W.E.N.A (Western Europe and North America)!

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

Profiles in Courage

John F Kennedy, who died this week 61 years ago, is famous for many things, but a lesser known accomplishment is that he won a Pulitzer Prize for a bestselling book entitled ‘Profiles in Courage’, that told the stories of eight American political figures (mostly senators if I recall) who took morally courageous stands on issues that went against the views of their parties and popular opinion. An example was John Quincy Adams’ decision to break from the Federalist Party (over foreign policy).

Like all things Kennedy, the book was a dazzling success, but also had a few magical ingredients. It is generally accepted that Ted Sorensen, adviser and speechwriter to Kennedy, contributed much of the book, or in his own terms, he wrote ‘many of the words that made up the sentences’. Equally, the book did not make it through the formal entry process for the Pulitzer, but was nudged into the competition by Joe Kennedy, the president’s father.

As an aside, in the context of the recent presidential election, it could well be argued that Joe Kennedy was a Trumpian figure…or that Trump is simply following the ‘Patriarch’s; example (David Nasaw’s book of this title is very good). Joe Kennedy accomplished more as a businessman than Trump, but fell short in his political career. Instead, he groomed Joe junior(killed in the second world war), then John, Bobby and Ted.

One of Joe senior’s achievements was his appointment as American ambassador to the UK, but his term was cut short because of his perceived stance on appeasement. With some irony, Joe senior had encouraged the publication of his son’s Harvard thesis as a book.

‘Why England Slept’ queried the ‘soft’ stance of the British government towards Germany in the lead-up to the war and argued that if Britain had re-armed earlier and taken a more robust stance with Germany, the second world war may not have happened, or at least might have taken a different path (the book was a great success and the British royalties were given to the city of Plymouth which had been badly bombed by the Luftwaffe).

Though Robert Kennedy junior may now take the ‘Kennedy’ limelight, the message of JFK’s books echoes in today’s world. In a couple of years’ time, someone might write ‘Why Europe Slept?’ in the sense that Europe has let its guard slip on security and not built defence infrastructure to keep up with the threat of Russia.

In a week where a Chinese vessel is suspected of cutting a telecoms cable between Germany and Finland, when the first EU defence and space commissioner has been confirmed (Andrius Kubilius’ first task is to compile an inventory of Europe’s defence supply chains) and where an intercontinental ballistic missile has apparently been used on Ukraine, there is a sense that Europe is still not ready for the worst.

The idea of ‘profiles in courage’ is even more pertinent. In a multipolar world, where countries and companies have to ‘take sides’, where America will arguably become more transactional and less relationship driven in its foreign policy and, where democracy is being eroded from within and afar, moral courage will be at a premium.

One unfortunate example here is Olaf Scholz’ moral capitulation in calling Russia’s president last week, ostensibly to lay the groundwork for a peace deal. Scholz likely had the upcoming German elections in mind, but his call was rewarded with an intense bombardment of Kiev.

This has left Scholz even more discredited. Up until this week there was now a growing debate around his future as SPD leader and the prospect that he could be replaced by Boris Pistorius, the popular defence minister. Pistorius has declared that he does not want the leadership tole.

This is a pity for Germany, because having Pistorius in place as Social Democrat leader by the time of the election might boost the party and would also make a coalition with the CDU easier to form and more ideologically consistent. As it stands, the polls show the CDU/CSU with some 32% of the vote, the SPD on 16%, AfD at 19% and Sara Wagenknecht’s party at 7%. At that rate the CDU-SPD coalition might need to take on a smaller partner, but in effect Merz would be the dominant partner.

A Merz lead coalition could be a real change for Germany, could reignite its economy and remake its energy policy, and may turn it into a more robust geopolitical player vis a vis Russia.

My advice is that Merz, and his compatriots at the head of the SPD both read the works of John Kennedy.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Distance

If any readers travel to Singapore, I can recommend they visit the Botanic Gardens to sense the dawn break. A badly adjusted body clock brought on by jet lag meant that I found myself jogging around the Gardens at 5.30am on Monday and Tuesday mornings – uplifted by the sounds, smells and sights of this mini paradise.

My few days in Singapore, principally to speak at the Founders Forum gathering, allowed me to gauge the Asian reaction to the prospect of a second, more menacing Trump term in office.

I did so armed with the memory of a May 2016 visit to Singapore where I had asked a gathering of some 300 people to compile a word cloud (using their mobiles) of thoughts and emotions they associated with Donald Trump. The result was harsh, and very few of the participants that day thought Trump would be elected as president in 2016, and just as few thought that Brexit would happen.

To my mind the event was emblematic of the certainty of the era of globalization, and the ways in which this was smashed by events like the first Trump presidency, Brexit and the smothering of Hong Kong’s open society.

Singapore is one of the most important places to observe these changes from – it is highly globalized (the DHL Connectedness Report highlights it as the most globalized country in the world), delicately balanced between the Chinese commercial and American worlds, and institutionally one of the strongest countries (though it is one tenth the size of County Cork, it has an active army nearly ten times the size of that of Ireland). As a leading ‘micro-power’ it has an even greater stock of soft power.

As such Singapore will acutely feel the rising tensions between China and America especially in terms of the technologies it uses, investment flows and diplomacy. For context, the soon to be secretary of state Marco Rubio has laid out the faultlines in the relationship between China and America in an interesting document entitled ‘The World China Made’.

Indeed, several prominent politicians in Singapore such as prime minister Laurence Wong have declared the end of the ‘golden era of globalization’. My guess is that in the Trump era, Wong and colleagues will have to tread incredibly carefully diplomatically. Economically, it is clear that Singapore’s role as the wealth hub of Asia, or its ‘Geneva’ is gathering pace, and also obvious that its economy is benefitting from the growing prosperity in countries like Indonesia.

There are two other aspects of my visit that are worth stressing, less for what they say about Singapore but more for what they tell us how the ‘West’ is perceived.

First, with regard to Europe, in two separate meetings I was asked if I thought the euro would survive. This greatly surprised me as not only do I think the euro is a solid, though not yet perfectly formed currency, I have not been asked that question in Europe in nearly ten years. It suggests that Europe still has a reputational problem, or that at very least its ‘message’ is not reaching Asia. Conversely, it seems that there are too few Asian voices in the European media – connecting us to what is happening in cities like Singapore and Hong Kong.

The second reflection, which also resonates across Europe, is that for the first time in at least a century, an American presidency is being launched that has a manifestly threatening and aggressive stance towards the rest of the world.

America has historically been the builder of relationships, alliances and institutions (Pax Americana) and its (soft) power has been built on this. The tenor of the Trump cabinet is increasingly clear, and many of the appointees appear to have been selected on the basis that they did bad things in the past, or that they are prepared to do bad things to others in the future.

This is the great unknown for the USA, that its new posture towards the rest of the world causes it to lose influence and friends.

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

Act of Union

There is a theory abroad that the British Empire was so vast and dominant, simply because a large country (England) was attached to a brilliant small country (Scotland). It is true that many of the individuals we associate with the advancement of Britain are Scottish – economist Adam Smith, scientists James Watt, Alexander Fleming and Alexander Graham Bell, and writers like Arthur Conan Doyle and Walter Scott. More recently, some of the more prominent political figures in Westminster have been Scottish – such as Gordon Brown.

This year is the tenth anniversary of the Scottish independence referendum, which whilst the motion for independence was defeated, set in train a groundswell in favour of independence and the resulting electoral landslide for the Scottish National Party in the subsequent general election. At the time of the referendum, the SNP was led by Alex Salmond, who died last week, and who was the founding father and driving force of the independence movement (and a subscriber to this note).

At the time of the referendum, there was great interest in the prospect of Scotland going it alone, and the way the Scots might dis-engage their economy from England was the focus of attention. In many respects the downfall of the independence side was that they became mired in an argument over the kind of currency arrangement Scotland might have, and the resulting impact that this could have on household finances. In the land of Braveheart, this battle by spreadsheet proved too much.

The independence referendum also brought into focus the kind of socio-economic model that Scotland might enjoy, and this spurred me to start researching the model of small, advanced states, a theme I have developed in collaboration with David Skilling over the years.

Simply put, our thesis is that while the likes of Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, Ireland and the Netherlands are culturally very different they, and a handful of other small states are all highly successful. Alex Salmond used refer to the northern most small, advanced economies as the ‘arc of prosperity’.

Small-advanced states dominate the lists of ‘happiest nation, ‘most innovative’ and ‘most open economy’, and share a common set of factors upon which their success is built (strong institutions, a healthy regard for the rule of law, prioritisation of education and innovation for example).

Indeed, this ‘secret sauce’ tallies with the work of the winners of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson, the body of whose works links growth to institutions and laws (the book ‘Why Nations Fail’ is worth a read).

One of the first occasions that David and I presented our work was with Alex Salmond, in Singapore, and since then David in particular has been an active adviser to the Scottish government.

My sense is that the death of Alex Salmond, and the near implosion of the SNP amidst a series of leadership crises (and the resurrection of the Scottish Labour party who have increased their tally of Scottish MPs in Westminster from 2 to 37) will gravely diminish the political momentum towards an independent Scotland. On the other hand, the limits that Brexit places on the UK in general will serve as one of several motivators for the Scots to go their own way.

One of the underlying theses behind the small state model is that they are adaptive and strategic – nimbly ducking around the imbalances of a chaotic world. To a large extent this is still true – the Nordic countries, as well as the smaller Baltic states have impressively upped their game on the security and defence front (Ireland has not), and Sweden and Finland have thrown off their neutrality.

In addition, and a marker of how policy is changing in the Western world, the Nordic state – once a near parody of tolerance – are adopting much tougher stances on immigration, and after too much patience, organised crime. If they are really canaries in the coal mine of world politics, this turning point suggests that in Europe, there is now little welcome for an increase in immigration.

To that end, having been in the vanguard of economic advancement during globalization, small, advanced states are at the forefront of dealing with the challenges of an intensely geopolitical world.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

From Cranes to Crypto

Madrid, Spain cityscape at Calle de Alcala and Gran Via

Regular readers will know that I travel a lot, always with a preference for boats and trains and by air when necessary. Having spent much of the summer without the need for a plane, the next few months will see an intensification of my travel schedule across Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

In most places I will be talking about the economics and politics of a changing world, but the virtue of visiting so many cities (Hamburg to Abu Dhabi for instance) and regions (the Cotswolds to South East Asia) is the opportunity it grants to witness the kinds of growth and development happening in the world, and the measures we can use to compare economic activity across countries.

Here, a few favourites come to mind. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s it was commonplace for economists and investment strategists in the large banks to rush back from trips to Asia with tales of how many cranes they had seen across the skylines of major Chinese cities and estimates of what this meant for the growth of the Chinese economy. Nowadays, those economists sit on a deck chair in the Marina Bay Sands hotel in Singapore, look out onto the bay and count the number of tankers anchored there as a proxy for global supply chain disruption.

Another tell-tale indicator is taxis. A former colleague, friend and reader of this note, with whom I used to travel to Japan in the late 1990’s referenced the length of taxi queues as a proxy for Japan’s then moribund economy (often unoccupied taxi ranks would snake around office blocks).

Then on a visit to a thriving Abu Dhabi in 2012, my taxi driver got lost (on the way to the airport). He apologised, saying it was his ‘first day’. I assumed he meant it was his first day as a taxi driver, but it turned out that it was his first day in Abu Dhabi. I politely took this as a sign of a vibrant labour market and a strong economy.

A risk that travelling economists face, not unwittingly, is that they normally stay in the centre of a city, and often in a decent hotel. I wrote a note some time ago describing this as ‘Grande Bretagne’ syndrome, after the teams from the IMF who oversaw the austerity programme of the Greek economy during the euro-zone financial crisis who stayed in the plush Grande Bretagne and Hilton hotels in the city centre. While this placed them near the seat of power, it meant that they were blind to the brutal impact of austerity across the country.

In general, travelling economists should get out and about. For instance, the quality of public transport in a country is a good indicator of the standard of infrastructure and to an extent, social cohesion and, is also a good way to observe a society. Someone observed that a city in which the wealthy use public transport is a well-balanced one (Zurich is a good example). In contrast, there is, inexplicably, no train from Dublin airport to the city centre, but a ride on the Luas tram will give a very good idea of the dramatic changes in Irish society.

In keeping with this approach, a favourite activity to beat jetlag and to either reacquaint with or discover a city is an early morning run (this week’s schedule took in the Tour Eiffel, the Tiergarten and Madrid (the park was closed due to bad weather)). In that idiosyncratic way, My eyes (and feet) are sensitive to the quality of the road surface, pollution and to the appearance of new buildings and signs of dereliction (Berlin scores on both counts).

There are other indicators of the economic prowess of cities, such as the rise of tall towers (the UAE for instance). In this tech driven age, a new category of indicators might comprise cities that want to become crypto-hubs (UAE, Miami, Zurich, Lisbon) and those that seek to attract large artificial intelligence (AI) firms (OpenAI has just opened an office in Paris).

As a final note on Madrid, I haven’t seen the city as ‘sleek’ or well presented (the 12^th was the national holiday), and it must be said, as expensive. Note that Spain now has a slightly lower interest rate (bond yield) than France, and a considerably higher rate of growth than Germany.

The economy appears strong, despite concerns that many people versed about the state of Spanish democracy and its finely balanced political situation – there is likely a contentious budget on the horizon towards 2025.

There were a lot more Latin Americans than I had expected, and this has both helped tourism, and pushed up house prices (to the ire of some locals). Spain’s golden visa system means that it is the recipient of wealthier Latin Americans leaving countries like Venezuela. At the same time, quite a number of Spanish businesses and executives are relocating to Lisbon, which is a warning sign for innovation.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike