Complete Intelligence

Categories
Podcasts

Be Warned: High Prices Are Here To Stay

Our CEO, Tony Nash, talks about inflation’s and Omicron’s role in US shares sinking, as fears spread over their non-transitory nature. And how will Asia react to the ‘non-transitory’ nature of inflation and the new Covid variant? Is Gold a good asset to use to hedge against inflation?

This podcast first appeared and originally published at https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/be-warned-high-prices-are-here-to-stay on December 02, 2021.

  • Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.

Show Notes

PS: Markets in the US were down across the board. The Dow is down 1.3%. S&P 500 down 1.2% Nasdaq down 1.8%. Now over across in Asia, everyone was up. Nikkei was up .4% Hang Seng up .8% Shanghai Composite also up .4% and STI Singapore up 1.9%. And as I was saying early on, FBM KLCI was down 1.1%.

TN: Yeah. Thanks for having me, guys. I think the biggest consideration really is Powell’s comments on inflation, saying it’s kind of no longer transitory. So people should expect inflation to stay. What that means generally is we’ve hit a new pricing level is his expectation. So meaning prices are not in his mind, in many cases, going to go back to the levels that we saw before this inflationary stairstep. And what we’ve seen, particularly in the US, is consumers have accepted this and consumers accepted it, thinking that it was a temporary rise in prices.


But what he delivered today is some bad news that it’s likely a permanent prize in the level of prices. And the kind of short term cost rises that people thought they were going to endure are more permanent.

KSC: Yeah. So, Tony, try and give us a bit of a perspective here, because obviously the last twelve years and the last accelerated two years of monetary easing have induced this inflation. How does it all end? And does it stop the weak economic growth we’ve been seeing in the US the last few months.

TN: Yeah. So US economic growth, we don’t see a rapid acceleration of US economic growth. And so we have the US, China, Japan, and the EU, all at very subdued growth rates. And that’s bad. Those are the four largest economies with elevated price rises. Earnings are growing in some areas. I’m sorry, wages are growing in some areas, but they’re not necessarily growing across the economy. And part of that, particularly in the US, is a shortage of staff. So people have opted out of the workforce. We’ve lost, like 6 million workers in the US since Covid.


And so there are fewer workers. And so we have wages rising in certain areas. But it’s not necessarily across the board. So people are really going to have to start taking a look at their disposable income to understand what of these ongoing price rises that they can continue to accept. And I think we’re at a point where, since it’s no longer viewed as temporary, people and companies are going to have to start making trade offs. This is really the bad news is when people have to, when it’s no longer temporary, companies and people have to start making trade offs of what to do with their resources.


And that’s where the real problem is. So it’s not ongoing expansionary spending. And even I think it was Biden who said today we don’t expect a stimulus package for the current variant. Again, people are having to look at trade offs, and this is the real problem. When companies have to look at trade offs, they’re looking at their operating costs, they’re looking at their capital expenditure, they’re looking at their investments, they’re looking at other things. So down to Earth type of environment where we’re starting to enter Realville, we’re starting to exit the kind of fantasy environment we’ve been in the monetary induced sugar coma that we’ve been in for the past year and a half.

PS: So that’s a very interesting point, because I’ve always felt like in 2021, we saw this huge divergence in recovery right between the developed world led by the US and emerging markets, which are still really struggling to contain the virus and such. So when we talk about Asia, how do you think markets will react to this tightening of monetary policy by the Fed?

TN: Yeah. We think that Southeast Asia generally will stay pretty muted. We don’t expect early breakout at least over the next quarter or two. We don’t expect really breakout moves in Southeast Asia. We expect China to have a fair bit of volatility, but we do expect China to be generally positive over the next quarter to quarter horizon. We do expect Japan to continue to rise pretty well in India as well. Japan largely on the back of monetary policy automation, other things. So Asia is not one market, of course.


So we do expect different parts of Asia to react differently. Korea will be a mix between China and Japan like it always is. So we’ll see some volatility there reflecting China, but we’ll see some, I guess, acceleration and equities like we would see in Japan to make some both.

KSC: Well, Tony, in truth, inflation has been with us for some weeks now. But what hasn’t been with us for some weeks has been on the Omicron that’s the other big roadblock posing an obstacle to markets. How does Asia behave? How does Asia react, especially since we’re going to be opening in a few hours time?

TN: Yeah, I think Asia generally. You guys know I lived in Asia for most of my life, and Asia generally takes these things in stride with more vaccines available with the typical kind of weathering, the storm kind of approach that people have, particularly in Southeast Asia. I think people will generally take it in stride. This is really the first pandemic. Let’s say in the west that people have had for probably 50 years where they’ve really been kind of freaked out and worried in Asia, we’ve seen these types of pandemics for 2030 years.


It’s a bit different. People are more conservative, people are more used to these types of volatile, say, public health and market and other type of environments in Asia. So of course, we’ll see things shake up, but we won’t necessarily see the dire kind of messages that we’ve seen, say in the west. I don’t think we will. We’ve seen dire messages come out of, say, Germany and Italy and Austria, particularly over the past week with full lockdowns with 100% vaccine mandates, with really dire messaging. I don’t necessarily think we’re going to see super negative messaging in Asia like we’ve seen there.

PS: We won’t freak out as much as what you’re saying then essentially.

TN: No. Come on, man. It’s Asia, right? People are used to volatility in Asia and the developed markets. Developed markets are highly calibrated. Right? 0.2% change. Either way is people see as dramatic in Asia a small they’re not as calibrated. So people are accustomed to more ups and downs, and people just generally take it in stride.

PS: And I said that generally it’s quite calming. Is gold with inflation basically consigned away from this trend trade term? What’s your view in terms of gold? That’s a hit against inflation then? Because if I look at the data, the method is down 6% year to date.

TN: Right. And a lot of the inflationary rise has already happened. A lot of the stuff happens in stairstep fashion, and a lot of the mitigation efforts are already under way. So while we’ll continue to see inflation and we’ll continue to stay at an inflated level, I don’t necessarily. Or we’re not seeing dramatic price rises going forward. Okay. You’ll see it in pockets where there are, say, supply issues or something like that. But gold is more effective when everything is well, gold is a barometer for finding value.

I’ll say that much. It’s a tangible metal and people see it as worth something. And so what used to happen is gold and say the dollar as the dollar do value the gold would appreciate. But now we have crypto and people treat crypto kind of in the same way they used to treat gold. The gold market is really trying to find itself. So I think we’re going to have to see some fallout in crypto if it is to happen. We’ll have to see some fallout in crypto before we start to see gold being the safe haven again or being the preeminent safe haven.


So until Bitcoin and the other crypto assets really deteriorate in value and people go flocking back to gold, which I think will happen eventually. I don’t think it’ll happen overnight, but until we see a lack of faith in crypto, I don’t think we’ll necessarily see dramatic price pressure on gold.

KSC: Tony, you talked about Asia, right? And now China is moving to banners via structure, which is the loophole that allows its companies to list in New York and other foreign exchanges. What does this mean in terms of China’s overall strategy to go its own way to quote Fleetwood Mac?

TN: Sure. Yeah. So I think, of course, it hurts Western banks, and it hurts the Western banks that are in Asia because they don’t necessarily have those fees to take things public in the west. But I think the bigger problem is this those companies going public don’t have US dollar denominated resources to access, and so they have to get CNY or Hong Kong dollar or Japanese yen or other Sing dollar other denominated assets. Okay. But the US dollar is 87% of global transactions. So it helps those companies to have US dollar reserves, especially as they’re newly public.


Because why do you go public? Because you want to buy another company, you want to use that cash for a big investment or something, you want to expand in a big way. So if you don’t have the US dollar assets that come from going public, say, in New York or somewhere in the US or whatever, it’s really hard to have a big source of cash to do a massive international expansion or undertake a big international project or do a big international buy that’s I guess the biggest downside I would see from the decline of that type of structure in China.

KSC: All right, Tony, thank you so much for your time, Tony Nash there chief executive of Complete Intelligence. And just to hang on this last point, Phil, if you don’t list in the US, you don’t get US dollars necessarily. But that doesn’t matter if you are China, and you believe that the real market is domestically or within ASEAN, where you’ve got to combine, I don’t know, 2.1 trillion people or 2.1 billion people. That’s quite a fair few heads. Yes.

PS: Correct. I think it’s a question of whether you see a convergence between where you list versus where you operate.

KSC: Absolutely.

PS: And I think in the past we thought, okay, you could tap financial markets globally to serve your local markets. But I think China is kind of proving the point. No. I think it’ll be closer together.

KSC: Yeah. And what he was talking about in response to your question on gold, Phil, how gold hasn’t responded to all this uncertainty, which has been traditionally the case. And Bitcoin is somewhere hovering around in the mid 50s, which is a bit weird because you would expect some kind of flight to what was seen as safe havens, right.

PS: Ironic is considered Bitcoin a flight to safe havens.

KSC: Well, because it’s finite in nature. So it’s a bit like gold, right. It seems interesting, because in the last few weeks, we’ve seen a move among corporates like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and now Jack Dorsey, formerly of Twitter, who has left his job at Twitter. Still, at the same time was CEO of Square fintech platform financial platform. He’s moving to turn Square into a company called Block, and it’s a bit like it would make Mr. Miyagi proud because martial arts moves from square to block, but he’s going all in.

PS: But this is a very interesting thing because he’s going all in on crypto. And I think you’re referring to Blockchain blockchain reference to Blockchain, which is the distributed platform for data used by Crypto.


But it’s interesting, right? This whole name shift.


I think Jack Dorsey, I think, is trying to evolve away from just being a pure payments provider to offering solutions that are anchored on blockchain as a solution.

Categories
Podcasts

US Complete Lockdowns Unlikely

Corporate earnings are beating the Wall Street estimates — are these even accurate? For the exporting countries in Asia — will they be badly hit with further lockdowns? And why is WTI crude oil dropped all of a sudden? All these and more in this quick podcast interview with Tony Nash at the BFM 89.9 The Morning Run.

 

This podcast first appeared and originally published at https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/us-complete-lockdowns-unlikely on August 5, 2021.

 

❗️ Check out more of our insights in featured in the CI Newsletter and QuickHit interviews with experts.

❗️ Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.

 

Show Notes

 

SM: BFM 89.9. Good morning. You are listening to the Morning Run. I’m Shazana Mokhtar in studio today with Wong Shou Ning and Philip See. First, though, as always, we recap how global markets ended the trading day.

 

PS: Yes, the U.S. was relatively mixed. The Dow is down 0.9%. S&P 500 also -0.5%. Nasdaq was up 0.1%, crossing over to the Pacific and Asia. Also a mixed day. The Nikkei was down 1.2%. Shanghai Composite and Hang Seng were both up 0.9%, Singapore up 1.1%. And actually, not surprisingly, FBN, Kilcher was down 1.6%.

 

SM: And for some insights into what’s moving markets, we have on the line Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Good morning, Tony. Always good to have you. So looking at corporate second quarter earnings, they’ve been beating Wall Street estimates, yet a prevailing bearishness seems to be creeping into U.S. markets. Is this an accurate reading driven by the rise of Covid-19 cases from the Delta variant?

 

TN: Yeah, earnings are up about 90% year on year, and a lot of that really has to do with companies cutting back staff and trimming expenses. This is a really nice, obviously not unexpected, but a really nice pop. But the cutbacks have come to a limit if we’re straddling a come back. Part of that is revenues are up 22% on quarter, which is great. But given the cutbacks, it looks extraordinarily good. So these things have a way of winding down. There’s only so much you can only get this good for so long. So we do expect this to to erode a little bit going into next quarter.

 

WSN: But does this mean that markets will find it hard to go to the next leg up in?

 

TN: It depends. It depends on company performance, but it also depends on things like central bank activity and fiscal spending. So if we look at Covid, it depends on which way it’s going. And if Delta variant gets worse and the fatality rate gets worse, which isn’t here in Texas, the fatality rate per case is half of what it was back in February. So just six months ago, the fatality rate here was twice per case of Covid.

 

So we’re hearing a lot about case counts. But the reality is the fatalities are declining pretty rapidly. So here we see that is a good thing. And and so we’re hopeful that things will you know, we’ll continue to move back to a normal situation. But there’s a lot of talk about, you know, closing things down. New York just put coded passports in for going to restaurants and going out in public, the sort of thing.

 

What that does is that really it really hurts small local businesses. It hurts chains for, say, restaurants and shopping. It helps companies like Amazon that do a lot of local deliveries. So so if New York is going to lock down, it helps to work from home type of company try it. But it seems to me in the US it’s going to be really hard to close the US down again because there’s a lot of push back in the US to closing down in some places, not so much New York, California, those those places, but other places. If there was an attempt to lock down again here in Texas, people would be pretty resistant.

 

PS: And you made a point on central bank activity. Fed Vice Chairman Richard Clarida confirmed that they are on track to raise rates in twenty twenty three, but jobs data is soft. So how should we make of all this?

 

TN: Yeah, I don’t see that happening. Look, you know, people talk about rates a lot, but the Fed has so many tools. I would expect the Fed to commence some sort of QE plan in the not too distant future before I would expect rates talk. I think we’re closer to QE than we are to rates much closer to QE than we are at a rate. So I don’t see rates changing certainly in obviously in twenty one. I don’t see them changing in twenty two. If it’s twenty three, maybe it’s the back half, but I just don’t see that happening simply because we’ve got to stop the flow of finance ministry and central bank activity going into economies globally first before we start to impose higher rates on borrowers. So we just need to get to a zero state or a semi normal state before we start imposing higher rates on borrowers.

 

SM: OK, and turning our attention closer to home, Tony. An economic upswing in Southeast Asia this year looks increasingly uncertain. And given that ASEAN is predominantly export dependent, how badly hit do you think countries in this region are going to be?

 

TN: Yeah, I think it’s hard. For those countries that have the benefit of, say, natural resources exports like Malaysia with palm oil and crude oil and other things, I think that helps. However, manufactured goods are difficult, partly on supply chain issues, partly on Covid, you know, restrictions and other things. So international transport is still in a very difficult situation. So I think it’s tough for Southeast Asia. I think there’s a big move in Europe and North America to have more manufacturing done nearby in regions.

 

So I think this, over a period that’s been protracted 18 months or longer. I think the more that happens, the more we see unwinding of global supply chains and the more we see the unwinding of Asia as the centralized manufacturing hub globally. I think we’ve seen more regional manufacturing. I don’t think that necessarily means that the manufacturing in China or other places are necessarily in danger. Unfortunately, a place that I think places that I think are more in danger of places like Malaysia, Thailand, the middle income, middle tier type of manufacturing countries. So the automation, competitiveness, these sorts of things are really much more important in places like Malaysia and Thailand.

 

WSN: And Tony, I want to switch to oil because when I look at the Bloomberg at the moment, WTI is showing at sixty eight U.S. dollars a barrel for delivery in September. What do you make of this sudden drop in prices? Is it due to demand decline?

 

TN: It’s on Covid fears. News all over the here in the U.S. It’s a lot of Covid fear mongering and you know, a lot of that. The media is based in New York and D.C. And so there’s a lot of chatter on the government side. And in New York, the New York media is trying to get the the focus away from Andrew Cuomo, the governor there, and really trying to focus on Covid and other things. So markets are reacting.

 

Business doesn’t want things closed down. Again, people in business don’t want to close down again. So I think, you know, you’re going to see a real push pull in markets over the next couple of weeks as that debate happens about two places closed down or not. And you’ll see some volatility in things like commodities and in other markets as that very active discussion continues.

 

SM: All right, Tony, thanks as always for your insights. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, talking to us about the situation of the economy in the US. And, you know, that push and pull between closing down, how do we deal with with the covid, but at the same time, you know, make sure the economy doesn’t suffer too much.

 

PS: You made a very interesting point that with closing down, who is affected the most. Right, with respect to businesses. He did say smaller businesses are more susceptible as result of a closure locked out. But the same is exactly the same thing you’re going to see across the board.

 

WSN: Yeah, yeah. I think he also brought up an interesting point about the fact that, yes, there is this decentralization of manufacturing hubs. Right. Because I think a lot of businesses are concerned that with covid-19 and they have really been proven that supply chains can be very easily disrupted. But ironically, Malaysia may not be a beneficiary. It might move to other countries. And it’s a question of whether we move up the value chain to provide that, you know, that that automation that we need do.

 

The things that we talk about are 4.0. I’ll be ready for it. Do we have to staff for it? Will they go to other countries? And he hinted that he might. So I’m just curious, in the longer term, what is our government’s plans, especially now 12 million, your plan confirmed to be in September and budget 2022 in October?

 

SM: That’s right. And we’re going to get a perspective on this later on in the show at seven forty five when we speak to the president of the Malaysian Semiconductor Industry Association. So stay tuned for that BFM eighty nine point nine.

 

Categories
News Articles

“Take a tooth for a tooth”: Is it possible to use the “American version of the Belt and Road” to counter China?

This article originally published at https://www.voachinese.com/a/beat-china-at-its-own-game-will-us-belt-and-road-work-20210224/5792031.html on June 3, 2021.

 

WASHINGTON — The former U.S. Secretary of the Navy and former Senator Jim Webb recently issued an article in which he put forward an interesting proposal in which he called on the Biden administration to launch the “American version of the Belt and Road Initiative” to counter China’s influence in the world. Weber believes that the United States can do better than China. This proposal has sparked a lot of debate. Some scholars believe that the United States encourages free competition and that the “Belt and Road” initiative is not the way the United States does things.

 

Weber published an article in the Wall Street Journal on February 17 advising the Biden administration to consider launching the “US version of the Belt and Road.” “China invests in large-scale infrastructure projects all over the world to increase its influence, and the United States can do the same,” he said.

 

Weber pointed out that as an important part of China’s global strategy for hegemony, the Chinese government has established economic and diplomatic ties with developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America through the “One Belt, One Road” project, and conducted military infiltration on the grounds of protecting the interests of these projects. However, public discussions in the United States have not paid enough attention to this.

 

Weber believes that the Chinese government’s escalating military, diplomatic provocations and human rights persecution in recent years have made many developing countries hesitate to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. He called on the Biden administration to seize this opportunity and begin to attach importance to the “often neglected countries” in U.S. foreign policy, and to give these regions the opportunity to choose the U.S. in order to counter China’s influence and prevent the world system from being coerced by authoritarianism. This is conducive to the “diplomatic and economic health” of the United States.

 

“This is not a doomed career, but an unrecognized opportunity,” Weber said.

 

Weber proposed that the Biden administration implement a comprehensive and coordinated policy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, integrating thoughtful diplomacy, security commitments, and project investment and participation by the American business community to fill the vacuum.

 

Weber also believes that the United States can do better than China. “The U.S.’s major investment in this—without colonial motives and based on a more credible and more time-tested business model—will forcefully start developing economies, and at the same time boost the U.S. economy, and inspire further progress in a global free society. Pre-development,” Weber said.

 

The United States encourages free competition, “One Belt One Road” is not our way of doing things

 

As soon as the article came out, supporters called Weber a “visionary pragmatist”, and the United States urgently needed to implement it, and it was not too late. Jose Manuel, a student of international relations at King Juan Carlos University in Spain, said on Twitter: “If the United States wants to prevent China from winning the title of world superpower, it will be able to retaliate and support the Asian and African countries. Investment projects in Latin America.”

 

However, American liberal economists urged that the United States should not follow China in its competition with China.

 

Tony Nash, founder of the data analysis company Complete Intelligence, told VOA: “The Belt and Road Initiative or the Made in China 2025, this is not an American way of doing things.”

 

Nash believes that the best way for the United States to deal with competition among major powers is to encourage free competition. The United States’ world influence should come from an international system that advocates transparency and free competition.

 

On February 23, John Tamny, editor of RealClearMarkets, a US economic news website, pointed out that “the influence of the United States is freedom.” He believes that projects such as the “Belt and Road” highly dependent on government regulation will only waste huge amounts of resources. , And damage the United States’ world image of advocating free competition.

 

In an interview with VOA, Michael Kugelman, director of Asian projects at the Wilson Center in Washington think tank, said that the United States’ number one strategic competitor, China, is exerting its influence on a global scale through the Belt and Road Initiative. It is true that the United States has increased its investment in overseas infrastructure projects. There is strategic value, but now is not the time. Currently, the focus of the Biden administration is to revitalize the US economy.

 

However, Joyce Mao, a professor of history at Middlebury College in Vermont and an expert on U.S.-Asia relations, supports the United States’ overseas infrastructure investment. She told the Voice of America that the US foreign policy that integrates mature diplomacy and strategic intervention is inseparable from the domestic development of the United States. But she also pointed out that it is a challenge to obtain sufficient American public support and bipartisan consensus on this point.

 

Whether the proposal can be supported by the American public

 

Henry Blodget, the founder of the news website Business Insider, said on Twitter: “Good idea, but the United States has not yet reached an agreement on investment in domestic infrastructure.” Independent media “Chinese “Non-projects” also said on Twitter: “U.S. taxpayers’ own roads, bridges, and airports are in a state of disrepair. It is hard to imagine that they will support huge investments in infrastructure construction in developing countries to compete with China.”

 

Nash of Complete Intelligence believes that the American public cannot accept spending trillions of dollars on overseas projects right now. Under the impact of the epidemic, there are too many places to spend money in the United States. If the US government spends money and energy on this knot to form a global infrastructure investment plan, it will certainly make many taxpayers angry.

 

Kugelman of the Wilson Center said that the top priority of the Biden administration is obviously to restart the motor of the US domestic economy. Investment in overseas infrastructure is a strategic issue worth considering in the future, but at least it will have to wait a few more months. “If you do this at the same time, Two things become a situation where you have to keep the cake and eat the cake,” Kugelman said.

 

“People who are struggling in the’rust zone’ due to industrial decline will not have a good response if they hear that their government will launch such a huge plan to develop infrastructure projects thousands of miles away,” Kugelman said.

 

Professor Mao of Mingde College said that Weber’s proposal while the U.S. economy is still trapped by the epidemic is worthy of scrutiny. She pointed out that there are many debates about where the health and well-being of the American economy come from. This has always been a classic political issue that has divided opinions between conservatives and liberals in the United States. At this special moment of the epidemic, this disagreement focuses on what kind of economic plan is the one that will enable the United States to recover from the epidemic.

 

Weber said in the article that US investment in infrastructure projects in developing countries not only helps to counter China, but also benefits the US economy. But Professor Mao pointed out that Weber’s proposal seems to “assume that most Americans can understand and agree that the future of the US economy depends on the existence of internationalism and interventionism”, but the reality is not the case. She said that although there is a lot of political support in the United States, especially within the Republican conservatives, in the fight against China, investing in large-scale overseas infrastructure projects may not be consistent with their political priorities.

 

“What benefits will the U.S. version of the Belt and Road Initiative bring to ordinary U.S. citizens? How will employment opportunities be realized? To what extent can it help develop overseas markets and other resources for U.S. goods?” Professor Mao believes that this proposal is necessary Get enough support. These are the basic questions that need to be answered to the American public and policymakers.

 

Kugelman: There are ready-made investment frameworks available

 

Kugelman pointed out that although a large-scale plan such as the “US version of the Belt and Road” should first give way to the restoration of the domestic economy, Biden’s policy can make good use of the relevant institutions and tools that have been established during the Trump administration to implement Related investment commitments.

 

In 2018, Trump signed the “Good Use of Investment Guidance and Development Act” (referred to as the BUILD Act), which merged the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Development Credit Administration (DCA) under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to form a new establishment The United States International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) was established to enhance the United States’ international development financing capabilities, and expanded financing and financing tools to coordinate and promote the participation of the U.S. private sector in the economic construction of developing countries.

 

Under the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Policy”, the Trump administration signed a memorandum of cooperation on a trilateral infrastructure investment partnership with Japan and Australia in 2018 to jointly encourage and support domestic private companies to build high-tech projects in the Indo-Pacific region that meet international standards. Quality infrastructure construction project.

 

In 2019, the United States, Japan and Australia jointly launched the Blue Dot Network (Blue Dot Network) to counter China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative in Asia. The plan unites the government, enterprises and civil society to evaluate and certify infrastructure projects under “common standards” to promote high-quality projects for sustainable development.

 

David Dollar and Jonathan Stromseth, fellows of the Brookings Institution’s China Program, also called on the Biden administration to implement a series of infrastructure investment commitments in Southeast Asia during the Trump administration. They pointed out that nearly 42,000 U.S. companies export products to 10 member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), supporting approximately 600,000 jobs in the U.S. However, the U.S.’s economic position in the region is facing the erosion of China, and Southeast Asia has become Beijing. A hotbed of strategic competition with Washington.

 

Nash: Government-supported projects shouldn’t be a way of American competition

 

Nash, who had provided consulting and assistance to China’s National Development and Reform Commission on the “Belt and Road” project, told VOA that China’s “Belt and Road” operation principle is to transfer funds from banks that carry out overseas business in China to China, which invests in infrastructure projects around the world. Among state-owned and semi-state-owned entities, it is a way of financing overseas and domestic debt. Although the United States also has international financing institutions such as the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), its scale of operation is unlikely to support large overseas investment projects such as China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative. In addition, China can provide loans with negative interest rates for certain projects, but US financial institutions that have always focused on risk management standards are unlikely to do so.

 

Nash also said that the best way for the United States to compete among major powers is to compete freely. Whether it is China’s “One Belt, One Road” or “Made in China 2025” industrial policy, it should not be the way the United States follows. These projects are highly dependent on the role of the government, and the government has invested heavily to support the technology industry or support domestic companies to invest in overseas projects. Doing so may nourish a group of companies and industries whose actual competitiveness is not up to the standard.

 

“The best way is to let American construction companies and infrastructure companies go out to compete for projects. If they can’t compete, then they should fail because they are not competitive enough,” Nash said.

 

At a seminar last month, Clyde Prestowitz, a well-known American expert on globalization and Asian issues and director of the Institute for Economic Strategy, said that the Biden administration should have a far-reaching industrial policy. “China has their Made in China 2025, and we should have our Made in America 2025,” he said.

 

Nash believes that the way for the United States and China to maintain influence and leadership on a global scale is to uphold the values ​​of transparency and free competition. He believes that the United States previously required NATO allies to be open and transparent in defense spending as a manifestation of leadership.

 

He believes that the United States should also continue to pursue transparency against government subsidies and non-tariff barriers, so as to ensure that the World Trade Organization can effectively perform inspections in this area, so that the world can see how the industries of various countries are protected. of. At the same time, the United States should also call on the international community to pursue transparency in foreign aid. Where does the money go?

 

“The United States has come forward to demand transparency in multilateral organizations, transparency in foreign aid, and a free competition environment for international bidding for infrastructure projects. This is the best way for the United States to demonstrate and maintain leadership,” Nash said.

 

How to do the “US version of the Belt and Road Initiative”?

 

Kugelman believes that the United States is still gaining the upper hand in the competition between the United States and China, whether it is military strength or a leading advantage in high-tech fields. Like Weber, he also believes that although the United States has faced some setbacks in soft power in recent years, it is still ahead of China.

 

Kugelman therefore emphasized that the United States should have its own pace and expectations in terms of overseas infrastructure investment, and there is no need to equalize with China in the order of magnitude. After all, China has already led too many steps in this area. “With some progress in the field of infrastructure investment, instead of investing heavily in this to catch up with China in vain, why not focus more on maintaining the United States’ competitive advantage and comparative advantage in its traditionally leading field?” Kugelman said.

 

Kugelman partially agrees with Weber’s view that the United States can do better in infrastructure investment. He said that the quality of many of China’s Belt and Road projects has been criticized, such as financial opacity, the breeding of corruption, damage to the local environment, and the substandard rights of workers. The United States can provide a higher standard and high-quality options for these issues. China has built surveillance systems through infrastructure projects in some areas to export authoritarianism. The United States obviously can also provide less intrusive options in this regard.

 

Like Weber, Kugelman also believes that China’s “wolf war diplomacy” in recent years has opened up opportunities for the United States. Kugelman cited, for example, that China’s aggressive strategy of flexing muscles in the South China Sea has sounded the alarm for many countries in the region, and began to question whether the consistent attitude of “asking the United States for security and asking China for money” should continue. He believes that the United States should focus on investing in countries like the Philippines that hesitate to China and are a key regional ally of the United States.

 

前美国海军部长也是前参议员吉姆·韦伯(Jim Webb)最近发文,提出一项有意思的建议,他呼吁拜登政府启动“美国版的一带一路”来抗衡中国在世界的影响。韦伯认为,美国可以做得比中国更好。这项建议引发不少议论,有学者认为,美国鼓励自由竞争,“一带一路”不是美国的做事方式。

 

韦伯2月17日在《华尔街日报》上发文倡议拜登政府考虑启动“美版一带一路”。“中国在世界各地到处投资大型基建项目以增强影响力,美国也可以这么做,” 他说。

 

韦伯指出,作为中国争霸全球战略的重要部分,中国政府通过“一带一路”项目与亚非拉发展中国家建立经济和外交联系,并以保护这些项目利益为由进行军事渗透。但美国的公共讨论对此重视不足。

 

韦伯认为,中国政府近年来不断升级的军事、外交挑衅和人权迫害已让许多发展中国家开始对参与一带一路产生迟疑。他呼吁拜登政府抓住这一时机,开始重视在美国对外政策中“常被忽视的国家”,给这些地区选择美国的机会,以此抗衡中国影响力,防止世界体系为威权主义所胁迫,这有利于美国的“外交和经济健康”。

 

“这不是败局注定的事业,而是没被认识到的机会,” 韦伯说。

 

韦伯提议拜登政府在亚非拉地区实施一项各领域通力协调的全面政策,融合深思熟虑的外交、安全保障承诺和美国商界的项目投资和参与,填补真空。

 

韦伯也认为美国可以比中国做得更好。“美国在这上面的重大投入——不带殖民动机且基于更具信誉度、更久经考验的商业模式——将强力启动发展中经济体,同时提升美国经济,激励全球自由社会的进一步向前发展,” 韦伯说。

 

美国鼓励自由竞争 “一带一路”不是我们的做事方法

 

文章一出,支持者称韦伯是“有远见的实用主义者”,美国急需践行,为时不晚。西班牙胡安卡洛斯国王大学国际关系专业学生何塞·玛努埃尔(Jose Manuel)在推特上表示:“美国若想阻止中国夺得世界超级大国的头衔,就得以牙还牙,支持在亚非拉国家的投资项目。”

 

然而,美国自由派经济学家呼吁,美国不该在与中国的竞争中效仿中国的做法。

 

数据分析公司Complete Intelligence创始人托尼·纳什(Tony Nash) 告诉美国之音:“‘一带一路’或‘中国制造2025’,这不是美国式的做事方式。”

 

纳什认为,美国应对大国竞争的最佳方式是鼓励自由竞争,美国的世界影响力该来自于倡导透明和自由竞争的国际体系。

 

美国经济新闻网站RealClearMarkets编辑约翰·塔姆尼(John Tamny)2月23日发文指出,“美国的影响力就是自由”,他认为“一带一路”这类高度依赖政府调控的项目只会浪费巨额资源,并损害美国倡导自由竞争的世界形象。

 

华盛顿智库威尔逊中心亚洲项目主任迈克尔·库格尔曼(Michael Kugelman)在接受美国之音采访时表示,美国的头号战略竞争对手中国在全球范围内通过一带一路施展影响,美国增强海外基建项目投资固然有战略价值,但现在不是时候。疫情当前,拜登政府的重心是重振美国经济。

 

不过,美国佛蒙特州明德学院(Middlebury College)历史系教授、美亚关系专家乔伊斯·毛(Joyce Mao)支持美国的海外基建投资。她对美国之音表示,融合成熟外交和策略性干预的美国对外政策和美国国内的发展密不可分。但她也指出,要在这一点上获得足够的美国公众支持和两党共识是个挑战。

 

提议能否获美国公众支持

 

新闻网站商业内幕(Business Insider)的创始人亨利·布拉吉(Henry Blodget)在推特上说:“好主意,但美国都还没能在投资国内基础设施上达成一致。” 独立媒体“中非项目”也在推特上称:“美国纳税人自己的道路、桥梁和机场处于年久失修状态,很难想象他们会支持巨额投资发展中国家的基础设施建设以与中国竞争。”

 

Complete Intelligence的纳什认为,美国公众现下不可能接受花几万亿美元在海外项目上。疫情冲击下,美国国内有太多地方需要花钱。美国政府如果在这个节骨眼上花钱和精力组建一个全球基建投资计划,肯定会让很多纳税人生气。

 

威尔逊中心的库格尔曼表示,拜登政府的当务之急显然是重启美国国内经济的马达,投资海外基建是今后值得考虑的战略议题,但至少也得再等几个月,“若此刻同时做这两件事,就变成又要留住蛋糕又要吃蛋糕的局面,” 库格尔曼说。

 

“因工业衰退而挣扎在‘铁锈地带’的人们,如果他们听说自己的政府将启动如此庞大的计划,以发展千里之外的基建项目,不会有好反响的,”库格尔曼说。

 

明德学院的毛教授表示,韦伯在美国经济仍为疫情所困之际作出这样的提议有一定值得推敲之处。她指出,有关美国经济的健康和福祉从何而来有很多争论,这历来是个让美国保守派和自由派意见分歧的经典政治问题。在疫情这一特殊时刻下,这种分歧就聚焦在到底怎样的经济计划才是能让美国从疫情中恢复的计划。

 

韦伯在文章中说,美国在发展中国家投资基建项目不仅有助于抗衡中国,而且也有利于美国经济。但毛教授指出,韦伯的这一建议似乎是“假设了大多数美国人能理解和认同美国经济的未来依赖于国际主义的存在和干涉主义的存在”,但现实并非如此。她说,尽管在对抗中国方面,美国国内尤其是共和党保守派内部有很多政治支持,但投资海外大型基建项目可能与他们的政治优先项并不一致。

 

“美国版的‘一带一路’会给普通美国公民带来哪些实惠?就业机会将如何实现?能在多大程度上帮助开发美国商品的海外市场和其他资源?” 毛教授认为,这份提议若要获得足够支持,这些是需要向美国公众和政策制定者回答的基本问题。

 

库格尔曼:有现成投资框架可用

 

库格尔曼指出,虽然“美版一带一路”这样大规模的计划该先让位于恢复美国国内经济,但拜登政策可以利用好从特朗普政府期间已经设立的相关机构和工具,落实相关投资承诺。

 

特朗普于2018年签署《善用投资引导发展法》(简称BUILD法),将海外私人投资公司(OPIC)和美国国际开发署(USAID)下属的发展信贷管理局(DCA)合并,新成立了美国国际发展金融公司(IDFC),以增强美国的国际发展融资能力,对融资力度和融资工具都进行了拓展,统筹并促进美国私营部门参与发展中国家的经济建设。

 

在“自由开放印太政策”下,特朗普政府在2018年与日本和澳大利亚签署了三边基础设施投资伙伴关系合作备忘录,共同鼓励和支持本国私营企业在印太地区建设符合国际标准的高质量基础设施建设项目。

 

2019年,美国与日本和澳大利亚共同推出蓝点计划(Blue Dot Network),在亚洲地区抗衡中国的“一带一路”。该计划联合政府、企业和民间社会,在“共同标准下”评鉴和认证基建项目,助推可持续发展的高质量项目。

 

布鲁金斯学会中国项目研究员杜大伟(David Dollar)和周思哲(Jonathan Stromseth)也在2月17日呼吁拜登政府将特朗普政府期间一系列针对东南亚地区的基建投资承诺落实。他们指出,近4.2万家美国公司向东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)10个成员国出口产品,支持美国约60万个就业机会,但美国在该区域的经济地位正面临中国的蚕食,东南亚已成为北京和华盛顿之间战略竞争的温床。

 

纳什:政府扶持项目不该是美国的竞争方式

 

曾在“一带一路”项目上为中国国家发改委提供咨询帮助的纳什告诉美国之音,中国“一带一路”的运行原理是将资金从中国开展海外业务的银行输送到在世界各地投资基建项目的中国国有和半国有实体中,是一种为海外和国内债务融资的方式。美国虽也有像美国国际发展金融公司(IDFC)这样的国际融资机构,但其运行规模不可能支撑像中国“一带一路”这样庞大的海外投资项目。此外,中国能向某些项目提供负利率的贷款,但一向注重风险管理标准的美国金融机构不太可能这么做。

 

纳什同时表示,美国进行大国竞争的最佳方式就是自由竞争。不管是中国的“一带一路”还是“中国制造2025”这样的产业政策,都不该是美国效仿的方式。这些项目都高度依赖政府角色,由政府出巨资扶持科技产业或扶持本国公司进行海外项目投资。这样做有可能滋养一批实际竞争力并不达标的公司和产业。

 

“最好的方法是让美国的建筑公司和基础设施公司自己出去竞争获得项目。如果他们竞争不到,那他们就该失败,因为他们没有足够竞争力,” 纳什说。

 

在上个月一场研讨会上,美国知名全球化和亚洲问题专家、经济战略研究所所长普雷斯托维茨(Clyde Prestowitz)曾表示,拜登政府该有一个影响深远的产业政策。“中国有他们的中国制造2025,我们应该有我们的美国制造2025,” 他说。

 

纳什认为,美中在全球范围内维持影响力和领导力的方式是秉持透明和自由竞争的价值理念。他认为美国之前要求北约盟国在国防开支上做到公开透明就是领导力的体现。

 

他认为,美国也该继续针对政府补贴和非关税壁垒等现象追求透明化,确保世界贸易组织能够切实做到这方面的督查工作,以让全世界都能看到各国的产业是如何被保护的。同时,美国也该呼吁国际社会在对外援助方面追求透明化,出去的钱到底流向何方?

 

“美国站出来要求多边组织的透明度,要求对外援助的透明度,要求基建项目的国际竞标有自由竞争的环境,这才是美国展示和保持领导力的最佳方式,” 纳什说。

 

“美版一带一路”怎么做?

 

库格尔曼认为,美国目前仍在美中竞争中占上风,不管是军事实力还是高新科技领域的领先优势。和韦伯一样,他也认为尽管美国近年来在软实力上面临一些挫折,但仍然领先于中国。

 

库格尔曼因此强调,在海外基建投资方面美国该有自己的步调和预期,没必要非得在数量级上和中国平分秋色,毕竟中国在这上面已经领先太多步了。“在基建投资领域取得一些进展的情况下,与其在这上面投入巨资徒劳追赶中国,何不更加专注于保持美国在其一贯领先的领域的竞争优势和相对优势呢?” 库格尔曼说。

 

库格尔曼部分认同韦伯对于美国可以把基建投资做得更好的看法。他说,中国不少一带一路项目的质量收到批评,比如财务不透明、腐败滋生、破坏当地环境、工人权益不达标等等。美国可以针对这些问题提供一个更高标准高质量的选择项。中国在部分地区通过基建项目大造监控系统,输出威权主义,美国在这方面显然也能提供侵入性更小的选择项。

 

和韦伯一样,库格尔曼也认为中国近年来的“战狼外交”给美国开创了机会。库格尔曼举例说,中国在南中国海愈加秀肌肉的蛮力战略给该区域的许多国家敲了警钟,开始质疑“向美国要安全,向中国要钱”的一贯态度是否还该继续。他认为,美国该重点投资像菲律宾这样又对中国产生迟疑又是美国关键区域盟友的国家。