Complete Intelligence

CI Banner
Login

Tag: Australia

Categories
QuickHit

The Death of Growth: Old & rich vs young & poor in 2030 & beyond (Part 1)

Our guest is Clint Laurent from Global Demographics, an amazing demographer, businessman and observer of global trends long before they really take hold. He shares surprising observations that he believes will happen in the next 5 to 10 years.

 

This is the first of a two-part discussion. Watch the second part here.

 

Clint started Global Demographics in 1996 and cover 117 countries throughout the world and China. They do that right down to county level of 2,248 counties. Clint believes that demographics are better than financial data from the point of view of forecasting  because they tend to be stable trends.

 

Global Demographics is able to come up with reliable forecasts at least 15 years out. After 15 years, reliability goes down and they are typically never more plus or minus 5% error in our long-term forecast. Their clients are mainly consumer goods companies, infrastructure backbones and things like that.

 

💌 Subscribe to CI Newsletter and gain AI-driven intelligence.

📺 Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.

📈 Check out the CI Futures platform to forecast currencies, commodities, and equity indices

 

This QuickHit episode was recorded on June 17, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this QuickHit Clint Demographics QuickHit episode are those of the guest and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any contents provided by our guest are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

 

Show Notes

 

TN: Over the last year or so, we’ve seen the pandemic. We’re now having this bullwhip effect with inflation and other things. But I guess this capping off in the last 20 years where we’ve seen China as the global growth market and the marginal consumer for almost everything. And it’s really forced me to think what’s next. You and I published a piece about a year and a half ago around China’s population topping out around 2023, 2024. And so I’m really curious, what do you see happening in the next 5 to 10 years that will really come as a surprise to people? What are some of your observations over the next decade?

 

CL: The world is actually as bizarrely almost on a bit of a cusp at the moment. The pandemic is almost irrelevant to what was going to happen. I mean, I know the pandemic caused a lot of economic disturbance, obviously affected some people’s lives quite significantly. But really, there was a lot of change that was about to start to happen anyhow, irrespective of whether or not the pandemic came along.

 

From a demographic point of view, the pandemic is not really very relevant. I’m currently based in the UK and the people who have unfortunately died from it, most of them would have died in the next two years anyhow because they had severe underlying health situations. And so, its effect on death rates has actually been very, very marginal.

 

Secondly, most deaths being over the age of 60, that means it doesn’t affect the labor force, it doesn’t affect the propensity to have children. So really, it will be a horrible little blip in the history of mankind. And hopefully we move on from it and the vaccines keep working. And so a little bit of hope there. But that aside, it was going to be a big change.

 

And if I can explain the change in the following ways.

 

Up to now, the world has perhaps been a little bit lucky in the sense to be, first of all, had what I call the Older-Affluent countries, and that’s Western Europe, North America and what I call affluent Asia — Japan, Taiwan, Australia. All of those countries, which are actually only 14% of the world’s population, account for a very significant proportion of the global consumption. As you know, it grew quite rapidly, which was really quite good. And that is really the first big change is going to  come into effect.

 

What’s already started to happen is people. The only growth in these countries is people over the age of 40. Every age group below that is in absolute decline. So even if they’re going up in affluence, the young affluent market is no longer a growth market. It’s more or less stable. Even if you add in increased incomes, which still occur, but at a slower rate. So you’re now looking at a 40+ age group, and in some countries, obviously, Japan is one, it’s 60+ that are the age group that’s growing.

 

So all of those societies, to some extent, are in a lot of trouble. They’re flattening out. They’ve moved from a pyramid population to a square, and that’s actually very good.

 

A lot of people say you should have a pyramid population with young people coming through and looking after the old. That’s actually the poverty trap. Because if young people come through, the dependance, first of all, will keep driving the society down. With a square, then the same number of people need education each year, the same number of people need health care each year. The capacity is there and it’s an improvement of quality rather than an increase of quantity.

 

TN: So you’re saying with these wealthy developed nations, Japan is an extreme example, consumption isn’t really the worry. It’s the growth that’s falling off. So the consumption is stable. It’s just not growing.

 

CL: Exactly. There’s one other big change to appreciate is what people say because they’re getting old, they’re going to run out of labor force. And here’s a statistic for you: In Japan, 25% of males, 70 to 74 are still in full-time employment. And you’re saying, “yeah, well, that’s Japan. It’s different everywhere else in the world.” You know, it’s exactly the same statistic in the United States.

 

The aged worker is a new phenomenon. In fact, the age worker is the fastest growing demographic. So these countries actually are not running out of workers. And the assumption that we all go decrepit and work after age 64 is just wrong. I am over 65, as you can probably guess. I don’t have a single friend who’s not in full-time employment at this point in time, enjoying it. It raises lots of issues.

 

So the labor force keeps going in these countries as well. So they don’t even need migrant workers to sustain these countries. So they are nice, comfortable niche. Growing steadily, not phenomenally. You’re talking about 1%, less than 1% growth in total consumer spending. Households are getting a little more affluent. Number of households is flattened out, which would have implications for the housing market. But it’s not going down, so it’s actually not too bad.

 

TN: So you say GDP is pretty stable, but what’s happening to GDP per capita in those countries? Does it continue to grow?

 

CL: It does, but just at a much slower rate. You’re talking 1% or even less than 1%, but it’s positive. And do remember, 1% of a hundred thousand US dollars is more money than the total income of households at the other end of the spectrum. Much of their spending power is quite significant. But a really important point to keep in your mind right now is that consumption expenditure will start to level out. It won’t hit that high growth rate anymore. It drops back to about 1% or even slightly lower.

 

Then the other big change you’ve got is what I call the next group of countries, which is older but not so affluent. And that obviously includes China. Now, let’s just put China to one side for the moment and look at the other countries in that group. You’re talking about Russia and the Eastern European countries. All of which have huge potential because like the previous group that I just talked about, they score really well on education.

 

And countries that score well on education, with the right capital investment, can lift the productivity. The countries that have weak education, it doesn’t matter how much capital you throw into them, they don’t lift their productivity. And there’s plenty of statistics to prove that. So these countries actually have a resource. I mean, Latvia, Romania. It doesn’t really matter. And that actually got the one thing that’s really hard to do. Good education.

 

Why is it hard to do? India has been really bad on education up to now. It finally has universal education. Every kid, 5 to 12 is now supposed to be in school. But it takes another 10 years before some of those kids come out of school and get into work. And it takes another 10 years before the workforce has become sufficiently skilled that the capital investment comes and lifts the productivity.

 

So these Eastern European countries and Russia are actually interesting from the QuickHit point of view. They start getting the fixed capital investment right, got the education right. They could actually be the next growth area. Only warning to you is they also are relatively old. So it’s a growth area of 40 pluses and 60 pluses. That is going to happen because they’re under earning at the moment. They can lift their incomes, obviously, buy bit of car, bit of clothing, all of those sort of things. But it’s a growth area of an older population, not a young population.

 

TN: And it’s something that nobody’s watching, Clint. Like, I don’t think anybody is really looking for that even as a possibility. A lot of people have written Russia off, see it as a petro state or whatever, and central and Eastern Europe is kind of just kind of a no man’s land in many cases. So some manufacturing there. There’s some services there in terms of globalization. But I don’t think there’s a lot of expectation to see rapid growth there and high productivity there. So I think that’s a really interesting question mark that most people aren’t even thinking about.

 

CL: That’s right. And if you go into these countries physically, you start to see some of the big brands starting to look at them. And you come across someone from XYZ Corporation there. We just have a little look. So some people are starting to see that it’s there. It’s just as you say, it’s not visible yet.

 

Let’s switch to China briefly. China slightly different and also very similar. First of all, remember 1989, China introduced the one child policy. That came under a huge amount of criticism. But ignoring how you feel about that, is one very simple thing it achieved. It levelled off the number of young kids needed to be educated. And subsequently started, it was 1979, they introduced. Such that by 1984, when they introduced compulsory education for all six to 12 year olds, they were talking of a relatively stable number of kids. So they could focus on the quality of education. And so every kid’s been going to school in such when you go to the year 2000, you’ve got this population still living in the rural areas. But who could read, write and do sums and all of those sort of things. Could get on their bike, go into town and get a job in a factory or an office or whatever.

And the differential between an urban worker and rural worker in China is 3.6. And that’s actually how China drove its growth and its productivity per worker and its influence. What it did is, it said, take all these people who are nice people, but not well-educated, not earning very much money, educate them, put them into job, let them earn lots of money, and have a good lifestyle. And that drove up the productivity and the whole success story of China.

 

 

TN: So urbanization and wage arbitrage, productivity gain for China. But is that running out in the next ten years or does that continue over that period?

 

CL: We’ve got it going through actually. It’s 20 million a year at the moment, which is a phenomenal number. That’s Australia, every year. It’s 20 million at the moment. We have it dropping down to about 11 million by 2040 because it’s still a lot of people moving there.

 

Now, this is the other big trick. Because some people have been saying, China’s population’s leveling out. And, you know, we thought it was 2023, where even the Chinese government agrees with us. Now, it’s 2023, and it’s leveling out. The working age population is starting to shrink. Oh, dear. That can have a decline in the workforce. No. They’re having a decline in the rural workforce. The rural workforce have in the next 20 years.

 

The urban workforce keeps growing for the next 10 years to 2030. The number of people working in urban jobs, which are highly productive, keeps going up. So for the next 10 years, China’s GDP growth still chugs along reasonably well. After 2030, the growth rate drops away and we have it down to about 1.3% by 2045, because it just isn’t the extra workers to keep growing the total GDP. So that’s the story there.

 

But again, coming back to the consumption side, China in the last 10 years in the urban area had this huge group of people, 220 million of them urban, aged 40 to 64 years of age, educated, earning quite good money by turning a stand and spending money on holidays and trips and things like that. And between 2010 and 2020, that went up to 100 million people. Think about it, a 100 million extra people with disposable income. It was no surprise that the retail side of China took off and tourism and all of that. It was those people. They’ve got a house. They’ve got a fridge, they’ve got a refrigerator. Let’s have some fun. That’s really what’s happening right now.

 

Now, the bad news is that now it flattens out. Every age group under 40 in China is already declining and will continue to decline in size. So don’t go after the kid market in China except on the wealthy and those sort of areas for education. The 40 to 64 age, what I call the working age optimist, it grows for a little bit, and then it flattens out. And it’s named the 65 plus, which in China is not like the other countries. The 65 plus at the moment doesn’t have great health, doesn’t have a great life expectancy. You get some extension of the workforce, but not a lot.

 

So China’s consumption is healthy as well. It’ll chugging along quite nicely. And to digress slightly, but I think we need to recover quickly here. The one child policy, it’s moved to three now. That’s totally and absolutely irrelevant.

 

TN: Yeah, it doesn’t seem like it’s going to do much. They’re too rich to want to have more kids, right?

 

CL: Exactly. And actually, it’s the birth rate that’s not the important point. It’s the number of women of childbearing age. And that goes down by a third. It drops 330 million now to about 220 million in 20 years time. And the birth rate can’t give up fast enough to compensate there. So births in 2019 are 14 million. It dropped to 10 million last year because of the pandemic, waiting to come back up a bit about to 14. It’ll be down to 11 million by 2030. And they can’t change that even with the three child policy. That won’t change.

 

TN: It’s not the three child policy, it’s the fact that there are not enough women to have babies. And those women are wealthy enough that they don’t want to have three kids.

 

CL: That’s really basically it. Just look at Singapore. They tried everything to get the birth rate up.

 

TN: I was there. They were paying people to have babies and it still didn’t work.

 

CL: Even send them on cruises. I mean, I volunteered.

 

And then you have, so that’s the second group. And the key point by the first group is nice and stable now, chugging along nicely, but no longer super growth in consumption. Nice growth in consumption is how I call it.

 

The third group, what we call the family stage. And that’s obviously dominated by India, Brazil, Indonesia all there. The bulk of populations is in that 25 through to 39, having children, at work, that sort of stage. So the working age population is still growing a bit, but not a lot. Education’s improving. It varies quite a lot across this group. India is at the weaker end. Indonesia is probably one of the better ends.

 

So, you’ve got a bit of a dichotomy there. But they’re generally in a position to be able to attract capital and generally in a position to be lifting their total consumption, but not dramatically. We’re still talking of relatively low incomes under 10 thousand USD for the average family per annum. So the growth is there.

 

TN: So Indonesia, India, Brazil and so on, the capital formation, capital investment is the real weakness there. And it seems to me that’s a function of, largely, education. Is that fair to say?

 

CL: That’s exactly what it is. As they get the education right and they’re working on it, most of these countries have been quite responsible in that area. And as they get that right, so the investment comes in, so the consumer gets more affluent and becomes a virtuous circle.

 

TN: And what time scale are we talking about for that consumption to come in a really notable way to take the place of the under 40 Chinese consumption or the under 40 Western Europe or American consumption?

 

CL: Well, that’s the bad news.

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.

 

华盛顿 — 

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。

Categories
QuickHit

QuickHit: The Anglosphere and the Multi-Speed Recovery

Macro specialist, geopolitics and history commentator Nick Glinsman joined us for the first time on QuickHit to discuss how the Anglosphere compares to the world in this multi-speed recovery in the wake of Covid.

 

Nick is based in Brazil and he brings decades of experience to macro, markets, and politics. His background is basically London and New York with a bit of Europe and, Australia and Hong Kong. He worked with the Salomon Brothers and Merrill Lynch. He’s doing a lot of advisory work and the ability to express views on the markets, geopolitics and macroeconomics in the market.

 

💌 Subscribe to CI Newsletter and gain AI-driven intelligence.

📺 Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.

📈 Check out the CI Futures platform to forecast currencies, commodities, and equity indices

 

This QuickHit episode was recorded on April 8, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this The Anglosphere and the Multi Speed Recovery? QuickHit episode are those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any content provided by our guests are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

 

Show Notes

 

TN: Nick, for a while you’ve talked about this concept called the anglosphere. Can you help us understand what you mean by the anglosphere?

 

NG: I’ll dig into it. I like the fact that you’re talking about the link between geopolitics and economics because with Trump and Brexit, that’s where what was a very boring macro environment suddenly started to become differently exciting. The politics would start to drive some of the macro markets and actually what’s interesting is  Brexit and Trump, part of the anglosphere. Not the formative part of the anglosphere.

 

So what we mean by the anglosphere is looking at countries that are historically tied via culture but critically also via common law, legal system, because that defines how the economy and how commerce can run. If you go back in history, there is a big difference between common law countries and roman law countries. Common law countries think of European Union countries and that construct. So what we mean by the anglosphere is being, better start with the UK because it is the mother country, it’s still the mother country for where you are currently still. If the US were now part of the commonwealth. You’re looking at an anglosphere. Now typically when I refer to it, I’m talking about UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Five Eyes.

 

You could loosely add two countries. One of which has an anglo-saxon common law — India. The other one works much closer as a defeated entity country in World War II — Japan. So you’re getting the quad, which I would maintain is part of an angular influence, at least, if not anglosphere entity.

 

Let’s stick with that grouping. You’re looking at countries that have a similar legal system, similar financial structure, they have banks, central banks that are lenders of last resort and traditional backups, concept. Remember the European Union doesn’t have banks.

 

Back to common law. Common law also in this environment. This is where it’s getting critical. So Five Eyes is I would posit it’s the ultimate defense alliance.

 

TN: Even New Zealand, still? Ah, you know. Long discussion. That’s so much sarcastically.

 

NG: I know what you’re saying. Although she has the relation in the State of Victoria in Australia, who is actually not known as Kim Yong Dan. But if you look at what they’ve just done with the central bank, there is still a similarity there. And of course the travel corridor that’s about to open on the 16th I think it is, is between Australian and New Zealand. So as much as she kowtows to the panda in Beijing, they are still part of that structure.

 

So back to the common law and the financial. So you’ve got countries with central banks that act as lenders of last resort with independent monetary policy, you have independent fiscal policy and I would include of course in both these, Bank of Japan, RBI in India and so on so you’ve got independent fiscal policy, independent monetary central bank, which you don’t have in Europe.

 

There’s been no Hamiltonian moment there. So you have that flexibility and you can see that flexibility. You also have much more, common law enables Schumpeter’s creative destruction and thus reconfiguration. Much easier chapter 11 in the US or bankruptcy and start again. Right. Not so easy to either stop or start on the roman law. So that when you think of where we are now, you’ve gone through a pandemic where inexplicably a lot of countries have remained closed, the reopening is going to need that reconfiguration.

 

You’ve also been the countries that are advancing with the vaccine quickest of those that took a very commercial view as governments in terms of getting them… so you had operation walk speed in the US and you had a vc person take over the procurement policy and the vaccine policy in the UK. Private Sector innovation. And in fact, in the UK, you have that triangle, Oxford, Cambridge, London, that’s without biotech and so on and so forth, very flexible. You even have a situation where the famous Astrazeneca factory in Holland was financed by the British. Not by the Dutch.

 

We can get into that on another episode of the great vaccine debacle. But I think that’s part of the precautionary Roman Law System that the EU runs versus the go get innovative system that comes with the anglo-ceric countries, the common law system and the structure of finance business so and so forth.

 

TN: Okay. So it sounds to me like when you talk about the anglosphere and you look at it kind of post pandemic or at least post first wave of disaster in the pandemic as we enter a recovery, it sounds like you see a widening divergence between those with say common law and relatively independent central banks versus the other law formed be it roman and in independent fiscal policy as well.

 

So help me understand the… so we just had this IMF report come out earlier this week about 5.1% growth or whatever this year and everything’s amazing and which we know, given, it’s all base effects and if you do a three-year average, it doesn’t look good at all. In Europe, the only one, over that three years, the only one with positive growth is The Netherlands. Not even the UK. But I would argue there, they lean toward you know more of a British style than other styles.

 

So if we’re having a two-speed or multi-speed recovery, would it be fair for me to say that you believe the anglosphere will recover faster than the other spheres?

 

NG: Absolutely. Absolutely. You’re better expert on sinosphere than I would be. But I think the growth is going to disappoint because they’ve pushed so hard on the string of debt. Okay.

 

In terms of the Euro, Europe, I think there’s a very simple way of looking at things. It’s extent of vaccination and compare those and what does that mean? It’s now being said out of UCL, University College of London. UK’s herd immunity on Monday, 73%.

 

You can see there’s data coming out of the UK that is explosive as there is in the US. People are looking at the European and thinking, okay let’s close until August or beyond because this vaccine debacle is even worse. Everybody’s going to take Astrazeneca in Europe even though for the young women of age below 30, the chance of getting a blood clot is 1 in 600,000. Where the child’s getting Covid is substantially greater.

 

Because Europe and the Roman legal system has this precautionary black bent. It’s clear that this whole debacle in Europe has delayed that coming out of meltdown. The European summer season as the Germans would say is kaput.

 

TN: If we have this kind of two-speed recovery or multi-speed recovery, and let’s say Japan is part of the anglosphere, would you say Japan would be leading Asia out instead of China? Now I’m talking about real data. I’m not talking about Chinese 8.1% growth numbers like fictional. I’m talking about actual real performance with actual real usable output and you know all this other stuff.

 

NG: I’ve got so that’s going to be the case actually. I really do have that sense and I also, given the belligerence of the Chinese regime right now. You’ve got vocal and slightly belligerent actions against Taiwan, of course, which I’m with Albert on that. They’d have already invaded if they were going to do it. And you’ve got what’s going on in the Philippine islands with all these ships tied together.

 

I remember a very famous situation where chief ancient China economist from HSBC came into the office and talking about China and then we asked coming into that particular office, name unmentioned, always an aggressive to and fro Q&A, and then we have one of us asked about China, how’s the recovery going after Fukushima. Blood was coming out of this chad’s mouth having to talk a bit about China.

 

And we know that there is a much more passionate… we have passion against Germany or France as a Brit or as an Englishman come soccer. But, we love each other.

 

TN: Maybe that’s a bit strong. But we’ll use that.

 

NG: Maybe strong for Germans but with the French, there is a deep passion there and somebody keeps reminding the agent. But in the Far East, there has been that, you see that tension with the South Koreans and Japanese. However, the Chinese are forcing people out away from some of this stuff.

 

Japan with Australia and India will enable a lot of these countries to look elsewhere. Isn’t it ironic going back to the anglo-sphere link and that publicly is United Arab Emirates who are being given credit for getting India, Pakistan talking together. I have no doubt behind the show, the English are very active there because you’ve got a cricketer in charge. She made this game… So there’s stuff going on that gives you signals as to what could be happening.

 

It was rather like a mutual friend of ours, we were discussing India in terms of trade and I was saying, the UK and India are going to have a free trade deal as soon as it’s possible once they’ve overcome some of the agricultural stuff. And that person said India will do a trade with the EU well before they do it with the UK. And I’m saying hold your horses. No way!

 

TN: It’s familiar.

 

NG: One, it’s familiar. Two, one of the problems that the EU’s have with trade deals with anglospheres countries is legal interpretation thereof. And you know, I think they’ve been discussing it for 8, 10 years, EU and India, they’ve got a sub agreement already in the UK after several months.

 

TN: Just coming back to this kind of overall topic of the anglosphere and the multi-speed recoveries, so it does sound like you almost have this triangulated recovery from your perspective from India, Japan and Australia that’s leading the way in Asia. You have the UK, which is leading the way for Europe and then you have the US that’s kind of leading the way for the Americas. Is that kind of how you see things?

 

NG: I tend to think that’s the case. But I wonder whether one can justify the idea of UK leading the way for Europe given the tensions between the UK and the EU.

 

TN: I think the EU will play through… The EU will feel pain until they get tired of it and then they’ll relent, I think.

 

NG: There’s one big problem and this came up yesterday there was a meeting of the EU commission about article 122 vaccine export ban. Belgium, Holland, Sweden and Ireland said no way. All the others were saying we’re okay with it. With Germany covering itself with a few conditions. The damage to Europe’s role in the global supply chain is irreparable. They will not be able to go back to this.

 

And there’s another little fact of it which makes me wonder what will happen with Ireland because there’s tension building up in Northern Ireland again. Article 122, that export ban is specifically aimed at UK, US, Canada, Australia. They’ve stopped shipping to Australia already. US, UK, they’re saying well you’re not exporting anything. Paid for everything but not exporting everything. Canada just gets lumped in with the US and the UK.  So I think that’s really shattered the role of Europe in the global supply chain.

 

You’ll have people producing goods for Europe from European input but how can you possibly? Now going to Ireland where the UK has already said we’ll give the Republic of Ireland 3.7 million vaccines because it’s secures Northern Ireland in the coming out of lockdown. That’s an interesting overthought process.

 

Because you have a situation where Ireland is under attack like the Netherlands and Switzerland from Joe Biden’s global tax. If they come out, I would not be funny.

 

TN: It seems to me that what you’re also saying is there’s likely some kind of regionalization or re-regionalization that may emerge from this. Am I putting words in your mouth or is that?

 

NG: I would go and say US and commonwealth EU for as long as it stays stable, which may be problematic and then as you say Asia.

 

TN: Okay. Yeah, I mean I think that we’re coming to a place and I’ve been talking about this since about 2015, where you have global supply chains for goods that are long-term commoditized goods and then you have regional supply chains for the higher value goods.

 

NG: And that’s consistent with the decoupling that’s got to take place against China. And then you have that floater which you and I touched on before we got online, which is Russia and I have a slightly different view of where I can go, which will be, you know.

 

Categories
Podcasts

Cold Front on Oil Prices?

Tony Nash is back in the Morning Run, hosted by BFM 89.9, as he points out the crude oil price and how long to expect the rally, considering factors like weather, demand, and supply. Tony also mentioned about a potential pullback and snap and how you can better be prepared for it. Should you continue buying tech stocks or move elsewhere? Also, they discussed crops and where the prices are going this year.

 

This podcast first appeared and originally published at https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/cold-front-on-oil-prices on February 18, 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.

 

BFM Description

 

Tony Nash from Complete Intelligence, from freezing Texas, shares with us the current supply constraints in the US impacting oil prices in the short- and medium-term.

 

Produced by: Mike Gong

 

Presented by: Philip See, Wong Shou Ning

 

 

Show Notes

 

WSN: For some color on where global markets are heading, we have in the line with us Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Tony, are you freezing out there in Texas?

 

TN: Yes, we are. We haven’t had it this cold air for decades. So it’s it’s been a really interesting week.

 

WSN: That has had an impact on oil prices. Bloomberg showing Brent crude at $64 per barrel, WTI at $61 per barrel. So how badly impacted our energy markets at the moment? Where do you think oil prices are going?

 

TN: A lot of this is very short term. What you’re not seeing that the traders really pay attention to right now is that a lot of refineries are closed because of weather and they’re starting to close for annual maintenance. There’s this presumption that there’s a demand pull, which we’re not really seeing from anywhere in the world right now, and that the winter storm issues will pull energy prices. But again, the fact is the refineries that would take this stuff are closed. We expect this to be short lived. This is an extension of a crude price rally that we saw that we expected to come in Jan, it’s lasted into February and we really don’t expect this to have a lot of legs to it.

 

PS: What do you think the outlook looks like then for the mid-term like quarter to quarter three?

 

TN: We would see 10 to 20 percent off of this price? We don’t necessarily think that this is a sustainable level short of some sort of supply cuts. But the weather in Texas, for example, we’re going to be kind of in normal weather ranges in two days. What we’ve seen this week and the close down, as we’ve seen this week, it’ll take people a couple of days, maybe a week at most to get things back on line. So this perceived supply shortage will be back on line fairly soon.

 

WSN: How about yields on U.S. 10 year bonds? Because they’ve hit a new high one year high. What what is that trying to tell this? What a market try to tell us?

 

TN: U.S. is trying to raise money and they’re willing to pay more for it. I think that is is really it. I think there is a growing fear that equity markets are as high as they’ll get. We’ve started to see more of that tension come in into chatter over the last few days. People are willing to pay to get out of markets, to park their money in debt.

 

So I’m sure it helps the U.S. as they’re raising more money for stimulus and for operations. But as we creep up to four thousand, that is just unimaginable for a lot of people. And it’s not as if we are doing better as an economy than we were in 2019 or the first quarter of 2020. This is built on stimulus, as we’ve talked about before. It’s built on central bank activity.

 

And you can only stretch that so far before things have to snap. We’ll see some of these things that are at double and triple and quadruple kind of the standard multiples. And P is the only way to measure this stuff. But we’ll see things that are really, really stretched, snap into a more reasonable region. But it’ll happen any time tomorrow, three weeks from now, a month from now, whatever. It’ll just happen. It’ll happen any time. And it’s best to be prepared for it.

 

PS: So are you expecting some pullback eventually? Right. What is the tipping point where investors will essentially do that exodus or flock to U.S. Treasuries then?

 

TN: One of the tipping points is going to be the resolution of stimulus. I’ve been saying for weeks that stimulus will not be what the administration wants it to be. There are such high expectations put on that stimulus right now and they’re not going to get it. They’ll get a lot of it, but they’re not going to get all of it. Expectations are sky high. And when it doesn’t hit, I think that will be one of the catalysts.

 

But there are other things like when the crude price starts to fall because this supply constraint isn’t there anymore. These sorts of things, these things add up and then they snowball and and then you start to see markets really, really take a dove. We’re not necessarily calling for a 2008 generational type of decline in markets. It’s just a bit of a pullback so that people can just say, “OK, wait a minute, let’s check, take stock how businesses are doing. Take a look at our investments and our allocation and then reallocate.” That’s really what it’s about.

 

WSN: Where would you relocate to and what are the safe haven assets? Because almost every asset class on a year to date basis is up. Right. And maybe except for Google, which is down six percent on the year today.

 

TN: What you’re likely going to see is a pretty serious rotation out of technology where people have focused on because of the work from home activities. This may not be immediate, but I think you’ll see a rotation out of a lot of the work from home stuff as people start real life again and you’ll see people move into. This is not really my the basis of our outlook. But you may see more of a regional move into things like tourism.

 

These things have just taken real hits. A lot of them have had speculative rises, some of the cruise lines. But some of them are still way down. All of this depends on gradual normalization. But I can tell you, Americans are really tired of being locked in, really tired of not socializing. And some of these things are going to have to start up again.

 

PS: What about not all out commodities then, like agriculture and precious metals?

 

TN: We had some real pressure. And part of the reason of that pressure was because there was a perception that a lot of the Chinese corn crop didn’t come in last year. But a lot of the drought was outside of that zone. Some of that pressure was alleviated.

 

But still, we’re seeing some pressure on wheat right now in the U.S. It really all depends on how much the current cold snap impacts the output later in the year or the ability to plant. Right now it’s not terrible.

 

Until we start seeing real demand come back in entertaining and in consumption and these sorts of things, we’re not going to see a major demand pull on food because people are already buying their standard cook at home type of things right now as they’ve rebuilt their behaviors over the last year. We’ll see that change. But unless we see a drought or unless we see an issue in a high consumption part of the world, we’re not necessarily going to see a boom in those places.

 

WSN: All right. Thank you for your time. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his views on global markets and saying that, hey, oil prices are going to come under pressure probably in the next two to three months, because this is not really driven by real demand, is just probably weather patterns which are going to normalize anyway in Texas in a few days.

 

PS: He also made a point about oil, where this, I think, a slight surge in prices is actually a short term because supply is going to get back on quite soon.

 

WSN: Yeah, but other interesting news is actually the ongoing saga of big tech versus Australia, because it looks like Facebook has defied Australia’s push to make big pay for news by banning the sharing of content on its platform in the country. And this is the most far reaching restriction is ever placed on any publisher in any part of the world.

 

PS: So the extreme step to remove Australian news came as Google separately struck a global deal with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp diffusing a long running dispute between the two companies. The dramatically different approaches could mark a pivotal moment for the media industry, which had hoped Australia’s tough regulatory approach would help reset its terms of trade with Google and Facebook worldwide.

 

WSN: So the moves by Google and Facebook came on the day Australia begin debating laws that would force big online platforms to license news. Now Facebook’s action will have a global impact. Under the provisions, news from Australian publishers will be blocked on the platform for all Facebook users, regardless of where they are based. The Australian government said it will continue to engage with Facebook. Press ahead with legislating the code, Canberra also warned that withdrawing news from Facebook’s platform in Australia could dent its credibility with users.

While this is quite big stuff. Actually, yes.

 

PS: Yes. I mean, Australia wasn’t the first country to, you know, get into this spat. I think you really was in having discussions. And France and Spain already had deals with a lot of with Google and Facebook with respect to media purchase. But it’s a question about publishers.

 

WSN: Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, right. We do know media companies are suffering. Right. Álex has come under pressure. Subscriber growth has come down. How a media company is going to generate the revenue. So in the past, all these big tech companies, the argument was that they got to earn super normal above what is the what super normal profits without paying the likes of the media companies because they were using these media companies content to their benefit.

 

So some countries like Australia and even if you try to kind of diffuse the situation and have, I suppose maybe in their mind, a fairer playing field. But the Google deal nonetheless, if you look at it, the Google deal with News Corp announced on Wednesday goes beyond the Australian market, extending to Murdoch’s titles such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post in the U.S. and The Times and the Sun in the UK. No other news publisher has reached a single deal with Google across multiple countries.

 

Now, critics say the deal would benefit News Corp. rather than the rest of the news industry.

 

PS: Yes, well, we’ve been talking about the price. And since you looking at Google’s valuation, I suspect Google’s to be the winner because they have just really this unique access to this quality content. So. So why not?

 

WSN: Well, they’ve pledged so far to spend one billion over the years on buying news content and reach agreements with publishers in about a dozen countries.

 

But we’ll be watching this space because we do a media outlet.

 

But up next, we’ll be discussing the recently announced national unity blueprint. Stay tuned for that. BFM eighty nine point nine.

 

Thank you for listening to this podcast. To find full great interviews, go to PFM Goodbye or find us on iTunes, BFM eighty nine point nine. That is the station.

 

Categories
News Articles Uncategorized

Startup makes superforecasting possible with AI

This article originally published at https://blogs.oracle.com/startup/startup-makes-superforecasting-possible-with-ai on December 1, 2020.

 

 

Here’s a mathematical problem: The sum of all the individual country GDPs never equals the global GDP. That means forecasting models are flawed from the start, and it’s impacting global supply chain economics in a big way. Entrepreneur Tony Nash found that unacceptable, so he built an AI platform to help businesses “understand the sum of everything” through a highly automated, globally data-intensive solution with zero human bias.

 

Complete Intelligence, Nash’s Houston-based startup, uses global market data and artificial intelligence to help organizations to visualize financial data, make predictions, adjust plans in the context of a global economy, all on the fly. The globally-integrated, cloud-based AI platform helps purchasing, supply chain planning, and revenue teams make smarter cost and revenue decisions. It’s a way on how to make better business decisions.

 

“The machines are learning, and many times that has meant deviating from traditionally held consensus beliefs and causality models,” said Nash. “Causal beliefs don’t hold up most of the time—it’s human bias that is holding them up—our AI data is reducing errors and getting closer to the truth, closer to the promise of superforecasting.”

 

 

Massive datasets across 1,400 industry sectors

More than 15 billion data points run through the Complete Intelligence platform daily, making hundreds of millions of calculations. Average business forecasting saas software models use 10-12 sector variables. Complete Intelligence, on the other hand, examines variables across 1,400 industry sectors. The robustness gives businesses insights and control they didn’t have before.

 

“We’ve seen a big shift in how category managers and planning managers are looking at their supply chains,” said Nash. “Companies are taking a closer look at the concentration of supply chains by every variable. Our platform helps companies easily visualize the outlook for their supply chain costs, and helps them pivot quickly.”

 

 

Superforecasting brings a modern mindset to an old industry

 

Australia-based OZ Minerals, a publicly-traded company, is a modern mining company focused on copper with mines in Australia and Brazil. OZ says their modern mantra is more than technology, it’s also a mindset: test, learn, innovate. They wanted to better navigate and understand the multi-faceted copper market, where the connectivity between miner, smelter, product maker, and consumer is incredibly complex and dynamic. They turned to Complete Intelligence.

 

“I need a firm understanding of both fiscal and monetary policies and foreign exchange rates to understand how commodity prices might react in the future because a depreciating and/or appreciating currency can impact the trade flows, and often very quickly, which might influence decisions we make,” said Luke McFadyen, Manager of Strategy and Economics at OZ Minerals.

 

“Our copper concentrate produced in Australia and Brazil may end up being refined locally or overseas. And then it is turned into a metal, which then may be turned into a wire or rod, and then used in an electric vehicle sold in New York, an air conditioner sold in Johannesburg, or used in the motor of a wind turbine in Denmark,” he explains. “The copper market is an incredibly complex system.”

 

With Complete Intelligence, McFadyen has a new opportunity to test for a bigger-picture understanding and responsiveness. Previously, he updated his models every few months. Now he could do it every 47 minutes if he needed to.

 

McFadyen points to the impact of COVID-19 as a “Black Swan” event that no business forecasting saas software could have predicted, but is nonetheless impacting currencies, foreign exchanges, and cost curves throughout global copper market and supply chains.

 

“If your model isn’t dynamic and responsive in events like we are experiencing today, then it is not insightful. If it’s not insightful, it’s not influencing and informing decisions,” he said. “Complete Intelligence provides a different insight compared to how the traditional price and foreign exchange models work.”

 

McFadyen says early results have reflected reductions in error rates and improved responsiveness.

 

 

Cloud power and partnership

 

Complete Intelligence needed a strong technology partner but also one with global expertise in enterprise sales and marketing that could help boost their business. They found it with Oracle for Startups.

 

“We have lots of concurrent and parallel processes with very large data volumes,” said Nash. “We are checking historical data against thousands of variables, anomaly detections, massive calculations processing, and storage. And it’s all optimized with Oracle Cloud.”

 

Nash, who migrated off Google Cloud, says Oracle Cloud gives him the confidence that his solution can handle these workloads and data sets without downtime or performance lapses. The partnership also gives him a credible technology that is native to many clients.

 

“As we have potential clients that come to us that are using Oracle, having our software on Oracle Cloud infrastructure will make it easier for us to deploy and scale. A seamless client experience is a critical success factor for us.”

 

Nash says the Oracle startup program‘s free cloud credits and 70% discount has allowed them to save costs while increasing value to customers. He also takes advantage of the program’s resources including introductions to customers and marketing and PR support.

 

“We’ve been impressed by the resources and dedication of Oracle for Startups team,” he said. “I’d recommend it, especially for AI and data startups ready for global scale.”

 

 

Beyond mining: superforecasting futures with AI

 

Beyond mining, Complete Intelligence is working with customers in oil and gas, chemicals, electronics, food and beverages, and industrial manufacturing. From packaging to polymers and sugar to sensors, these customers use Complete Intelligence for cost and revenue planning, purchasing and supply chain proactive planning, risk management, and auditing teams, as well as general market and economic forecasts.

 

The error rates for Complete Intelligence forecasts in energy and industrial metals performed 9.4% better than consensus forecasts over the same period, and Complete Intelligence continues to add methods to better account for market shocks and volatility.

 

OZ Minerals’ McFadyen said, “This is the next step in how economists can work in the future with change leading towards better forecasts, which will inform better decisions.”

 

Nash and Complete Intelligence are betting on it – and building for the future.

Categories
Visual (Videos)

CNA Asia First: How the US Foreign Trade Policies will Change after the US Election

Founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence, Tony Nash joins CNA Asia First to give insights around the 2020 US Elections and how the possible turnout will affect US’s foreign policies, economy, and trade. Was the delay in stimulus affected the voters’ decisions? Can oil companies be greener without causing a lot of disruptions? And did Trump’s trade strategies yield results?

 

This video segment was published on November 5, 2020 and is originally from Channel News Asia’s videos on demand, which can be found at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/video-on-demand/asia-first

 

Show Notes

 

CNA: Now for more on the markets, the US elections, and economy including trade policy from whoever takes place in the White House going forward, Tony Nash founder and CEO at Complete Intelligence joins us from Houston, Texas.

 

So Tony, it’s been a very divisive election and I don’t know at this point is it worth looking back at how there was gridlock and was difficult for congress to push forward any form of stimulus leaving a lot of Americans out in the cold. I don’t know if there’s weight on the minds of voters that maybe the whole of congress was complicit in this issue. But where do you think paving the way forward for the American economy needs to start.

 

TN: It really depends on where in America you are. There are parts of America that just can’t wait to get out and work and there are restrictions. There are other parts of America where people want to stay in under restrictions and generally that’s the red-blue divide in the US.

 

What we’ve seen is more people wanting to push out demonstrations and say California and other places where people just want to get out. The stimulus issues with congress, there were a number of windows where stimulus could have come out. But it didn’t. And that was a lever that was pulled largely by the house of representatives before the election. They wanted to hold off from it. Especially business owners, very frustrated by that. People who have been laid off, very frustrated by that. Certainly, some of this has been a part of the voting consideration.

 

CNA: Both sides red and blue are blaming each other on why stimulus was difficult and not being pushed forward before the election. But I want to get to the issue of the backbone of some of the sectors of the economy in this election. Climate change featured very heavily. You come from an oil state. The bigger question now going forward is because of this increasing climate consciousness, can these sectors actually pivot away from oil without causing huge disruption, political and economic?

 

TN: That’s fine in terms of climate change. The US actually performed very well in terms of emissions and efficiency. The bigger issue for these oil companies is actually the inefficiencies of their organizations and we’ve seen a lot of oil companies come out to say that they’d be laying off 16 percent of their global workforce. They’re realizing that with oil prices where they are and gas prices where they are,
they just can’t sustain the bloated workforces that they’ve had to date.

 

So, yes climate change is an issue and that’s a consideration. But with the fossil fuel companies, they’ve had bloated workforces that they’re having to contend with now that oil prices are lower.

 

CNA: As we look back at what the Trump administration set out to achieve with its very aggressive trade policy based on the metrics of leveling or gaining leverage to negotiate better terms for trade deals, do you think it has achieved this?

 

TN: What the current administration has been doing is a long game. It’s not something that is a short-term plan. To get factories to move, to get capital investment, to get say supply chains to move, that’s a three to five to ten-year process and can be even longer for industries that have super heavy capital investment. It’s making progress. If you look at investments say in electronic supply chains going into Mexico, I think both the aggressive nature toward China and the USMCA have really helped.

 

The electronics industry come back to Mexico and to the US. Those are some of the faster moving industries where we’re starting to see some real traction. But it is a long game. It’s something that if that’s dialed back now, you won’t necessarily see that continue or you may not see that continue.

 

CNA: The way that the Trump administration up and NAFTA, it does seem that it antagonizes some of its closest security partners including Canada. Is that counterproductive trying to form an alliance to counter the rise of China?

 

TN: There are two things with the USMCA, the kind of NAFTA part two. There was an agreement among the partners that it was a much better agreement. Getting them to the negotiating table was the first hurdle. But once they realized what the US wanted to do, what I understand is all sides were very happy especially Mexico. But in terms of getting a coalition against China together, I don’t think the US has necessarily tried to do that. The US has understood that where there are multilateral organizations or multilateral relationships countering China, that China will peel off one or two or three to create division. And so the US has taken China on one on one. This was a strategy from the very beginning and it’s yielded some of the results. But again, it’s a longer term strategy that they’ve tried to undertake.