Complete Intelligence

CI Banner
Login

Tag: Latin America

Categories
Week Ahead

Growing out of stagflation, Fed operating impact & Brazil Risk: The Week Ahead – 7 Nov 2022

Learn more about CI Futures here: http://completeintel.com/futures

In this episode, we are joined by two special guests – Mary Kissel and Travis Kimmel – as well as our regular co-host Albert Marko. Mary is the EVP and senior policy advisor at Stephens. She was the senior-most aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and was on the editorial board for Wall Street Journal. Travis Kimmel is a technology entrepreneur, market philosopher, and spicy tweeter.

First, we dig into the approach to getting out of the  current stagflationary model. The Bank of England, the ECB, the Fed, and the BOJ are starting a managed decline. And the real question is, is that really necessary? Mary Kissel walks us through how the Fed may actually be making things worse.

We all know the Fed raised by 75bps and is expected to continue with at least 50bps in December. Raising rates has decimated tech names and made operations significantly more challenging. Travis Kimmel discusses the impact of the whiplash in interest rates on operators, on the people who run companies, and how they run those companies in this type of environment.

And then finally, with Albert, we talk about Brazil. We saw a big election result in Brazil this week with Lula declared the winner. Many Brazilians are not happy.

Also, note that Brazil is one of the largest emerging economies and a huge trade partner for China. Lula has already made comments in support of Russia in the war with Ukraine. What does this mean? Is Brazil a risk for US power in the western hemisphere, given China’s inroads in Venezuela, etc?

Key themes
1. Can we grow out of this stagflationary muddle?
2. Impact of Fed rates whiplash on operators
3. How big of a risk is Brazil?

This is the 40th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Mary: https://twitter.com/marykissel
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Travis: https://twitter.com/coloradotravis

Transcript

Tony Nash: Hi, and welcome to the week ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and I’m joined this week by Mary Kissel, Travis Kimmel and Albert Marko. You all know Albert well. 

Mary Kissel is the EVP and senior policy advisor at Stevens. She was the senior-most aide to Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. She was editorial board for Wall Street Journal. Mary is extremely well known. She doesn’t need an introduction.

Travis Kimmel is a technology entrepreneur, market philosopher and a spicy tweeter. So really glad to have you both today. I really appreciate it.

Before we get started, I’m going to take 30 seconds on CI Futures, our core subscription product. CI Futures is a machine learning platform where we forecast market and economic variables.

We forecast currencies, commodities, equity indices. Every week markets closed, we automatically download that data, have trillions of calculations, have new forecasts up for you Monday morning we show you our error. You understand the risk associated with using our data. I don’t know if anybody else in the market who shows you their forecast error. We also forecast about 2000 economic variables for the top 50 economies globally and that is reforecast every month.

Let’s move on. Thanks guys. Thanks very much.

So this week we’re going to move on to some key themes. First, there’s a really interesting concept that Mary brought up. Can we grow out of this Stagflationary muddle? And I really look forward to getting into that a little deeper. 

We’re going to also with Travis talk about the impact of the whiplash in interest rates on operators, on the people who run companies and how they run those companies in this type of environment.

And then finally with Albert we’re going to talk about Brazil. We’ve had a big political change in Brazil and it seems more meaningful than we’re being kind of told. So I want to dig a little bit into that.

Mary, first let’s dig into kind of the approach to getting out of this Stagflationary model. So the UK, the Bank of England, the ECB, the Fed, the BOJ, they all seem to be, as you said, starting a managed decline. And the real question is, is that really necessary? 

And I’ve got on the screen the balance sheets for the ECB, BOJ and BoE and the Fed of course.

And then we also have a graphic for the CPI versus the money supply. Looking at CPI change and what that is related to the money supply.

Do we in fact need to manage this? Decline I think is a real question and I guess who is growing out of this? I think it’s possible that China grows out of it. I think that’s the only card they have right now. But I’m really curious to hear

your thoughts on this.

Mary Kissel: Well, it’s great to be with you Tony, Albert, Travis, thanks for inviting me today.

Of course growing is the best option. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the most politically salable option. But obviously it’s preferable to inflating away your debt and effectively ruining the savings of seniors and putting an enormous burden, particularly on the poorest and in our various economies. Do they developed or developing economies? 

I hate to talk politics because I think it’s always easier for the street to say, “well, you know, we’ve got these neat models and economic forecasts and if you just pulled this lever or that lever, we could achieve X amount of growth.” But the reality is that you have to take politics into account and it’s just very difficult to take the kind of measures that we need to take to grow. And I think you saw that you mentioned the UK and your introduction. You saw that most clearly recently in the UK, where former Prime Minister Liz Truss and her chancellor Kwasi Khortang came out with really what was the only plan outside of Greece?

Greece is the only country that is focusing on growth. They’re looking to hit investment grade next year. But beyond that, the UK was the only country that had really put forth that formula that we know works, which is it’s not just about tax cuts and reducing that burden, it was about stimulating the supply side, opening up Britain’s energy reserves, fracking, going back to the North Sea, encouraging investment.

I mean, if you look at the UK and their economic statistics, it’s pretty shocking. I mean, the two decades prior to the Pandemic, they had growth less than 2% real wages were stagnant for 15 years. Their investment was terrible, even lagging behind their OECD peers. And yet you’ve had twelve years of Conservative governance there and they haven’t really turned the corner. Why? Because politically it’s just simply easier to tax and spend. And once you get on that track, it’s really hard to get off of it. So maybe I’m talking too long, you just one more time.

TN: No, this is a great point. But in talking about managed growth and you brought up politics, I feel like there’s this kind of fate accompli in most Western governments around. Well, we’re really on the downside of our opportunity and we’re a declining country, so we’re just going to manage ourselves that way. And when I think about things like the semiconductor investments and other things coming into the US.

I live in Texas, I don’t know what it’s like in other parts of the country, but it is really booming here. We have a lot of tech companies coming in, we have a lot of investment coming in. It’s a good investment climate. I mean, for anybody in New York or California, it’s terrible here, a lot of rattlesnakes and scorpions. But in terms of the economy, really great. 

And so I want to talk about that a little bit in terms of kind of the fake company around. Well, we’re kind of past our prime. Is that kind of a baby boomer thing? I mean, millennials are as big as baby boomers. So is there this demographic assumption baked into that? 

MK: Well, look, I mean, democracies get the leadership that they elect, period. And so, you know, I may not like what’s happening in Britain. I may think that they’re on the road to looking like France in terms of their, you know, permanently high double digit unemployment and lousy investment and lousy growth, lousy prospects for their young people. If they’re voting for that, that’s what they’re going to get. 

I think that from an investment community. When I’m talking to Stephen’s clients, they’re saying, all right, well, where is there the opportunity for a political process to move us in the other direction? And that’s really just the United States over the next couple of years. I mean, that’s kind of it. Not going to happen in Japan, it’s definitely not happening in Australia, it’s not going to happen in continental Europe.

But the danger here is that the population, particularly the young people, get so mad that they realize that they have no opportunities left, that you see popular protests and you see a push to political extremes. So, look, protests are still going on in France. You’ve got protests starting to erupt in Britain. I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw that in more places across the continent as this energy inflation starts to hurt and as voters realize that this formula of price caps on energy, which isn’t going to solve any of the underlying supply problems of taxing and spending.

So it’s just a huge burden if you want to kind of start a business and get something going. No real move towards less red tape or the ability to kind of start a business and innovate. People are going to get upset at that. Again, I don’t think Populism is dead on the continent, and I think that the US, as these countries kind of go down, I think the US looks more and more attractive.

Albert Marko: No, I mean, Mary is absolutely correct. I’ve always been a proponent of looking at politics in terms of investing, just because things have been shifting so much, being in the United States, emerging markets, which is the rest of the world at the moment, like Mary said. Yeah, I mean, Populism

is absolutely not dead. With layoffs looming in the United States, we’re probably going to see more protests here in the United States gearing up to 2024.

But just like Mary said, I don’t see anywhere else in the world right now that you can actually invest in except for the United States. And I think it’s a little bit by design, by Yellen in them to force money to come out of those countries and into the United States. Although it’s a good thing for the United States in the short term, it’s destructive long term for the global markets.

MK: Sorry, just one more point. In order to get political change and to get back to that growth idea, you have to have real differences between the left and the right in democracies. And I think a lesson that came out of a place like, say, France, where Macron just sat himself in the middle, he destroyed the choice. 

And you know, the Conservatives have done the same thing in the UK. They’ve sat themselves in the middle. They took a lot of the center left platform. So what are you going to do if you’re sitting in Manchester, right? Like, who do you like? Labor light in Rishi Sunak or do you just vote for labor? I mean, it doesn’t really matter, does it? You’re going to get the same outcome, right?

TN: So we’re going to do a little bit of what Tom Keen talked about regular. We’re going to kind of rip up the script here and I’m going to ask about you talk about inflation, talk about the leadership in places like Europe. And is it at all possible I know this is kind of a silly question, but is it all possible that in places like the UK or continental Europe that it’s possible to start fracking? That we start getting some of that upstream activity to ease the burden of energy crisis?

MK: No, you’re going to need a war.

TN: Okay? So the dirty upstream stuff, according to Europe, is other people’s problem. They just want cheap energy.

MK: Look, it took Putin slaughtering thousands of people in Ukraine for them to realize that, hey, maybe Russia isn’t a secure supplier and yet they’re still not welcoming fracking. They’re still not coming to the United States and saying, hey, how do we open up more LNG? What are you guys doing?

Right? I mean, this is unbelievable. What is it going to take?

TN: Something like Larry Tankers sitting off of Europe right now, waiting to unload because there’s not enough capacity?

AM: What it’s going to take is exactly what you said, political people, to the point where it just starts dripping over governments. And right now there’s been a push for Blinken to push leftist governments throughout the world right now that it’s just like the status quo everywhere. They’re not going to open up the franking. We’re not going to touch any kind of environmental issues over in Europe right now.

MK: Look at Rishi Sunak doing a U-turn and going to the COP conference. I mean, this has to be the most ridiculous grouping I’ve ever heard of. I mean, at a time when you’ve got like ten plus inflation and people can barely pay their bills or buy eggs or the rest of it, or fill up their car, they’re going to talk about climate change. Are you kidding me?

TN: China’s tripling down on coal.

MK: Yeah, I’m also clean climate too. I don’t care what kind of energy we use, as long as the market’s figuring it out and we’re letting innovation happen, period.

AM: Well, they’re going to start blaming Brexit. Even the Tories are going to be like, oh, maybe we should stay into the EU.

MK: Could Britain go back to the EU?

AM: Maybe? Yeah, they could.

Travis Kimmel: I think the thing that’s really challenging here is we just need coherent and stable frameworks for a lot of the stuff, whether it’s energy policy, monetary policy, like if you think about what the purpose of markets are, to take a really simple example, take a CSA. What is that? It’s a futures market. It’s done in a really small scale. You got a farmer who’s basically short forward produce, right, and you’re buying futures and then you’re taking delivery of whatever lettuce and cabbage and. 

If you think about that as it’s a very simple example of what a market is designed to do, it’s designed to allow operators to derisk their business. A large futures market is no different. I mean, I work in tech. We’re sort of like extreme beta, right? And what we just went through here is we went through this period where everyone was looking at a massive boom as a result of policy. And so we all started hiring and there was the time we’re all trying to hire the same time. Staff up handles the influx of business and then in the middle of that staffing motion, your reverse course. So now you have these companies that are… You heard Stripe come out, they’re cutting 14% and just owning it. Like we missed-staff for the environment. 

There was almost no way to navigate that properly for operators. And so what you have is you have this destructive policy impulse that is sort of like ruining the whole reason we have markets in the first place.

The reason we have markets is to allow for derisking. And speculators come in there and they provide liquidity and it’s awesome. Markets are awesome. But we’re removing the value that markets once had for operators. And if you’re out here in the economy running a business, it’s extremely hard to navigate that.

TN: Yeah, Travis, that’s a great segue. And let me put up your tweet that you put up earlier this week. Talking about Powell saying some of you losing your job is like little rays of sunlight to me and I think that’s great.

And talking about how do operators work in areas in times of rates whiplash like this, I think bringing it back to risk is, is it? Right. And I run a tech firm. You run a tech firm and it’s not about high rates or low rates. It’s about the magnitude of change for planning. Right. So we can plan for a high rates environment if we know that’s going to happen.

We can plan for a low rates environment if we know that’s going to happen. But that stability is what economies like the US are built on. Right? Yes.

You mentioned one word, “coherence.” And I’m afraid that that’s a little bit too much to ask from policymakers right now, especially when we have the push pull going on with the Fed and the Treasury right now, right?

TK: Yeah. I think we’ve been overdriving this thing for years now. Basically, you saw this in, think about the events that we tried to respond to policy with. You have basically volmageddon. They were like, oh, and they used policy to address that. So your policy takes two freaking years to come through. I mean, how can you respond to a pandemic via policy? I know people get really upset about the SPVs where they short up private credit, but I would say that was probably the smartest thing they did.

So this pandemic and it was like, oh, it’s a few hundred million, right? And so they shore up private credit. Like we’ll backstop that. Arguably, that is the original intent of central banking, is that motion. Of course, you’re supposed to do a higher interest rate and all that badge itself, but whatever.

So that tiny motion was sort of interesting and maybe well played, but flooring rates, making money free and then just jamming liquidity into the economy at the same time, and we’re basically, they generated this boom that we’re now on the back of.

Now we’re reversing that super hard. I just don’t think you can respond to this kind of stuff with monetary or fiscal policy. I don’t think you can respond to emergent events. It’s not an emergency thing. What these are designed to do is to tune structural weirdness like you could tune a demographic change because demographics aren’t going to change that much in a short period of time. And so you can apply a policy to that and wait for the policy to translate through. I think what I would have liked to see when they realized their error here is just set rates at whatever, 3%, leave the balance sheet slowly until you’re back to where you want to be. And don’t do much. All these extreme action where the Fed comes in, they’re like, we get an event we don’t like, whether it’s the coronavirus or inflation or whatever. And they’re like, we’re on it. We’re going to respond swift and hard. That’s the mistake. You can’t do that. So we’re now going to get this…

What I expect to see here is eventually they will solve inflation. But that solution is by the time it translates through, it’s going to have its own momentum and it’s going to be very destructive.

TN: Oh, yeah. I think the real irony is you have publicly traded companies that are expected to give market kind of insight twelve months out to the penny on the share level, right. But then you have Powell standing in front of the world saying, we’re not really sure what we’re going to do next month. It may be whatever, and it’s data dependent. It’s like, really? Like, how many people do you have, analysts do you have? And you don’t know what you’re going to do in 30 days? That’s crazy. Right?

MK: I think Travis is raising such a good point. And the underlying theme here is that is to do something right and to juice the markets on the monetary and the fiscal side. That’s why I put in a plug. If you haven’t read it. James Grant’s book on the 1921 crash, like The Forgotten Depression, such a great book because essentially it’s like do nothing in the market. It will take pain, but then we’ll come back up.

TK: I love you mention that example. It looks like we are generating that exact same, it looks like we’re

generating a depression. Not like the depression that everyone remembers, but that little, very short, swift, extremely difficult period of time. It’s like a couple years in 1920. We’re teeing up the same thing here. It’s really weird.

MK: People make it worse. I don’t know, Travis.

TK: Look, I’m not going to fail that.

MK: I think you could be in the 30s because they’re not going to do nothing, right? They’re going to cap energy prices. They’re going to do more programs to help people.

TK: You have to let the market achieve homeostasis. And the bond market is like, it’s the spine of the economy, and we just keep whipping it back and forth. So everything else is going to be high data.

AM: Yeah, but why are they whipping it?  It’s because the political influences within the central banking system, whether they’re Treasury and the Fed. Right now, nobody is talking about the real civil war happening between conservative Powell and some of his members at the Fed, and Lail Brainard and Yellen, who are liberal that are trying to help Democrats by pumping these markets. They crush the bond market only to pump it up two points, like within minutes to pump the Nasdaq, and then the market starts running with it, and then they parade out all these liberal members of the Fed to counteract Powell’s speech yesterday.

So it’s like we can hope for stability, but until they depoliticize the Fed to the point where it’s actually acting properly, I think it’s just a pipe dream.

TN: Do you think Powell is overplaying because of the kind of politics inside the Fed?

AM: Oh, absolutely, because if you look at the Fed minutes in the FOMC releases, those are going to continue to be muted because it’s a cooperative process. Right. They have all the members talked about vote on issues and whatnot, and then Powell has to come out there and counteract that and say, listen, things aren’t working out like the minutes are reflecting, so I’m telling you we’re going to go 75 basis points next meeting. And then again today, they bring out another Fed member to say, oh, no, it might be 50, it might be 50, and then the market shoots up 100 points. This is absurd. Right? That’s an untradable market. It’s untradable market. Right? Yeah.

TN: Since we’re talking about policy fumbles, and Mary recommended a book. I don’t know if you’ve read, Ammonie Schlay’s The Forgotten Man, fantastic book about the 1930s, talking about policy error after policy error after policy error. FDR is proclaimed as this hero who got us out of the Great Depression, and he absolutely screwed up time and time and time again, and took what could have been a two-year recession and turn it into a twelve-year recession. Right? Yeah.

And so are we entering that again? That’s the real question. And it’s really easy for people to say, oh, we’re in the 30s again. I mean, I hear that so many times, it’s just tiring. Right. But we have to look at why the 30s happened. We have to look at why 1921 was so quick and then understanding what the implications for policy and the economy are.

Travis, what you brought up in terms of quick, sharp actions for specific events is exactly what we need. I think rate rises are stupid. Playing these stupid rate rise games, it freaks everyone out. It creates volatility, uncertainty, and nobody can plan. And then you get between now I think we talked about this two weeks ago, Albert, between now and the end of the year, we’re going to see so many layoffs in tech companies and they’re all going to get them just in time for Christmas, because that’s what happens all the time. Right?

TK: The thing that Albert highlights here is really interesting. It’s like, from a decision making perspective, we have the speed wobbles. You’re riding a bike and you get that thing, it’s like, you know you’re going down, you can’t pull out. We just have that right now. We’re whipping this thing back and forth. We’re being hyper reactive. And until we get to a place where we can just sort of chill for a while. Does anybody think that’s on the horizon? It doesn’t look like it. No.

AM: Not as long as politics and inflation are taking hold and there’s elections to be won. That just can’t happen.

MK: I think investors, they go back to basics. They say, OK, where do we have a stable rule of law Where do we have any kind of predictability in the political process? Or even, you know, as I said, the US like the opportunity to have a more attractive business environment. 

And where do we have resources? You know, human resource, mineral resources, you know, and so that’s essentially the Gulf in the United States.

TN: Don’t talk to Texas too much, Mary, please. Okay, perfect. Guys, thanks for that.

Let’s move on to Brazil. Brazil’s obviously a really big story this week, and Albert, we saw Lula declared the winner. This was very much a 50-50 election. Of course there were irregularities. There were irregularities in every election. We’ve seen five days of protest now. I’ve got a tweet up from Steve Hanke talking about tens of thousands of Brazilians out who are Bolsonaro supporters.

But what’s really interesting to me about this is not really who wins, but Brazil is a huge supplier of things like energy, frozen chicken, soybeans, these sorts of things to China. And so this type of disruption can hurt that type of trade. We’ve also had Lula already make supportive comments of Russia shortly after the results were announced. So, Albert, what does this mean? What do we need to be looking out for?

AM: Commodities, really. Soybeans, soybeans, corn, ethanol and everything tied into that. Now you’re looking at Brazil, which you’d mentioned is a big supplier to China for soybeans. And then he goes on and declares that Putin is right in Ukraine. It just smells so bad right now for the United States and the longterm interest in the region.

Like I mentioned before, these push for leftist governments, it’s just not wise. I mean, it’s shortsighted.

Long term, these leftist governments are really susceptible to Beijing and Russia at the moment. So, you know, you’re out there and Lula comes out and immediately declares, like, the World Economic Forum is correct, and we’re going to take on deforestation, which is obviously going to obviously going to depress the soybean crowd because it takes years.

How the soybean crops work is like, you clear land, and you got to let them sit there for two years, and then you start rotating in and out. So there will be a steady supply of soybeans that the Chinese eat up pretty much, I think, like 60% or 70% of their crop every year. So what are we looking at? Higher food prices across the board, everywhere in the United States is specifically a problem.

TN: So I’m interested in that regional political angle you mentioned. So if we look at Brazil, we look at Venezuela, we look at Colombia, the government’s coming into kind of our region, and the influence that China has on, say, Venezuela with the debt that’s owed to China Development Bank and then with Brazil on the trade side and so on, is that a regional political risk for the US?

AM: It’s an incredible risk. I mean, you’re looking at the Argentinians about to sell a naval base to the Chinese. So now they have Atlantic access. Bolivia was a problem with the lithium mines to the Chinese. Peru was starting to set up naval bases for the Chinese. I mean, it’s like, how do we overlook this? This is right in our backyard, and we’re sitting there overlooking leftist governments taking control and then flipping against us the very next minute. I don’t understand what Blinken and Jake Sullivan are looking at here. What plan do they have for US interests long term when these governments routinely act against us? Venezuela decided to go start talks with Colombia again. US friendly nation in any sense of the word. So it just boggles my mind at the moment.

TN: So, Mary, you’ve sat in the seat. What would you be thinking at this point?

MK: Well, the key to all of this is Cuba because none of these regimes, many of them, would not be in power were it not for the Cuban security services, which is not really talked about, but, you know, Maduro good examples, publicly available information. His private security officers are all Cubans. So I think Biden had a fantastic opportunity early in his term. All these Cuban people came out under the streets. We should have turned on the Internet and allowed them to determine their own fate.

But instead, where did that go? Nobody seems to care. I think Latin America today for the administration, is more about domestic political ends, and it is about thinking strategically about wait a second. Okay, we’ve got some pretty decently large markets, as Travis  pointed out, right?

In Brazil, in Argentina, and Mexico is going way far away from us. That’s another huge story nobody’s talking about. Canada. Right? There’s a lot of opportunity within the hemisphere to create market openings and growth for all of us, but they’re not thinking about it. They really don’t care. It’s about talking about democracy in Brazil so they can talk about the state of democracy in the United States.

AM: Yeah, it’s just because Colombia was such a great US ally and the government was solidly behind the United States and a focal point for Latin American aspirations, and then you go and push for a leftist government that’s favorable to Maduro. I don’t understand what goes through their heads at the moment.

TN: Great. Okay, thanks for that, guys. Just one last question for all of you. Kind of don’t have to necessarily come in individually, but we’ve had all these economic announcements this week. We’ve got the elections, the midterms, US midterms next week. What are you guys looking for in the week ahead Generally? I guess, Albert, you have some specific ideas, but for Travis and Mary, what do you guys expect in the week ahead?

AM: For the midterms, it’s pretty much set in stone as the Republicans are going to take control of the elite the House most likely to Senate by two seats. So you know how the market reacts. Whether we start dumping is really going to probably depend on CPI.  So that’s actually what I’m going to really watch, the CPI so we can solidify the 75 basis point rate hike in December.

TN: Okay, great. Travis, any thoughts.

TK: In the political sphere, I’m just kind of looking for individuals that make sense. I’m not really, I don’t really have team allegiances. I just want somebody who’s talking sense.

I think the CPI will be interesting. In terms of intraweek stuff, I try not to think of markets that way. I try to think of a little more defensively and where I want to end up. So if I had a position on, I want to be able to ignore it for a month or two while I just focus on doing my job. I’m a pretty defensive player here. Especially with all the whip.

MK: I think even if Albert is right, and I think he is, that Republicans take control of one or more houses, the regulatory state is going to grind on. So I’m really not looking so much at the federal level. I’m looking at governor’s races where like a Republican Lee Zeldin as Governor of New York could open up fracking in New York.

TN: Is that a real possibility, do you think?

MK: I think it could be, absolutely. Remember Cuomo shut it down himself, so why couldn’t Zeldin open it up?

TN: No, but do you think Zeldin being elected is a real possibility, do you think?

MK: Oh yeah. Really? Remember Giuliani, the pollsters went out and they were like, hey, you’re going to vote for Rudy? And everyone on the Upper West Side said, no, I’d never vote for that guy. Right. And then they looked at the crime in the mess, and then they went into the polling moves and they went yeah, exactly. Right.

TN: So it could be New York, could be Michigan, some of these other places that have had some polarizing governors kind of move more to the right or to the middle.

TK: Do you think that policy at a state level is sufficient to justify capex for energy companies?

MK: No. I mean, really, only the Feds can make a meaningful difference at the margin. I talk a lot to clients about the regulatory state, because we don’t talk about it a lot. But that really is what depresses investment.

Categories
Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 09 May 2022

The Fed just announced the 50 basis point hike this week. Albert and Sam explain what this means for markets in the near term. Also, how badly does JPow need media training (he said “a normal economic person probably doesn’t have that much extra to spend”)?

We also discussed what’s happening with TLT? And then, what will the Fed do next? Why is everyone talking about a 75bp move?

Tracy explains what’s happening in natural gas and the crude oil markets. Why does energy seem range-bound?

Key themes:

  1. What the F just happened? (F for Fed)
  2. What the F is next? (F for Fed)
  3. Why does energy seem range-bound?

This is the 17th episode of The Week Ahead in collaboration with Complete Intelligence and Intelligence Quarterly, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead experts on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon

Listen to the podcast on Spotify:

Transcript

TN: Hi. Welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Tracy Shuchart, Sam Rines and Albert Marco. We’re always joined by those guys. Before we get started, I’d like to ask you to like and subscribe. Really appreciate it if you subscribe to our YouTube channel.

It’s been a very interesting week, guys. We have a few key themes. First of all, what the F just happened F is for Fed. Then we’re looking at what the F is next. So that F also is for Fed. And then we really want to look at some energy stuff. Why does energy seem to be range bound? And I think that’ll be a really interesting discussion.

So Sam and Albert, kind of talk us through what the F just happened? We said this would be the most dovish 50 basis point move in the history of the Fed and it was. And here we are at the end of the week and things don’t look so good. So what happened?

AM: Well, was it a Dovish Fed? Not really. I mean it was pretty hawkish but it was already priced in. Everyone knows it was going to be 50 basis points and everyone knows they were going to talk about all these hawkish words. But then Powell comes out and throws in a little sprinkle of dovishness in there and then the market took off with it. I think it rallied at 3%? Crazy.

However, from what my guys told me, a lot of that was because traders were loading up on spy calls and ES futures and just gamma squeezed it. It was really easy. The market is kind of liquid right now. That actually agitated the Fed because they didn’t want this thing to rally and they came back and just torched everybody the next day. It was like 4% down? Just stunning. Absolutely stunning price action that we’re seeing right now.

It’s just not tradable. I mean you’re in this market and you’re swinging 100 points up and down each way every couple of hours. It’s just not tradable right now.

TS: Albert made a very good point. The thing is these swings that we’re seeing in energy and also in equities, these swings are untradable. Right. So that is very cognizant point that you have brought up.

SR: I mean the interesting thing to me with the whole thing was how quickly you went up, how quickly you went down to follow it up. Not just in ES and S&P, but the dollar got trounced following the Fed and finished flat basically to pre-Fed to finish up the week. You had the two-year absolutely plummet and make a little bit of a comeback. But it generally actually stayed lower following the Fed minutes. But these were huge moves across the board.

It didn’t matter what asset class you were trying to hide in, besides maybe energy. It didn’t matter where you were hiding it. You were just getting whipped. And there was very little tradability across the board in that period.

So it was pretty interesting also to hear several Fed speakers today. I think there were five or six of them come out and were generally hawkish across the board. I mean, you had one non-voter, Barkin, talking about putting 75 back on the table. I mean, it’s ridiculous. Powell just absolutely said no to 75. And then you have beneficials coming back with maybe I haven’t taken 75 off the table. I mean, not that Barkin matters, but he tried to put it back on the table. Their communications are a mess.

TN: The interesting part for me about Wednesday was Yellen came out first saying, “no, it’s all good. Nothing to see here. There’s going to be no recession. Fed is going to be able to manage it.” Everything else. To me, that was the real tell, right, that he was going to be fairly gentle. Of course, it was a 50 basis point hike, but it was a fairly gentle 50 basis point hike. And he was going to stave off the 75 basis point talk.

But then today we see these guys come out being fairly hawkish. So we’ll get into kind of what’s next in a couple of minutes. But I want to ask about a couple of things. Powell, he talks, man. He is not the Greenspan kind of mysterious guy. And his talking seems to get him in trouble.

So one of the things that he said on Wednesday that really caught me, which he said, I’m looking at my notes, he said “a normal economic person probably doesn’t have that much to spend” when he was talking about inflation, that much extra to spend. Sorry, but he actually let the words “normal economic person” pass his lips. And words like that, language like that makes American people feel like it’s the government, this gilded government employee who inflation doesn’t touch versus the American people. What’s wrong with those guys? Why are they using that language?

AM: In my opinion, they want to crush excess money and they’re doing just that. These wild swings in a week that’s meant to just erase money from the system. And Powell is an attorney. He’s not really an economic guy.

TN: An attorney should know words.

AM: Yeah, well, he doesn’t. He’s flustered. He’s flustered. There’s so much stuff going on behind the scenes that he’s flustered. And really, I don’t really even think that Jerome Powell is even in control of things. I think more align on to Auntie Yellen. I think she’s the mastermind behind this dollar rise. I know she is, in fact. I had discussions about it.

She’s the mastermind of pushing this thing past 110. She’s the mastermind of getting capital to force it back into the US equities. She’s the one doing all this.

TN: Right.

AM: Powell might be fighting it, but I’ve talked about this many times. You have this disjointed policy between what the Fed wants to do and Powell and what Yellen is doing. So this is what I see is going on.

TN: Sam?

SR: And to your point. I think their communications generally are a nightmare. They’re not doing a phenomenal job of telling people anything. Right.

It was such a disastrous week. You had quarrels out early in the week talking about how because Biden hadn’t nominated Powell to come back to the Fed. That was one of the reasons why they were behind the curve. Sorry, Randy, but that’s a ridiculous statement. Everybody knew, the betting odds never really broke through 70 that Powell was going to be renominated. Let’s be honest. He was always going to be renominated.

AM: You bring up an interesting point, Sam, and kind of a signal is will Powell actually get confirmed and is Randy and those guys, because Randy deserve this, I believe.

SR: Yes.

AM: So are they trying to defend or trying to upstage Biden and possibly not getting Powell confirmed?

SR: Well, it’s interesting because you would think that Corals would want Powell confirmed because Powell he’s fairly conservative in mindset relative to some of the other people. That could be dominated.

TS: Middle ground, too, I would say.

SR: Yeah, a decent middle ground. And most likely after that, it’s going to be Brainard. Right. I don’t think Corals wants to mastermind getting Brainard in there.

AM: No, I’m saying that Corals are trying to get ahead of the game here, thinking that Powell might be ousted.

SR: Oh, yeah, maybe. I also think that there’s an awful lot of people once they get out of the Fed and they see that they’re part of the decision making that got us to the current inflationary environment and current problems. There’s a little bit of face save when it comes to, hey, look, we wouldn’t actually be here if they had done their job. It wasn’t really us. It was this lack of nomination.

So generally, then you get into the FOMC meeting, the after presser, call it the kerfuffles that he makes constantly during it. Then you get to the Fed speakers after it. The worst part about the FOMC meeting is not the FOMC meeting. It’s just the blackout ends. Let’s be honest. Then we have to listen to them for another three weeks before the blackout comes.

TN: Normal economic people do stuff.

SR: Yeah. Like buy stuff and actually contribute to the economy instead of just blustering about 75 basis points.

TN: Right? Exactly. Okay. Before you get 75 basis points, Sam, can you walk us through what’s happening in the TLT market because it’s falling off a cliff a month ago. Is it like 140. Now, it’s like 118. So what’s happening there? Because I’m hearing a lot of chatter about that.

SR: Yeah. I mean, it’s the tracker for the 20-plus year US Treasury note. When yields rise, the thing is going to get trounced. Right? I mean, that’s pretty easy.

The easiest way to underperform the S&P this year has been to buy TLT. That’s just been that bad. I think it’s down 21% or 22% as of the close today. That’s a pretty devastating bond move right, for portfolios when bonds were supposed to be the safe asset. But generally it’s liquid. Right? You can buy and sell TLT all day long and you can short it. You can do some stuff.

So it’s a fairly easy way for particularly investment advisors and other smaller players that are running separately managed accounts to get in and out of fixed income exposure quickly and be able to move their portfolio duration pretty dramatically, pretty quickly. So it’s a trading tool.

And so when you need liquidity and you’re not going to sell individual bonds, that’s going to be generally fairly liquid and you get some pretty big spreads there. You’re not going to sell those bonds, you’re going to sell TLT instead.

TN: So are TLT markets telling us that they expect tightening to accelerate? Is that what’s being communicated to us?

SR: No, I would actually take the other side of that. And I think it kind of goes to Albert’s point last week is long end yields don’t rise if the markets are expecting a tighter, faster Fed. Right. That would be a recipe for disaster.

Recession being pulled in towards us, not pushed out. So the Fed is expected to do 50 basis point hikes instead of potentially 75. QT was a little bit, QT was basically what was thought even a little slower to phase in. Yields could be telling us a number of things, but one of them is not that the Fed is tightening faster.

TN: Okay.

AM: This is the problem. This is the problem. Right. This is something that nobody’s really talking about is the Fed is trying to create this narrative with long bond and whatnot that? We’re going to tighten. We’re going to tighten, we’re going to tighten. However, the market is still red hot. I mean, even the consumer credit today was outrageous. Did you see that?

SR: That was insane.

AM: I was talking to my client today and we’re looking at shorting retail and whatnot? And I said we cannot show retail. And he was why? I just walked into Gucci and it was a velvet rope with a line of 100 people trying to get in there. And none of them make more than $50,000 a year. Just buying stuff left and right. It’s like, well, the Fed is trying to say we’re tightening, but the market is red hot right now.

TN: Fascinating.

SR: I have no push back to that whatsoever. The consumer numbers today were stupid. 50 plus billion. That was a silly number. That was a silly, silly number.

TN: That’s a great segue to what the F is next. Right. What’s the Fed going to do next? Because if consumer credit is still expanding it’s really fast, how do they slow it down? Is 75 basis points are realistic? I know he said no. But then why do we keep hearing about it? Then why are all these geniuses saying 75?

SR: I haven’t seen a single genius.

TS: That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily going to come to fruition.

TN: Okay.

SR: Yeah, I mean it’s, James Bullard basically planting that seed. Yeah, one fed and then Barkin picked up on it and said I wouldn’t rule it out. I mean, it’s two people that if you still listen to Bullard and Barkin, I’m sorry, but you’re going to lose money.

TN: Bullard was great like ten years ago, right?

AM: Yeah, but they’re trying to sway less than intelligent traders to believe that it’s coming. Maybe sway some money that way.

TN: The only reason I’m saying it is because I want everyone watching to know that.

AM: They are lying to you. Okay? They are lying.

TN: So the expectation is that what the F is next is kind of staying disciplined. 50 basis points in the next meeting and maybe QT accelerates slightly. Is that kind of what we expect to happen next?

SR: Yeah, I would say 50 bps, but I don’t think you even have to accelerate QT. It’s very difficult to accelerate.

TS: This mark is going to scare them. And what is going to happen is they’re going to be another 50 for sure. But they’re going to be even more dovish than they were last time.

TN: Okay.

AM: I actually want to take a train. I think they’re going to do 50 bips for sure, without question. But I think they’re going to have to accelerate tightening just to scare the market a little bit, for God’s sake, because especially if they want to…

TS: Acceleration timeline, I mean, you could barely take a magnifying glass to it. Right. So you’re talking about almost $9 trillion going down to maybe 8.5. I mean, can you really see that?

AM: No, but they’re also going to be using the dollar. They might even take a dollar to 115 or 120. It breaks everything.

TS: Any QT that they have, it has the exact opposite effect. So they’re not stupid. They know that monetary policy that they’re doing right now may break the market, but they’re going to ensure that…

AM: Yeah, but they want to do QE later in the year.

TS: They want to be able to do it.

TN: I saw an interesting discussion on social media this week about what’s the worst central bank to be a part of right now. And I think it was easily the Hong Kong Monetary authority. Right.

With everything terrible happening in China, but they have to match what the US is doing. It’s just a very difficult place to be in. So I think even as we talk about what is the Fed going to do next, there are some central banks out there that are just in a terrible place. And raising the dollar at 110, 115, 120 would absolutely break some of these central banks and put in a very terrible position.

AM: Yeah, but Tony, the Chinese, they’re very pragmatic with that respect. They’re waiting to see what the Fed does and they’ll react. They are for sure going to stimulate their economy.

TS: They’ve already announced so much stimulus. It’s ridiculous. The market hasn’t particularly reacted at this point as far as the commodities sector is concerned. But literally they have so much if you look at what they have said, they have so much stimulus on the line as far as infrastructure. They do not want, they want, they’re determined to have their 5.5% GDP by the end of year ’22. Right.

TN: Yeah. Well, they’ll hit that no matter.

TS: What they are doing is they’ve already announced so much stimulus. Markets not looking at right now. Right. Or the North American market shows looking at it right now, I promise you.

AM: Yeah, but Tracy, also, you got to remember that the SEC started coming out with delisting threats all over the place. They added 80 more companies to the delisting threat. That’s actually toned down.

TS: I’m not saying I would invest in Chinese companies. What I’m saying is I would invest in commodities.

AM: I know. But when you say that the market hasn’t reacted, that’s a lot to do with it. These delisting things have really scared investors away from them.

TN: What China needs is dump truck and helicopter loads of cash on the boon like tomorrow. And I think to hit 5.5, they’re going to have to do that in every major town. They’re going to have to unleash dump truckloads of cash. The infrastructure they’ve announced is close to what they need to hit that. Sorry? And they have a share… t

TS: hey’re made up number. But in order to. Yes. Hit that, you’re completely correct.

TN: Yeah. They’ve got to do it and they’ll end up canceling unofficially. They’ll give dead jubilees, all that kind of stuff. Like they’ll do all of this unofficially. But it’s to let people reload so they can spend more money. They’ll do all of this stuff starting as soon as they rip the Band Aid off of the lockdown.

TS: That’s why we’re seeing a deval in the currency right now.

TN: Right, right. Which we talked about for months and months. And I’m so glad that it happened. Let’s move to energy, guys. And Tracy, we were talking about this a little bit earlier about energy being kind of range bound.

I’ve got Nat Gas and WTI on screen. We’ve seen Nat Gas really come down hard over the past couple of days. Can you tell us what’s going on there? Because it’s performed really well over the past month, except for that little period. So what’s going on with Nat Gas and what’s going on with WTI? Is it really range-bound?

TS: I mean, it is range bound. What we’re seeing is we’re saying although it’s a larger range, right, like we’re seeing $10-15 ranges in WTI. What we are seeing is that if you look at a daily or weekly chart, you’re seeing that range is coming down. Right.

TN: Okay.

TS: And that’s to be expected. One thing that the market did was that they increased margins. Thank you.

TN: Yeah.

TS: They increased margins. That put a lot of retail traders out of the market. That said, if we look at the recent OI? OI has actually increased daily all this week. So it looks like and we can’t tell at this point whether it’s retail traders or institutional traders. But OI has increased this week in that sector across gasoline.

AM: Yes. Speaking of gasoline, I’m looking at diesel and gasoline crack. I think you’re looking at shortages coming in the summertime. Those things look to get explosive.

TS: You know, texted you two months ago and said, get long diesel.

AM: Yeah.

TS: It lies in the EU. Right. And they are going to see shortages. This is going to affect their overall GDP. We’re going to see less transportation we’re going to see less manufacturing. We’re going to see because they can’t handle these prices. That said, if you’re an investor, you’re going to look at the refiners right now that are refining these because the crack spreads are increasing exponentially.

So if you want to invest in this sector, I think you would be looking at refiners right now that specifically are involved in distillates. Interesting.

TN: Great. Perfect. All right, great. So, guys, what are we looking at for the week ahead? What’s on your mind, Albert? Definitely not shorting retail.

AM: Definitely not shorting retail. I just can’t take that out for at least June. But honestly, the Roe versus weighed the political atmosphere right now and how that’s going to affect the congressional races, not so much the House, because the House is set for the GOP, but possibly the Senate. And why I bring that up is because now those economic bills going through Congress, they start getting affected. And investors started calling me to try to figure out what’s the makeup of Congress.

And I think that’s what I’m going to actually start paying attention to because the beginning of next year we’re going to need stimulus the way that this economy is going. So I’m taking a look at what the makeup of the committees are going to be, what possible stimulus packages will be materializing.

The auto sector, for God’s sake, it’s completely trashed. I think that’s on life support and definitely going to need some help. I’m actually looking for auto sector plays for the long term, 24 months out.

TN: Okay, Sam, what’s on your mind?

SR: I’ll be paying pretty close attention to where the dollar heads, particularly based on our earlier conversation on the Renminbi. And in the end, following the Fed this week and then listening to how other central banks begin to form a narrative around their next moves based on the Fed in particular, Latin America is going to be very interesting given some of the inflation pressures down there and the push and pull of someplace like Brazil, where commodities are both good and bad for an economy, or Argentina, good and bad for an economy, export a lot of food, but import a lot of energy, even though you have the black maritime, psychotic, that’s pretty poorly run.

Anyway, that to me is going to be one of the really interesting stories of the next couple of weeks, given the Fed. The Fed moving quickly, beginning to do some quantitative tightening.

Generally, that would be your number one method of affecting markets is through the dollar. So I just want to see what the dollar does and follow the dollar and not fight that tape.

TN: Yeah, very good. Tracy, what’s on your mind for next week?

TS: I’m going to be concentrating actually on the yuan at this strength. I want to see how much are they going to actually devalue their currency, because I think that’s the sign of how desperate they are to bolster the domestic economy. That’s where my main focus is right.

TN: Supposed Fed your eyes on China.

TS: But you have to realize what happens is that people don’t really talk about why does China devalue the currency? They devalue the currency so that exports become cheaper and more competitive. In turn, that makes imports more expensive. Why does that help the domestic economy? That means that people in China are not buying imports. They’d rather buy from domestic businesses which bolsters their economy.

So right now I think that’s one of the most important things to be looking at right now is to see how much are they going like, how desperate are they?

TN: That’s a great observation and something that I watch every day and I’ll tell you, they’re very desperate. I don’t mean to laugh at it. I feel really empathetic for the people in China but they’re very desperate. So I would watch for some moves that are I would say that tried to appear disciplined because they don’t want to look desperate. But in fact, they’re desperate to get their economy moving because of these lockdowns.

So I think the first sign of that would have to be starting to see a lifting of the lockdown like a legitimate lifting of the lockdowns and not moving into more towns like they did in Beijing over the past couple of weeks. But really legitimately taking these lockdowns off and free movement.

Looking at things like the port zone in Shanghai and how many people are allowed to work in those bonded warehouses, those sorts of things to get that port activity moving. As we look at those indicators, we’ll know how serious the Chinese government is about getting back to work. If they don’t do it, they’re not serious. And if they’re not serious, they’re going to have some real trouble.

I’m not a gloom and doom kind of China is going to have a coup or anything type of guy. But I do think that they’re going to have some real trouble. They want everyone to be happy and harmonious going into the national party meeting in November and there’s going to be some runway needed to get everybody happy. And by everybody being happy, I mean all of those CCP guys in Guangzhou and all the different provinces, they have to be happy coming into that Congress because if they’re not, then Xi Jinping has several problems. Serious problems.

Okay, guys? Hey, thanks very much. I really appreciate this. Have a great week ahead and have a great weekend. Thank you.

AM: Thanks, Tony.

SR: Thank you, Tony.

Categories
Podcasts

Gazprom To Halt Gas Supplies To Poland

This podcast first appeared and was originally published at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172ydpb2k5rfjd on April 27, 2022.

Russian company Gazprom says it will halt gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria from Wednesday morning. Poland currently depends on Russian imports for around half of its gas. The country’s deputy foreign minister Marcin Pzydacz tells us his government was already been prepared for this move. Plus, the World Bank’s latest commodities report makes sobering reading, suggesting that high food and fuel prices could blight the global economy for years to come. We hear from its author, World Bank Senior Economist Peter Nagle. With Elon Musk poised to take over at Twitter, the European Union’s Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton tells us that the firm will be welcome to operate in the EU under new management, providing it adheres to the bloc’s rules. As Delta Air Lines reveals that cabin crew will be paid for boarding as well as flight time in a landmark announcement, the president of the Association of Flight Attendant Sara Nelson says unionization efforts by airline staff forced the company’s hand. And the BBC’s Ivana Davidovic investigates urban mining, the process of reclaiming raw materials from spent products, buildings, and waste. Throughout the program we’re joined live by Zyma Islam, a journalist with The Daily Star newspaper in Bangladesh, and by Tony Nash, chief economist at AI firm Complete Intelligence, based in Houston, Texas.

Show Notes

EB: Joining me today to help discuss all of this to guests from opposite sides of the world, Tony Nash, chief economist at the AI firm Complete Intelligence in Texas. Hi, Tony.

TN: Hi, Good Evening.

EB: Good to have you with us. Tony Nash in Texas, what do you think is interesting, isn’t it, because this could I don’t know, it could go two ways, just politically. It’s an interesting move from Moscow to, if you like, preempt European sanctions against Moscow by cutting off the supply to Europe.

TN: Yeah. I think the further this goes along, the more I like people buying oil and gas from Texas, since that’s where I live. So we’ll take that. But for Poland, less than I think, about 10% of their electricity mixes from gas. So it wasn’t a majority gas driven market anyway. So they were very smart to put resources in place, alternatives in place. And, of course, it hasn’t been cost free. It’s taken a lot of resource to get that in place, but it’s good for them. And being on the border with Russia, they have to be prepared for anything.

EB: Yeah. I mean, gas is obviously very important during the winter months and we’re entering spring. So maybe European countries are feeling the crunch a little bit less strongly. Nonetheless, the question does remain, is Germany especially willing to cut off the oil? The oil is by far the bigger element, isn’t it, in terms of Russian revenue from its energy exports? And that’s the thing that Europe is resisting so far. Do you think we are pushing in that direction?

TN: I think if the fighting continues, they’ll have to. The problem is they don’t really have alternatives right now. And so that’s their dilemma is Europe did not diversify when they should have, and now they’ll pay much, much higher prices. So that will eat into European economic growth and it will really hurt consumers. So I think Europe is in a very difficult position. That’s obvious. But a lot of it is on some level, I wouldn’t say completely their own making, but they had opportunities to diversify, which they didn’t take.

EB: Yeah. I mean, Tony, everyone wants to get their LNG from Qatar and they all from the United States. There are going to be some pretty wealthy Qatari and American exporters of LNG, even if they can meet the demand next year.

TN: All of my neighbors in Houston are benefiting. I’m not in the oil and gas sector, but they are certainly benefiting from this.

EB: Let me bring in Tony there. I mean, we saw a story this week, Indonesia, for instance, banning the export of some palm oil food protectionism could be a thing. We’re not really talking about that yet. But those countries I mean, Bangladesh neighbor, India, will it start cutting off its exports when it starts to see global prices rising and perhaps being more pressure on its domestic supply?

TN: Yeah, it’s possible. And we also have a situation where the US dollar is strengthening and emerging market currencies are weakening. So these ad commodities are becoming more expensive in US dollar terms for sure. But it’s an accelerated inflation rate in emerging market currencies. So one would hope that, say countries like China, who are suffering with this, who devalued their currencies in a big way over the last week, would start to put pressure on Russia to resolve the conflict so that both Russia and Ukraine can start exporting food commodities again.

EB: Tony Nash, what do you think? I’m forgetting the unicorn thing. Could officials come down that hard on Twitter, a new, less regulated Twitter platform under Elon Musk?

TN: Well, let’s assume that he obviously doesn’t understand the technology is regulating 100 million Europeans could turn on their VPNs tomorrow and access Twitter from a pop outside of Europe in 5 seconds. It would be no problem at all. So Twitter could unilaterally shut down in Europe and they’d still have 100 million customers on the European mainland. So he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology that he’s supposedly regulating. But what I don’t think he also understands is Twitter has people like Rouhani from Iran and Vladimir Putin and Chinese people who deny that they have a million Muslims in prison and all this other stuff. So why is he not cracking down on Twitter for allowing those guys to have a voice when he’s worried about Elon Musk, who is a loud guy, but he’s a pretty middle of the road guy, seemingly. So I just don’t understand why there’s so much hyperventilating about Elon Musk. I don’t get it.

EB: So you’re along with, I guess certainly a large number of Republicans in Congress right now who are saying bring it on. We’re delighted that this takeover is happening because we imagine we’re going to see a much less regulated platform.

TN: Let’s take another view. Let’s take Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post. Right. It’s a media platform, and it’s had some really questionable practices over the past few years. So why aren’t media regulators in Europe looking at The Washington Post? They’re just not. And so I think if Musk is really going to have Twitter be in the center and not moderate except for things that are illegal, then more power to them. It’s in the spirit of the US law from the 1990s that said that internet content publishers can’t be sued because they’re not Editors. They’re only publishers. So I think it’s more in the spirit of the 1990s Internet regulation than anything that’s out there today.

EB: Tony Delta in Atlanta, that’s not a million miles from where you live, is it? Do you have sympathy for the flight attendants here?

TN: Yeah. It’s insane. I never knew about this. So no wonder the flight attendants are less than cheerful when we arrive on board.

EB: Especially for the check in bid, right?

TN: Exactly. It’s just insane. They’re in uniform, they’re working. Why they’re not paid. I just think that’s insane.

EB: The unionization drive does seem to be gathering a bit of pace in America, doesn’t it, right now. And we mentioned we’ve referenced all those other companies. It’s the mood of the moment. Yeah.

TN: Well, labor has the strong hand right now, and wages are rising. And when labor has the strong hand, you see more unionization. So it’s just a natural course.

EB: But it has been decades during which Union participation in the state certainly has gone down, isn’t it? I mean, since I’m in the 70s wasn’t right.

TN: But if we look at the rate of baby Boomer retirement, we have a lot of people going out of the workforce right now. And so we do have tight labor markets because of it. And that’s really part of what’s pushing the strength on the side of labor. And so this stuff is demographic.

EB: And it’s typical when it comes to technology. I mean, I have a personal take on this. I went to Acra in Garner in 2015 to the famous Agbog blushy central dump there, which is an extraordinary place. It’s one of the largest of its kind in the world. Miles of waste, all kinds of things. They’re burning cables just to extract the copper from the tubing and the wiring. But the air, I mean, it took me 24 hours just to feel my lungs clear from that place. It’s an extraordinary thing, isn’t it, Tony Nash, don’t you think it’s strange that the market around the world, the free market, hasn’t found a system whereby the value of old units is recycled efficiently?

TN: Yes. So if I want to recycle electronics here in my local town, I take it to a center and I have to pay them to take it. So they’re taking gold and platinum and other great stuff out of there, but I have to pay them to take my recyclable electronics.

EB: Is that why? I mean, do you understand the economics of that? Because you’d think that supply and demand would suggest that if there were a competitive value in the goods that they’re extracting, there would be competition and therefore there would be people offering lower prices or perhaps even paying you for your old stuff?

TN: Yeah, I understand the competition of it, but I think I just want to get rid of the stuff. And I think that’s what they realize is they can charge people just to get rid of old computers or phones or whatever, and then they get money on both sides.

EB: The big corporations, Tony, have a bigger responsibility here. I mean, they’re the ones producing the stuff. They’re the ones, I guess, I don’t know, paying for the extraction of some of these rare Earth metals and everything else. Some of the toxic stuff coming from places like Russia, Latin America, the DRC, and those are the things that are then being spat out and causing all kinds of pollution.

TN: Sure. I would think, for example, the phone manufacturers and the mobile carriers would have an incentive to collect the old phones from people.

EB: Yeah, but do you think regulators should be doing more here?

TN: I don’t really know. I think regulation tends to kind of contort things like this, And I think for something like this would potentially create an unintended economic opportunity. So we heard about the person in Bangladesh who collects used items in Singapore. I lived there for 15 years. We had somebody called a Karen Gunn person who would collect used electronics and other things and buy our house. So whether it’s that local person or whether it’s an Assembly Or a disassembly location, say, near my house, Those are people who are focused, who are specialized on what they’re doing. I do think, though, that the people who create this actually should have some sort of incentive, not from government, but from their customers to collect this stuff Once they’re finished with it, because it’s costing me money to get rid of it, but I’m paying them for it.

EB: Okay. A couple of minutes left in the show. I’m going to ask you both now for a quick thought about the things that have caught your eye most in the area, the news stories that have caught your attention. Tony, tell us in Texas what’s catching you up there?

TN: It’s really hard to follow that. So in Texas, one of the things that’s happening and this is not new, but it’s becoming more and more common is if you take your car out somewhere, Even in just a normal neighborhood, to, say, a shopping Center, It’s pretty common for someone to come even in the middle of the day and steal the catalytic converter off of your car. You go into a restaurant or a shop and you come out and someone has taken the catalytic converter off your car, which is a key part to muffling sound, and they do it for the precious metals in that piece. So that’s becoming very common here again. It’s happened for years, but it’s becoming much more intense Because of the prices of precious metals.

EB: Yeah, unauthorized recycling. We can full circle Tony Nash and Zimmer Islam in Texas and Bangladesh, respectively. Thanks to you both and thanks to you all for listening. This has been business matters as my name’s Ed Butler. Take care. Bye.

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。