Complete Intelligence

CI Banner
Login

Tag: United States

Categories
QuickHit

What happens to markets if China invades Taiwan? (Part 1)

Get 94.7% accuracy on your markets forecasts with CI Futures. Subscribe for only $50/mo for a limited-time only: http://completeintel.com/2022Promo

In this QuickHit episode, we’re joined by Mike Green to talk about what will happen if China invades Taiwan? We’re not saying that China is going to invade Taiwan, but what if it is to happen? What will be the impact to markets?

Mike Green is the chief strategist and portfolio manager for an ETF firm called Simplify Asset Management. They specialize in derivative overlays and derivative structures that modify the traditional market exposures. Their flagship products are things like US equities with downside protection.

His background prior to Simplify, has been in hedge funds for about 15 years and have built an expertise or a degree of renowned for the work that he does in primarily the derivatives and volatility space and have managed traditionally in what’s referred to as a discretionary global macro style. The assets that he purchases or that he monitors exist around the world, including places like China, Taiwan, et cetera.

A lot of the discussions Tony and Mike have had around Taiwan are tied to some geopolitical observations and some dynamics that exist in which Mike played a role less under the Biden administration. But in the prior administration had an advisory capacity to some components of the Department of State and Department of Defense.

📊 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 December 2, 2021.

The views and opinions expressed in this What happens to markets if China invades Taiwan? 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: So today we hear or any day, pick a day. We hear that China is invading Taiwan. What are the first things that come to your mind as the news crosses the wires?

MG: Well, I think there’s a couple of things that are really important about the question of is China invading Taiwan, right. And so what we have seen very clearly, and this is fact, not speculation, is a dramatic escalation of China’s incursion on what would traditionally be thought of as Taiwan sovereignty or independence. Right.

We’ve seen a dramatic increase in boats transitioning across the international marine borders. We have seen a dramatic increase in incursion of both fighter jets and bombers into Taiwanese airspace. And in general, the strategy that you see China engaged in is what is typically thought of as a precursor to an invasion. They’re effectively forcing Taiwan to maintain alertness and readiness, which slowly degrades the quality of defenses.

If you have to constantly scramble jets, there’s only so many hours that you can actually have them in the air. There’s only so many hours you can have pilots operating before their capability deteriorates. That is very clearly what is in play here.

Now, it’s an unknown question whether they go to the next step, whether they take what is currently a largely psychological and relative resource advantage to degrade Taiwan’s capabilities, whether they turn that kinetic as compared to hoping for a psychological collapse where Taiwan effectively decides to sue for the best possible deal they can get is unclear.

And I think that’s really what we’re all debating. I mean, China has come out very clearly. Others have made this observation, and it’s not dissimilar to my former employer, Peter Thiel’s observation about Donald Trump, right. That everyone takes him literally, but not seriously. I would flip that on its head. And everyone say everyone takes Xi seriously, but not literally when he says we will reunify with Taiwan in one form or another within the next five years.

And that’s the core of the question. Are they going to do this in a peaceful fashion? Are they going to do it in a kinetic military fashion? What are the ramifications of each of those two strategies and what’s the state of gameplay that is in place right now, as each side including the allies of Taiwan in the form of Japan, the United States, et cetera, evaluates how they want to respond to it.

TN: Right. What is that? What are those initial responses that you think happen, setting aside battle plans, of course. Honestly, I don’t believe that Min Def or DoD know 100% of whether this will happen or not. I think everything is a potential.

What do you think those reactions are initially in terms of, say, markets, investments, even things like trade? Those are like, what do you think happens right away?

MG: Well, I think there’s a couple of things that are worth hitting on. Right. So the first is why does China want Taiwan or why does it matter? Right. So one component is just the psychological final victory over the Republic, the Taiwanese Republic, what is known as the Republic of China outside of the area.

When you think about that dynamic, this is a final victory that would allow Xi to place himself permanently on par with the founders of the Chinese Communist state. Right. The Mao’s, et cetera, of the world. So this is a huge accomplishment.

I think there’s a huge misunderstanding that the objective is to obtain the semiconductor resources, right. To me that feels, one, extremely unlikely to expect that they could do that successfully, and two, I’m not sure it’s actually entirely relevant. Right. But that does then speak to the indications that the game is being taken much more seriously.

And so one of the things that I would point to people is the dramatic expansion of capabilities and investment that Taiwan is making in Arizona, where they’ve effectively doubled on a nameplate capacity and potentially up to 5x the capacity of TSMC in Taiwan. Now, that’s a huge implication.

If we were to put ourselves back into the 17th century, it would be the akin of a European sovereign entity, a small Principality, taking the Crown jewels and shipping them for safekeeping somewhere further away when they were faced with a threat, taking the error apparent and shipping them abroad so that there’s a base of operations. If you think about TSMC’s investment in Arizona, that can be very easily thought of as a base of operations and a source of income for a government in exile. Right. So I don’t think Taiwan is planning on going away.

It also opens up kind of the interesting angle of how effective is China’s strategy, because I think that China broadly looks at it and says, we can wear them down and I would point to it and say, yeah, your best opportunity was actually probably a year ago to use the element of surprise. Now you’ve pretty well telegraphed it. Taiwan has made significant advances. The US Department of Defense, in particular, I would argue, would have been caught very much off guard a year to a year and a half ago. Today they’re pretty much on top of this, right.

The Pacific Theater has been opened pretty widely. You’re actively hearing expressions of support from South Korea, Japan, et cetera. So to me, it feels like the element of surprise has been lost, and now it just becomes a question of, is this ultimately going to happen? It seems extremely unlikely to me that it will be a long term successful component.

Then you have to ask yourself the last question, which is, why does China care beyond simply the moral victory or the desire for that? And that’s where you and I have been through these maps. And I don’t know if we’re doing this in a visual format, but I could share it if you wanted to.

The way the world looks at China is not the way China looks at itself. Right. So the traditional map that we think of with China when we look at it, we see this large access into the Philippines and in the Pacific Ocean. It looks like China has a coastline that is similar to the rest of the similar to the other great powers like the United States. The reality is that their entire access to the Pacific Ocean is framed and blocked by barrier Islands, Taiwan being the most prominent of those. Japan to the north, being another equally important one. The Philippines come into play. Okinawa comes into play there, et cetera. Right. What they’re really trying to do in terms of expressing a desire to take over Taiwan is to break into the Pacific Ocean and pick up that Deepwater Navy capability that is absolutely mandatory for an “Empire to express power.”

Map of China and countries surrounding it. Image from Google Maps.

So I think we’re at kind of a point of maximum uncertainty where it feels like they may have missed the best opportunity to do so. But as you and I have talked about, I’m not sure that China is actually as good at this game as everybody thinks.

TN: I’m with you on that. Yeah, I don’t think they are, either. And one of the things that I’m seeing more and more of two years ago, a year and a half ago, as you mentioned, China was winning diplomatically, not everything. But there was more of a positive bias toward China.

Today, they’re just annoying people. And so if they take an action like that, it seems like they start from a negative position, and it’s hard for them to get to a positive position out of that when Xi Jinping was going to the left to talk and all this other stuff, he had a lot of positive momentum behind him, and he actually could have done a lot of really terrible things, which, if you look at what’s happening in Xinjiang and other things, he did a lot of terrible things. He could have done more, actually. And I think the world would have turned the other way. But now I think it’s really hard for them to turn the other way. Does that make sense to you?

MG: No. I actually think that’s true. I think that they may have gained a degree of false confidence off of the failure to react to Hong Kong. But absolutely, with the exception of… Australia has clearly turned. The UK has recognized that it has to turn. Europe continues to enjoy the schadenfreude of the US’s relative standing having deteriorated. I think Europe is slowly waking up to the risks of their reliance on Russia, particularly for energy supplies.

And an interesting angle, and again, you and I have talked about this offline, would be the dynamic of a simultaneous move in both directions by Russia to expand into Ukraine and China, to expand into Taiwan and the immediate aftermath of the Chinese Olympics in Beijing this winter, which is February. From a purely mechanical standpoint, it’s almost impossible to mount any form of attack on Taiwan until May due to weather conditions, and an amphibious assault would make no sense, you could certainly see an airborne one.

I think there’s a very real chance that we see at least an increase in the drumbeats associated with that to test it out. But Europe will eventually turn, right. They have to understand at their core that they are an exposed peninsula on the Eurasian continent, and they really can’t allow China and Russia to become as dominant as they are expressing at least their interest of becoming.

TN: That’s right. Okay. So you bring up an interesting analog when you mentioned Hong Kong. Okay. So Hong Kong and Taiwan used to be this kind of holdouts from the mainland, and people looked at them as these democracies-ish, although Hong Kong, whether it was a democracy or not as questionable. But the takeover of Hong Kong is one that happened.

I was telling people in 2014 that it was already done. That this was going to happen. And for five years that I talked about it, people said, no, you’re crazy. It’s not going to happen. There’s too much money that goes through Hong Kong and so on and so forth. But it happened. And now in the wake of it, people just kind of shrug their shoulders like, okay, whatever it happened. Do you think that a takeover of Taiwan would be similar? Do you think people would just kind of shrug shoulders and say, “they invaded Taiwan. It was going to happen anyway, let’s just move on.?”

MG: No, I think it’s much harder for people to look at it in that context. Now, I would frame it, if we’re going to use a World War 2 analogy. And you always got to be careful with Godwin’s law about this, but it would be the analog to Nazi invasion or the German invasion, more accurate of the Sudettan land, which ostensibly was done in a manner very similar to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the Dunbas region, were there to protect the Russian speakers.

We’re not actually there to have any form of substantive gain, and the world has broadly moved on from it. Right. Same thing I would argue with Hong Kong. Well, of course it was ours, right? You didn’t actually expect us to sit around 2047 and wait for this. There had to be a gradual progression in that direction.

Now, if this is the definition of gradual, I’d hate to see the definition of sudden. But again, the world has largely ignored it and moved on because for the most part, those outside the region have not experienced a significant shift. And again, if you were to look at foreigners in Berlin around the invasion of Sudetenland, they wouldn’t have seen anything different either. Right. Maybe they would have seen the riding on the wall and gotten out. But as we know, many didn’t.

There’s the risk that this is similar because the reality is if China were to decide to invade Taiwan, and now we can kind of get into the market impact, I don’t think the west can do anything about it. Right. Remember, this is 100 miles, give or take off the 100 km. I’m sorry. Off the coast of China. The US cannot Mount a credible defense and certainly not the ability to take back that region once China has taken it.

And I think that’s kind of the interesting feature associated with this is that like the actions of Germany and Sudetenland or the Blitzkrieg into Paris or any of these components, it’s going to be very hard to undo this. And so the minute it happens, it becomes a much longer protracted extended dynamic. And that’s the reason we care. It’s not so much that are we going to win or lose? Right. Almost any credible analysis of it says that China can indeed take Taiwan.

Taiwan is unique and in terms of its mountainous dynamics, et cetera. It’s uniquely suited in a lot of ways for guerrilla warfare. So my guess is they will be playing an Afghanistan type dynamic for decades if they take it. And the US would certainly be working in ways to resupply that and create harassment and everything else. But it is unrealistic to think that it can be stopped if they truly decide that they’re going to do that.

And that’s kind of the thing that, to me is more interesting is that how do the pieces start to fall together in a puzzle if they were to do that and what is properly priced under those scenarios? And I think, Ironically, people will point to US equity markets and say, oh, they’re going to fall or the dollar would be affected, et cetera.

I think there’s some truth to that certainly on a short term basis. But as you know, I don’t really think that the fundamentals matter all that much in the US equity markets right now. Are Americans going to lose their jobs and stop contributing to their 401k plans? And is the Federal Reserve suddenly going to step away from markets and stop engaging in supportive activity? To me, that seems very low probability. And so while there could very well be a correction, I’d be surprised if it moved in that direction. But I do think there’s other trades that are particularly interesting. Right.

So we mentioned Hong Kong. The Hong Kong dollar has been completely unaffected, both in terms of the absolute level of the dollar and its relationship with the US dollar. In other words, they continue to trade, basically a parody with very minor exception. But also the volatility associated with that. So taking bets against that relationship have retreated to near the lowest levels in years.

TN: Sure.

MG: If China were to make a play for Taiwan, it would be almost impossible for me to imagine a scenario in which that relationship didn’t fray violently. Same thing becomes true for Japan, right. Because Japan has two separate issues. One is they are a client state of the United States, and now they are directly in the face of a kinetic war that requires them to rapidly increase their government spending and to do so under somewhat existential risk. And at the same time, they have to write off, basically the minute they do that, they have to write off all of the collateral that most of their corporates have invested in China, which has become the single largest source of their external investment. Right.

So those to me, the area across Asia feels mispriced for this risk. Even if we’re just talking about a volatility spike, it feels that that area is much more mispriced than the US equity markets, for example.

TN: Interesting. So what you say about Japanese companies riding off their investments in China with the same go you think for, say, Korean companies as well?

MG: Oh, absolutely. You’re effectively placing them in a very difficult situation for sovereign reasons and for very obvious political reasons. Those are regions: South Korea, Philippines, Japan that really can’t get on board the China train. Right. Because it creates too powerful of an entity, and one that you point out is increasingly unliked. It places too powerful of an entity in their backyard.

TN: Okay. So something like 37, we all kind of know this 37% or something of global manufactured goods are made in northeast Asia. Right.

MG: Right.

TN: And if you look at electronics, it’s a lot more than that. I don’t know the number a lot more than that. So you have a manufacturing base, and especially in electronics, you have a manufacturing location where risk all of a sudden is amped up. Okay. What does that do? I know this is kind of an obvious question, but I want to get a little bit into details. What does that do to supply chains, especially around electronics?

MG: Yeah. Well, the quick answer is obviously it throws them into chaos. Right. And the most important point on the electronics that I would make is that while China holds a fraction of the world’s IP on electronics, again, the commentary around semiconductors, they are massive in the assembly process. Right. They’re basically the assembly line or the finishing stop. And so you have a ton of semiconductors that get shipped into China and then shipped out in the form of flat panel TVs, computers, iphones, et cetera.

That would unquestionably be disrupted. Right. And it creates an interesting, there’s an interesting game theory associated with it, which is you’re effectively talking about splitting the world in two at that point in a manner that is very similar to the breakdown of the alliance between the Soviet Union and the United States following World War II. Right.

TN: Right. This is what I’m not sure a lot of people, especially in the corporate world, understand, is how acute and how distinct that break could be if this happens.

MG: Yeah. I agree with you broadly. Now, the irony, of course, is part of the reason that they can’t embrace that is that redundancy costs money.

If I’m going to build a diversified supply chain, it places me at a disadvantage to competitors that do not do so in the interim. It potentially positions me for a knockout punch for a true winning of the game. But even there, you start to have to ask yourself questions. Would it be politically feasible given the likely response in terms of price controls and everything else that would kick in? Right.

I mean, I find it highly likely that a Biden administration or a Republican administration. Remember, the price controls were instituted by Nixon, not by Johnson. When you start talking about those types of dynamics, the game theory doesn’t really support the desire to fully diversify your resources. It places you at a disadvantage to your peers in the immediate future, and the potential rewards associated with it are somewhat in doubt as well because it becomes politically unacceptable to raise prices in response to that type of event.

TN: Right. Everyone else is going to be knocked out. I’ll be knocked out, too. So there’s no advantage or disadvantage to me to have a redundant supply chain.

MG: Correct. There’s a disadvantage if it doesn’t happen, right? You’re maintaining something more expensive.

So it’s hard to look at those who would be most impacted and say that they’re behaving in an irrational way. Right. Like the game theory is actually very much. Don’t do anything. Don’t do anything. Don’t do anything. Panic.

TN: Right. Okay. So we have a lot of risk in, say, Northeast Asian markets. We have a lot of risk to the electronic supply chain. I know this may seem like a secondary consideration, but maybe it’s not. What about Europe? Does Europe just kind of stand by and watch this happen, or are they any less, say risky than any place else? Are they insulated somehow?

Categories
QuickHit

Europe’s economic recovery: More like Japan, China or the US?

Europe's economic recovery like Japan, China, or US?

We have a first-time QuickHit guest for this episode, Daniel Lacalle, a well-respected economist, author and commentator. Daniel shares his expertise on the eurozone and European Union. What is happening there in terms of Covid recovery? How does the region compare to other economies like Japan, China, or the USA? Will the ECB follow what the BOJ did? Will there be talks of deflation or inflation in Europe? How about the quantitative easing especially with a possibility of a more conservative ECB chair? Also, will Europe suffer the same power crisis as China and will Europeans be able to absorb inflation?

 

Daniel Lacalle started his career in the energy business and then moved on to investment banking and asset management. Right now, he’s into consulting and also macroeconomic analysis and teaches in two business schools.

 

📊 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 November 18, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this Europe’s economic recovery: More like Japan, China or the US? 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: We spoke a few weeks ago on your podcast, and I’ve really been thinking about that since we spoke, and I wanted to circle back with you and talk about Europe. There’s a lot happening in Europe right now, and I think on some level, the US and China get a lot of the economic commentary. But really, Europe is where a lot of things are happening right now. And I’d like to generally talk about what is the near term future for Europe. But I guess more importantly, in the near term, what are some of Europe’s biggest economic impediments right now? I’m really curious about that. So what do you see as some of their biggest economic impediments.

 

DL: When we look at Europe, what we have to see from the positive side is that countries that have been at war with each other for centuries get along and they get along with lots of headlines. But they’re getting along sort of in a not too bad way. Good. Yeah, that’s agreed. But it is true that the eurozone is a very complex and a very unique proposition in terms of it’s, not the United States, and it’s not unified nation like China. It’s a group of countries that basically get together under the common denominator of a very strong welfare state. So unlike China or the United States, which were built from different perspectives. In the case of the eurozone, it’s all about the welfare state as the pillar.

 

DL: From there, obviously, productivity growth, job creation, enterprises, et cetera, are all, let’s say, second derivative of something that is a unique feature of the European Union. No, the European Union is about 20% of the world’s GDP, about 7% of the population, probably. And it’s about 55% of the social spending of the world. So that is the big driver, 7% of the population, 20% GDP, 55% of the government spending in social entitlements.

 

So that makes it a very different proposition economically than the United States or China. Where is the eurozone right now? The eurozone and the European Union in particular were not created for crisis. It’s a bull market concept. It’s a Bull market agreement. When things go swimmingly, there’s a lot of agreement. But we’ve lived now two crisis. And what we see is that the disparities between countries become wider when there is a crisis, because not everybody behaves in the same manner. Cultures are different. Fiscal views are different. So that is a big challenge. The situation now is a situation that is a bit of an experiment because the Euro has been an incredible success. When I started.

 

DL: When I started in the buy side, everybody said the Euro is not going to last. And there it is. And it’s the second world reserve currency in terms of utilization, significantly behind the United States. So it’s been a big success. But with that big success comes also a lot of hidden weaknesses. And the hidden weaknesses are fundamentally a very elevated level of debt, a very stubborn government spending environment that makes it very difficult for the European Union and the eurozone to grow as much as it probably could. And it also makes it very difficult to unify fiscal systems because we don’t have a federal system. We don’t have like the United States is.

 

The situation now is the eurozone is recovering. It’s recovering slowly. But some of those burdens to growth are obviously being very clear. Think about this. When Covid19 started, estimates from all global entities expected China to get out of the crisis first, the eurozone to get out of the crisis second, and the United States to be a distant third. It’s… the United States has surpassed its 2019 GDP levels. The eurozone is still behind. So it’s interesting to see how the expectations of recovery of the eurozone have been downgraded consistently all of the time. And therefore, what we find ourselves in is in a situation in which there’s almost a resignation to the fact that the eurozone in particular, but also the European Union. The eurozone is a small number of countries. The European Union is larger, for the people that are watching. It’s going to recover in a sort of almost L shape. It was going to recover with very low levels of growth, with much weaker levels of job creation and with a very significant and elevated level of debt. So that’s basically where we are right now.

 

Obviously, the positives remain. But it’s almost become custom to accept low growth, low job creation, low wage growth and low productivity.

 

TN: It seems to me that if we switch to say, looking at the ECB in that environment, how does the ECB deal with that in terms of higher inflation, lower growth, a weakening Euro? Now, I want to be careful about saying weakening Euro. I don’t necessarily think the bottom is going to fall out. I know there are people out there saying that’s going to happen. But we’ve seen over the past, particularly three weeks, we’ve seen some weakness in the Euro. What does that look like? Do we see kind of BOJ circuit 2012 type of activity happening? Or is there some other type of roadmap that the ECB has?

 

DL: It’s a very good comparison. The ECB is following the footsteps of the Bank of Japan. In my opinion, in an incorrect analysis of how the ECB the European Central Bank behaved in the 2008 crisis. There is a widespread of mainstream view that the ECB was too tight and too aggressive in its monetary policy. Aggressive in terms of hawkishness in the previous crisis. And if it had implemented the aggressive quantitative easing programs that the Federal Reserve implemented, everything would have gone much better. Unfortunately, I disagree. I completely disagree.

 

The problems of the eurozone have never been problems of liquidity and have never been problems of monetary policy. In fact, very loose monetary policy led to the crisis. Bringing interest rates from 5% to 1%. Massively increasing liquidity via the banking channel, but increasing liquidity nonetheless. And so the idea that a massive quantitative easing would have allowed the eurozone to get out of the crisis faster and better has been also denied by the reality of what has happened once quantitative easing has been implemented aggressively.

 

So now what the ECB is doing is pretty much what the Bank of Japan does, which is to monetize as much government debt as possible with a view that you need to have a little bit of inflation, but it cannot be high inflation because in the United States, with 4% unemployment, 4.6% unemployment, you may tolerate 6% inflation. For a while. But I can guarantee you that in the European Union, in the Eurozone with elevated levels of unemployment and with an aging population, very different from the United States. Very different in the European Union almost 20% of the population is going to be above 60 years of age pretty soon. Aging population and low wages with high unemployment or higher unemployment than in the United States. A very difficult combination for a very loose monetary policy.

 

The Bank of Japan can sort of get away with being massively doveish because it always has around 3% unemployment. So structural levels of unemployment. But that’s not the situation of the eurozone. So I think that the experiment that the ECB is undertaken right now is to be very aggressive despite the fact that the level of inflation is significantly higher than what European citizens are able to tolerate. Obviously, you say, well, it’s 4% inflation. That’s not that high. Well, 4% inflation means that electricity bills are up 20%, that gasoline bills are up another 20%, that food price are up 10% so we need to be careful about that.

 

So very dangerous experiment. We don’t know how it’s going to go. But they will continue to be extremely doveish with very low rates. That’s why the Euro is weaker, coming back to your point. Extremely dovish despite inflationary pressure.

 

TN: So it’s interesting central banks always act late and they always overcompensate because they act late. So do you think that maybe a year from now because of base effects, we’ll be talking about deflation instead of inflation like, is that plausible in Europe, in the US and other places, or is that just nonsensical?

 

DL: Well, we will not have deflation, but they will most certainly talk about the risk of deflation, because let’s start from the fact that the eurozone has had an average of 2% inflation. In any case, most of the time. There’s been a very small period of time in which there was sort of flat inflation. Right. So will they talk about the risk of deflation? Absolutely they will. I remember the first time I visited Japan. I remember talking to a Japanese asset manager and saying, “well, the problem of Japan is deflation, isn’t it?” And he said to me, you obviously don’t live in this country. So will they talk about deflationary pressures? Maybe. Yes.

 

Think about this. If you have 5% inflation in 2021 and you have 3% inflation in 2022, that is 8.1% inflation accumulative. But falling inflation.

 

TN: Right. Exactly. Yeah. And it could be a way to justify central banks continuing to ease and continuing to intervene. And so Japan’s found itself in a really awkward position after eight, nine years of really aggressive activity. It’s just really hard to get out once you stop, right? So I do worry, especially about the heritage of the ECB, with kind of the Dutch and German chairs being very conservative. This is a pretty dramatic change for them, right?

 

DL: Huge. Because you’ve mentioned the key part is that everybody says, well, the ECB will do this. The ECB will do that. But the problem is that the ECB cannot do most of what they would consider normalizing. Because Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, it would be an absolute train wreck if the ECB stops purchasing sovereign bonds of those countries. Because the ECB is… This is something that you don’t see in the United States. The ECB is purchasing 100% of net issuances of these countries.

 

So what’s the problem? Is that? Think about this. Who would buy Spanish or Portuguese government bonds at the current yields if the ECB wasn’t buying them? Nobody. Okay. Let’s think of where we would start to think of purchasing them. We would probably be thinking about a 300-400% increase in yields to start thinking whether we would purchase Portuguese, Greek, Italian, French bonds? Not just the Southern European, but also France, et cetera.

 

So I think that is a very dangerous situation for the ECB because it’s caught between a rock and a heart place. Very much so. On the one hand, if it normalizes policy, governments with huge deficit appetite are going to have very significant problems. And if it doesn’t normalize, sticky inflation in consumer goods and nonreplicable goods and services is going to generate because it already did in 2019, protests. Because we tend to forget that in 2018 and 2019, we had the gilets jaunes, you probably remember the Yellow Vests in France. You probably remember the protest in Germany about the rising cost of living. The protests in the north of Spain. So it’s not like everybody is living happily. It’s that there were already significant tensions.

 

TN: Right? Yeah. I think the pressure is, the inflationary pressures that say consumers are feeling here in the US and Europe and parts of Asia, definitely acute, and people are talking more and more about it.

 

If we move on to say specifically to energy, since that’s where you came out of, right? So we’re seeing some real energy issues globally and energy prices globally. But when we look at gas, natural gas, specifically in Europe, do you expect to see a crisis in Europe like we’ve seen in China over the last three months where there are power outages, brownouts, hurling blackouts, that sort of thing? Or do you think there’ll be a continuity of power across Europe?

 

DL: In my opinion, what has happened in China is very specific to China because it’s not just a problem of outages because of lack of supply. Most of the lack of supply problem comes from a shortage of dollars. So many companies in China have been unable to purchase the quantities of coal that they required in a rising demand environment because they had price controls and therefore they were losing money.

 

They would have to purchase at higher prices and generate at a loss. That is not the case in Europe. In Europe, the problem of gas prices is a problem of price definitely, obviously. It’s very high and it’s also feeding to our prices because of the merit order. But it’s not a problem of supply in the sense that getting into an agreement with Russia to increase 40% their supplies of natural gas into the European Union was extremely quick. From the 1st November to beginning of this week, gas form has increased exports to Europe by 40%.

 

Problem? Prices have not fallen as much as they went up before. For the south of Europe, it’s a problem fundamentally, of access to ships because LNG obviously is very tight. Vessels are not available as they used to be. There might be a certain tightness in terms of supplies, but I find it very difficult to see, let’s say, a Chinese type of shortage of supply because it’s a matter of price. Will we have to pay significantly more for natural gas and significantly more for power, but not necessarily feel the problem that the Chinese did because they had lost making generation in coal.

 

TN: Great. Okay, that’s very good. That’s what I’d hoped you say, but it’s great to hear that. Let’s switch just a little bit and talk about kind of European companies because we talked about rising prices, like energy. We talked about inflation and consumers say bearing inflationary pressures.

 

In European companies, we’ve seen that American companies have been able to raise prices in America quite a lot, actually. And consumers have borne that. Chinese companies haven’t really been able to do that. Their margins are really compressed because consumers there haven’t been able to bear the price rises. What are you seeing in Europe, and how do you think that impacts in general European companies, their ability to absorb price rises or pass them on to consumers? And how long can they continue to bear that?

 

DL: Yeah. One of the things that is very distinct about Europe is the concept of the so called, horrible name, “National Champions.” In power, in telecommunications, in banking, in oil and gas, etc. Etc. We tend to have each country a couple of dinosaurs, most of them, that are so called National Champions. These cannot pass increases of inputs to final prices because they receive a call from the red phone from the Minister in the country. And no my friend, the prices are not going up as they probably should.

 

So the automotive sector? Very difficult because there’s a lot of over capacity and at the same time, tremendous cost pressure that you cannot pass because of the lack of demand as well, or the lack of demand relative to supply. The airline sector? Cannot pass the entire increase of cost to consumers. The power sector? Very difficult, big companies, very close to governments. They’re suffering immensely from regulatory risk. So very difficult. So you have those.

 

However you would say, okay, so that sort of shields inflationary pressures out of consumers. Unfortunately, it doesn’t because those are very large companies, but they’re very small in terms of how much they mean, for example, the prices of food or the prices of delivered natural gas. Even though you purchase natural gas, there’s a strict pass through in those, for example. You might not increase your margins. You might lose a little bit, but the pass through happens. It goes with a delay. In the United States, everything happens quickly. In the United States, shut down the economy, unemployment goes to the roof, then it comes down dramatically like V shape, opposite V shape. In the Eurozone, things happen slower. And that’s why it’s a bigger risk, because the domino effect, instead of being very quick and painful and quickly absorbed is very slow.

 

TN: Interesting. Okay. Very good. Well, Daniel, thank you for your time. Before we go, I’d like to ask everyone watching. If you don’t mind, please follow us on our YouTube channel. That helps us a lot in terms of adding features to our podcast.

 

Daniel, thank you. As always, this has been fantastic, and I hope we can come back and speak to you sometime in the future. It will be a great pleasure. Always a fantastic chat. Thank you very much.

 

DL: Thank you very much.

Categories
QuickHit

EM Meltdown: China, Turkey & Russia (Part 2)

EM Meltdown: China, Turkey, Russia (Part 2)

In this second part, emerging markets expert Michael Nicoletos discussed Turkey and Russia. What are the major issues that Turkey is facing, specially around its FX reserves? They have an energy problem as well, and will soon need to choose between the US and Russia. And how about Russia’s love-hate relationship with Europe? How does Nicoletos see it will end up?

 

Please watch Part 1 first, if you have not already. Michael talked about China’s household debt and how much is that? Can they ever recover from the Evergrande disaster? And how they got into it in the first place? Is CNY still valuable? How do the Chinese get dollars now with their very limited FX reserve? Should you use the digital Yuan? How much is China spending right now to up its GDP?

 

Michael Nicoletos have spent most of his life around markets, and I used to run a hedge fund for more than 10 years on emerging markets. He shut it down in 2019 to take a sabbatical and Covid 19 hit the world. Now, he is doing a lot of research on emerging markets and trying to see what the next steps will be in terms of the investment world. But in the meantime, he is also advising a few firms on their investment.

 

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

📊 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 October 20, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this EM Meltdown: China, Turkey and Russia (Part 1) 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: Talking about EMs, and we talked about reserves, and you mentioned Turkey. Let’s talk about Turkey for a minute because you’ve made some really interesting statements about Turkey, and I’d like to really understand your perspective.

 

MN: Turkey faces some other issues. Turkey faces high inflation. More than 20% rates are around 19% of negative yields. The Lira has fallen more than 50% in the past few years. So you might see nominal GDP in Turkish Lira going up. But if you put it in dollar terms, it’s actually flat for the last ten years. It’s not flat, it’s flat-ish. So in Turkish Lira, the last ten years, the Turkish GDP has gone up 350%, which is a wow. But if you put it in dollars, it’s not flat, but it’s not something meaningful.

 

Turkey GDP in Lira and USD

Now, if you look at Turkey and the devaluation, the President of Turkey, Tayyip Erdoğan, has tried to stop the Lira from falling. Right now, it’s I think at its all-time lows around 920 versus a dollar. But if you look at the FX reserve, which is very tricky and this is very interesting for Turkey, you’ll see that, okay, the number is ambiguous because depending on what source you see, you’re going to see another number. But let’s say it’s around $18 billion. Now, this is the gross number. If we deduct gold and all the other stuff and we also deduct the swap lines, and I will explain what the swap line is, this number falls around to $20 billion. And this could be negative according to some sources because the dollars are not there.

 

What has Turkey done? Instead of using its dollars to protect the Lira from falling, I’m not an advocate that you should do that, but that’s what they’ve been doing. They went to the banks and did swap lines with the banks. And the banks are using depositors dollars to buy back the Lira. So depositors right now don’t actually have those dollars in their account.

 

Turkey FX Reserves

 

MN: Because the Turkish banks have made agreements with the central bank with swap lines, which okay, when your central bank gives you a swap line, it’s a guarantee if you’re a bank. And instead of, if you go and you see the headline number of the Turkey central bank, you won’t see it falling. But if you understand that they’ve been using depositors’ dollars to cover for it, you need to subtract that. So the number could be close to 20, maybe there are some allegations that it could even be negative. So if it’s negative, imagine. FX reserves in Turkey are pretty horrible.

 

You have, let’s say, $18 billion of gross FX reserve, and you have $130 billion of short term liabilities, within the next twelve months, Turkey has 130 billion of foreign claims. So again, this metric is not really good. Now, Turkey is estimated to grow around 8 or 9% this year. Again in Turkish Lira.

 

MN: If we take the Lira is down 25% this year. So this is an issue. Another issue is in Turkey, 60% of its current account is energy. They don’t have domestic energy, so they need to import energy and we know what’s been going on with the energy crisis and natural gas and oil going higher. So all these are main problems for Turkey right now, which I think will be forced to find a drastic way to… They don’t want to go to the IMF or the World Bank, but I think at some point they’ll have to go. And again here geopolitics come to play why they say geopolitics is because Turkey is in NATO. It’s the second biggest force in NATO. The US wants to keep it in NATO because wherever US doesn’t send military, Turkey does. Not many NATO allies send military forces wherever they go.

 

So Turkey is trying to play both sides right now. Trying to be the good guy with Russia, good guy with NATO. Trying to get the most out of both sides. But I think time is ticking and they will be forced to take some form of decision on what they want to do in the future because they’re running out of time in terms of their FX reserves.

 

TN: Yeah, it sounds like it’s pretty short time. Wow. Okay. So looking at the energy issues, not just what Turkey faces, but that Europe faces, I want to spend a little bit of time talking about the Russia-Europe relationship and what you’re seeing there. Will Russia provide sufficient gas to Europe this winter? And, from a financial perspective, how much will Russia benefit from that? Just generally.

 

MN: Yeah. Okay. But the thing is here the following: Europe trying to transition to a more green related economy. The planning was pretty horrible. I would say they wanted to do it fast and they wanted to say “blackmail” corporations to go to more green energy. What did they do then? They created the CO2 emissions credits. So if you were polluting above a level, you were forced to buy CO2 credits in order to cover for that. And that was like an indirect tax, making it less efficient for corporations to use that form of energy so they would be forced to go to other forms of energy.

 

Now, from going to coal to, let’s say, totally green. It takes some time to create the wind turbines and the sun. And actually Germany shut down all its nuclear reactors because of Fukushima.

 

TN: They have a lot of low-end Taiwanese fabs transition to photovoltaics with all of the incentives they were providing. I mean, for a long time, low-end fabs across Asia were just doing a very quick transition to a PV, and it was just a kind of back up the truck moment where they were just taking all the dollars they earned or Euros or whatever currency they could because Germany and all these other places were incentivizing them to do it. And they were low-end PVs. They weren’t high-end. They were just bog standard photovoltaics.

 

MN: No, no. Okay, but besides that, what did the European Commission do? There are auctions every now and then of CO2 credits. But the auctions are arbitrary. So the Commission, whenever it wanted the prices to go up, they did not do the auctions. So then the supply of credits was less and less. CO2 credit emissions went through the roof. So suddenly, if you use natural gas as an energy, it went even higher. And this created the viscious loop, creating the natural gas prices to go even higher.

 

In the meantime, Europe was negotiating with Russia about Nordstream, too. So Russia, which is a pretty good strategic and geopolitical player, realized that Europe was going back as being back in the corner and said, unless you sign whatever I want, let me put it in layman’s terms. I’m not going to pump anymore natural gas. Europe says, no, we have to sit down. We have to discuss. Okay, I’m not pumping. So one brings to another. And every time that Europe trying to play hardball, Russia says, okay, there’s no such a problem. I’m not going to be pumping and prices go higher and higher.

 

So I guess that at some point Europe will need to sign anything Russia wants at this moment. And will try to negotiate some form of an agreement which will be obviously not, it won’t be good. But it will be much better than the current prices that we’re seeing now. And because of the energy prices going higher, Russia is benefiting on a macro level, benefiting on a geopolitical level, and it’s gaining a lot of strength in the region.

 

TN: Hugely. Yeah. Hugely.

 

MN: So the two are interconnected. It’s not one or the other. So the energy crisis has helped Russia, and Russia has exploited Europe’s inability to act smoothly and fast.

 

TN: It’s very interesting. Okay. Just to close this out because I know we’ve been going on for a while. I’m just curious about Russia’s position with Europe, say, over the medium term. Do you see Russia and Europe growing closer? Do you see that relationship becoming tighter, or do you see that eventually becoming an antagonistic relationship? Are there substitutional energy sources that Europe can utilize and that eventually becomes an antagonistic relationship again? Just in general terms. I don’t necessarily political specifics. But how do you think that plays out?

 

MN: Well, I’ll use Henry Kissinger’s famous quote that was back, like 40 years ago. He said, “When I called Europe, who do I call?” So right now, you have, in Germany you just had elections. They haven’t formed the government. It might take months before they form a government.

 

In France, there are elections in April. It seems that the right could be a threat to Macron. And we don’t know what the “right’ means in France. It could be Le Pen or it could be someone else, but it could be anything right now. So right now, I don’t see a leader. If Macron wins, he could be the next leader of Europe. But right now, there’s a leadership problem within Europe.

 

So as long as there’s a leadership problem within Europe, in my view, there’s a vacuum. And I think Russia will exploit it to gate as much influence as it can. And I cannot foresee the future. But in the next six to eight months, I think Russia will try and get as much influence as it can and try to exploit that vacuum.

 

TN: I think you’re right. They’re very smart. They’re very smart political players.

Categories
Visual (Videos)

Retail sales, jobless claims and the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill

CEO Tony Nash joins CNA’s Asia First program to explain the logic behind the US market’s performance. Will the better-than-expected retail sales continue to the Christmas season? What is his outlook for Q3 and what’s hampering the economic recovery in the States? And what are at stake around the success of the $3.5T infrastructure bill?

 

This video segment was published on September 17, 2021 and is originally from Channel News Asia’s videos on demand, which can be found at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/asia-first/fri-17-sep-2021-2186306

 

Show Notes

 

CNA: Well, Wall Street closed mixed in the State overnight as the major indices fail to build on Wednesday strong performance, while for the session, the blue chip Dow closed lower by two tenths of 1%, and the S&P 500 fell by a similar percentage.

 

However, the Nasdaq managed to eak out second consecutive day of gains. Well, this after investors digested mixed economic readings released before with the opening Bell when August retail sales surprised the market and rose 0.7% from the month prior, with analyst expecting a decline. But on the downside, jobless claims rose from last week’s pandemic low.

 

Of course, to help us understand the logic behind all the market movements were joined by Tony Nash, founder and CEO with Complete Intelligence, speaking to us from Houston, Texas. Very good evening to you, Tony.

 

So we’re looking at the better than expected retail sales number. And do you expect that momentum to continue given that we are 100 days away to Christmas in the State side and 99 days away from here in Singapore side.

 

TN: And we certainly hope that continues. But it’s really uncertain, given some of the corporate outlooks and given some of the other indicators that we’ve seen: purchasing managers indices and the regional Fed reports, Fed Manufacturing reports.

 

The port hold-ups in Long Beach are not helpful either. It’s really hurt supply chain. So we could see that spending tick up. But we do expect prices to continue to rise. And so there’s really a trade off there in terms of the volume that’s sold and the value that’s sold. And when we’re looking at, say a 1% rise in value of retail sales, that’s quite frankly, not even keeping up with inflation.

 

CNA: In the meantime, we’re also seeing that the weekly jobless claims increased. And of course, before that, many economist with organizations like JP Morgan has downgraded their third quarter economic growth outlook. So what is your outlook there and what is hampering economic recovery over there in the State Side?

 

TN: Well, it’s really companies are not seeing great investment opportunities. So the demand for credit in the US, just like in China, and just like in Europe, the demand for credit is really declining.

 

So we’re not seeing companies spend on big ticket items. They’re not investing on new equipment, they’re not investing on new projects. And so that’s hurting everything downstream because there are impacts across the economic spectrum when companies decide to spend on big ticket items. This is hurting the US. It’s hurting China. It’s hurting Europe.

 

So between now and you mentioned the end of the year, we expect that corporate spending to have an impact, the damper in corporate spending. We expect the supply chain difficulties and inflation have impacts as well. And if unemployment continues to tick up like it did, we could have a very difficult Christmas season. And the Fed and city administration here in the US are really contending with that, because as they go into the last quarter of the year, they’d really like to see things tick up.

 

CNA: And talking about those spending of course, there’s one catalyst that investors are watching out would be the passage of the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill. But given the situation that a Biden is facing now, do you think that this increasing likelihood that this bill can’t be get past?

 

TN: Yeah, I think you’re right. With the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden has really lost a lot of the support from Democratic moderates. And so he’s got the support of the extreme left Democrats. But a lot of the Democrats in the middle are really starting to say, “Hold on a minute. We need to be really careful about how much we support Biden,” because those guys have to be reelected in November of ’22. So from here on out, the voters in their respective districts will be paying a lot of attention to what they’re doing.

 

This 3.5 trillion infrastructure plan, only 1.2 trillion of it, I say “only” but 1.2 trillion of it is dedicated towards real hard infrastructure. The rest of it is a lot of social spending, a lot of pet projects, and that’s a lot of money. 2 trillion plus dollars.

 

So Americans are really tired of seeing big stimulus programs put out, and they’re really tired of seeing the pork going to people connected to politicians. So they’d much rather see the lower $1.2 trillion program. It’ll go direct to infrastructure. They’ll see it. It’ll be a very tangible spend.

 

One other thing to keep in mind is there is still $300 billion that haven’t been spent from the stimulus program that came out in Q1 of 2021. So a lot of Americans are asking, why do we need to green light another three plus trillion dollars in spending if we still have $300 billion that’s unspent?

 

CNA: All right, Tony, thank you so much indeed, for your analysis. Tony Nash, founder and CEO with Complete Intelligence.

Categories
QuickHit

QuickHit: What China is thinking right now?

What China is thinking right now?

China expert Chris Balding joins us this week for #QuickHit to discuss “What China is thinking right now?” What is the state of the Chinese economy? Are they really doing well in Covid? How about the deleveraging process, is that even real? And what’s happening to CNY? Also talked about are the politics around China especially how it relates to Afghanistan.

 

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

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

📊 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 August 24, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this Sentiment has soured: How will governments and companies respond? (Part 1) 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: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us for another QuickHit. My name is Tony Nash with Complete Intelligence. Today we’re talking with Christopher Balding about what is China thinking now.

 

Chris, thanks for joining us. Can you let us know a few things about yourself? Give us a little background?

 

CB: Sure. I was a professor at Peking University in China for nine years and then two years in Vietnam at the Fulbright University Vietnam. And today I am a super genius in the United States.

 

TN: Yes, you are. Thanks for taking the time, Chris. You’re one of the very few people I know who’ve actually had on the ground experience in China with a Chinese government organization.

 

So I think it’s really important to go to people like you, who had experience like you to understand what kind of China or the Chinese government is thinking now. Of course, it’s not monolithic. There are a lot of different opinions, but it’s good to have that insider’s view.

 

So I want to start off as we look at where we are in COVID, we’re a year and a half into it, depending on the school of thought, maybe it did or didn’t start in China, but we hear that Chinese economy is doing great and they’ve come out of COVID really well, all these other things. I’m really curious your view on the state of the Chinese economy right now. And what are Chinese economic planners thinking right now as they kind of potentially go into year two of Covid.

 

CB: So I think there is a couple of highlights out of the Chinese economy. First of all is that they’ve resorted to the pretty similar playbook that they go back to every year, which is pump credit, pump construction and infrastructure type spending.

 

In the early part of this year, we saw a significant amounts of credit growth. That’s softened as we’ve moved into summertime. That’s primarily due to because there’s a very clear summer and fall building season that allows builders in China to do things because the weather becomes inclement in significant parts of the year. And then if you add in the Corona backlog, that kind of is essentially almost trying to put two years of expected growth into one year.

 

We actually saw a lot of that. And that front loaded a lot of the credit and demand for things like commodities. This is why you’ve seen such demand for things like coal and steel, which were quite high. We’ve seen that soften as firms built their inventory and really ramped up during the summer building season as the demand for credit has softened and some of the building has actually been undertaken. You’ve seen a softening of that which has caused you’ve already seen talk of maybe there’s going to be unleashing or the economy is a little bit softer than the planners would like. So there’s talk of unleashing some additional credit growth trying to stimulate different parts of the economy. We’ll have to wait and see if that happens.

This chart of ICE Rotterdam Coal is generated from CI Futures, an app forecasting nearly a thousand assets across currencies, commodities, market indices, and economics using artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. Curious how it can you and your business? Book a time with our expert and get free trial.

 

 

 

This chart of Steel is generated from CI Futures, an app forecasting nearly a thousand assets across currencies, commodities, market indices, and economics using artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. Curious how it can you and your business? Book a time with our expert and get free trial.

 

 

 

Generally speaking, the rule is, if there’s a debate about whether or not they’re going to unleash credit growth, I would definitely take the over.

 

TN: By about three times. Right. So one of the interesting things you mentioned is that you said that they expended credit in the early part of this year. But what I read from investment banks and what I’ve read from other people who look at China is that China just underwent this big deleveraging process. Is that real? I’m just not sure, because I see on one side that there’s this talk about deleveraging, but my gut tells me it may not necessarily be happening. Is it happening, or is it something that’s just happening on paper or what’s your view?

 

CB: It’s tough to understand the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics and PBOC’s math as to how they arrived at that, because if you’re just running more generalized numbers, it’s very clear that debt at all levels has continued to outpace GDP. So it’s very difficult to understand how they’re estimating a leveraging. And it’s important to note that we did not see, let’s say, the rapid, rapid expansion of economic growth that you saw, for instance, in the United States.

This chart of China GDP is generated from CI Futures, an app forecasting nearly a thousand assets across currencies, commodities, market indices, and economics using artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. Curious how it can you and your business? Book a time with our expert and get free trial.

 

 

 

And what I mean by that is, whereas any United States, maybe growth went from two or three to 5% relative, almost doubling, you know. You probably saw Chinese growth go for maybe like 5% last year to seven or 8% with the Corona boost where you have that base effect. And so you didn’t see it go to, like, 10, 12, 15% that you might have seen if it had really in relative terms, they doubled from the previous year.

 

And so it’s very difficult to understand how they arrive at those deleveraging numbers. And as we all know, China is famous for fudging their numbers. So it’s very difficult to understand how they’re arriving at those numbers.

 

TN: Right. No, I agree. I haven’t believed it when I’ve heard it, but I kind of nod along as if it’s real. But I think, you know, the Chinese economic data a lot more intimately than I do, but I just don’t see where it’s happening, where it’s actually materializing instead of just being debt transfers.

 

Okay. So earlier you said that Chinese economy is slowing. Now, from my perspective, that’s worrisome partly because you’re going into a big export season, and we’ve got some ports that are stopped up. We’ve also got an election next year with Xi Jinping being reelected, whether that’s in square quotes or not, but Xi Jinping being reelected next year.

 

In terms of the resources put towards stimulus this time around, do you expect that to be more intensive than normal?

 

CB: Typically, what you see. And you saw this the first time Xi was elected, you saw this second time Xi was elected. What you typically see is a pretty significant boost to fiscal outlays. And so I think if history is any guide, I think you’re probably going to see going in the fall and the first of year, it’s very, very likely you’re going to see some type of significant boost to fiscal outlays. And this pattern goes back many, many years well before Xi that when there are these elections. And I’m not sure if it’s a scare quotes or air quotes, but both seem to…

 

TN: Yeah.

 

CB: So I think it is very, very likely that you’re likely to see that. And one of the things I think that a lot of people have missed out on is yes, there were absolutely corporate, let’s say, bailouts or corporate funds for Corona. But one of the things is that in the United States, there were the large amounts of transfers directly to households. China has not enjoyed those transfers directly to households.

 

And so actually, consumer spending in China is actually pretty soft. And those are buying inflated data standards. And so I think that is something that is very important to note when we’re talking about the health of the Chinese consumer.

 

TN: Yep. That’s great. Okay. So I also want to talk about the supply chain issues. And I was just reading a story today about how Pudong Airport has been shut down. Cargo on Pudong Airport is going to be much slower for a period of time because of anothe Covid outbreak. This sort of thing. Do you see ongoing port capacity issues related to COVID? Is that something that you’re kind of concerned about?

 

CB: I think that is something that you’re going to be seeing for definitely the foreseeable future. And I should say it’s not just China. You’re seeing a lot of this in other parts of the world that I know, specifically Vietnam, the Middle East. I’ve heard of similar things in Europe where they are just straining at capacity. Sometimes it’s due to COVID shut down. Sometimes it’s due to other issues. But absolutely, these are issues that I think are not going away anytime soon.

 

And it is, I mean one of the debates in the United States right now is transitory or structural inflation. And I think, not to be capping out on the issue, but I do think it is kind of a mix of both. And I think the supply chain issues don’t be surprised if we’re looking at very likely two years before all these issues are really worked through, because when people went to, let’s say, just in time or contract manufacturing, what that did is that gave you less wiggle room. So you did not just have a massive warehouse of supply that you inventory, and then you could draw down as necessary where it would give you three months to make a mistake. Now people were essentially saying, I got one week of inventory, and if that one week gets shot, I’m in deep trouble.

 

So the chips are, there’s chips, there’s car, there’s Corona shutdowns, there’s capacity issues at some ports. And so it’s going to take a couple of years, probably to work through all these issues to return to what we think of as some degree of normalcy.

 

TN: Right. What’s interesting to me about that is the previous administration of the US tried to bring manufacturing businesses back to the US.

 

Now, with COVID because of the global supply chain issues and the intermittent supply issues, there’s more of a move to bring things back, at least to North America. I know lots going into Mexico right now. Some’s going into the US to minimize the disruption of things, especially in electronic supply chain.

 

So it seems like regardless of the kind of official policy, whether it’s trade policy or just say public health policy, it looks like more of this regionalization is happening. Does that make sense to you?

 

CB: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, look, nobody is going to announce that they’re leaving China for many reasons. But nobody’s going to announce that they’re leaving China. But you do absolutely see a spread of manufacturing capabilities.

 

Whether that is because they want to have multiple manufacturing bases, they want to be more diversified, whether it’s because of IT issues, whether it’s because of Corona risks, tariffs, all of these issues, there is absolutely increasing diversification of manufacturing capabilities, whether it’s Mexico, India, Malaysia, all of these different places. You’ve even seen Africa doing relatively well in certain areas. So it has absolutely happened.

 

TN: Okay. One last question on the economy then we’ll move to kind of politics and China’s place in the world. What’s the thought behind the elevated CNY? We’re trading much higher than we have for a long time, and it stayed there, right? It’s pegged right around 6.4 something, and it’s been there since Q1, I think. Why the persistent strength in CNY?

 

CB: Well, I mean, I think first of all, they have been running during Corona pretty significant surpluses. The United States has exports to China and other parts of the world have declined, not insignificantly or remained flat as we’re importing a lot more. That’s number one.

 

I think also the dollar has gone into a specific range. And the way that I think of the CNY is it’s basically just a reverse USB tracker, which I think explains most of what we’re seeing. I think what they’re trying to do and the reason that China has been buying some dollars, not in major amounts, but I think they kind of have, like, ICBC and CCB, those types of banks acting as dollar cushions for lack of a better term, is that they don’t want it to appreciate too much for a number of reasons, because they know they’ve become more expensive and that would just make it that much more expensive. So in a way, I think they’re trying to manage that, manage that flow. But I think it’s still generally within a range where it’s like you can say they’re within spitting distance of what their index say they should be. Okay, that’s fair.

This chart of USD/CNY is generated from CI Futures, an app forecasting nearly a thousand assets across currencies, commodities, market indices, and economics using artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. Curious how it can you and your business? Book a time with our expert and get free trial.

 

 

 

TN: Okay. Now let’s move on to politics. Let’s move on to kind of China’s big, long term, multi hundred year plan to rule the world, which I think is not real.

 

So let’s talk about Afghanistan. This just happened over the last couple of weeks, and there’s a few that China is going to be the master winner of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think there are multiple perspectives on that, but the consensus view seems to be that the US really did had to job on the withdrawal. And the ultimate winner of this is China. Can you kind of walk me through some of your views on that? What are some of the possibilities there with China and Afghanistan?

 

CB: Sure. So I think it is very fair to say that the United States has pretty badly bungled the withdrawal. You know, why, you know, we should have waited until we’d already evacuated all the army to say we’re going to start evacuating US citizens and Afghani translators and people like that.

 

One of the things I do think is absolutely happening. And this is not just China. And you’ve heard this from country after country. Taiwan, Germany, UK on down is they are saying we need to go back to the drawing board and re evaluate everything we think we know.

 

Okay. And somebody that I was talking to, I think, expressed it very well is the United States still has credibility because we can move large amounts of assets, whether it’s military, governmental, other private sector, we can bring significant assets and influence to the table. What, this has really changed in a lot of people’s minds is confidence.

 

TN: Yes. That’s fair.

 

CB: That has changed a lot of people’s mind. So you have a lot of people going back to the drawing board. One of the things I’m going to be a little bit hesitant to do is start pronouncing winners, losers, and this is what XYZ country is going to do in ABC country is going to do. And the reason I say that is it’s very, very plausible to construct a scenario where the Taliban and the CCP become BFFs. Okay?

 

TN: Sure.

 

CB: I mean, if China is shipping large amounts of fentanyl out of northeast China, it’s not a crazy scenario to say they partner with the Taliban to start shipping large amounts of opium into the United States at the same time.

 

TN: Sure.

 

CB: Not a crazy scenario. It’s also not a crazy scenario for the Taliban to start bombing China within a year or two. Okay. You could very easily construct those types of scenarios that lead to that. Okay. So it’s very, very difficult to construct those types of scenarios with any what I would consider a degree of certainty. Okay?

 

TN: Sure. So what about the, the China-Pakistan relationship? $46 billion of investment, supposedly, supposedly a tight relationship there. That’s arguable. Do you think that pays dividends in Afghanistan, or is that kind of something that’s a little bit, I wouldn’t say irrelevant, but a little bit less directly connected.

 

CB: So I think Pakistan is actually very pretty directly involved in all of this. But again, it’s very difficult to say with a high degree of certainty what’s happening there because Pakistan has very direct connections into both the Taliban, Al Qaeda. Some would even say that they were a Pakistani security service creation. At the same time, it’s well known that there are blood feuds between groups within each of those organizations.

 

So it’s very difficult to get to say exactly who the winner, loser there. With regards to China and Pakistan, one of the things that you’ve seen very clearly is that pretty much the Pakistani government and the Pakistani elites are effectively compromised by China. They will say nothing about wingers and other issues.

 

At the same time, everything, I think indicative on the ground and of the mass population is that there is maybe not extreme, but I would say broad discontent with the Pakistani relationship with China for many reasons.

 

TN: From who and Pakistan? Is it from the armed forces? Is it from other parts of the government, from regular folks who isn’t happy with that relationship?

 

CB: I think a lot of folks broadly. The business community. I think there’s a growing sense that they are effectively a Chinese colony. One Pakistani I know who described it as such. So I think there is very broad discontent. And as we all know, Pakistan has quite the lengthy history of governmental instability.

 

So similar to what you’ve seen in other countries in the region, it’s very easy to paint a picture, a scenario where the current government remains compromised and under the thumb of the CCP for years to come. I think it’s also plausible that a new government or some type of political instability happens in Pakistan. And all of a sudden, there’s an about face on how to manage relationships with China.

 

Generally speaking, though, I think there is going to be very tight coordination between Beijing, Islamabad and Kabul because those… Pakistan, I mean, almost anything that happens in Afghanistan is going to be maybe not controlled by Pakistan. I think that overstate it. But there’s going to be large amounts of information flows and influence back and forth happens over what happens in Afghanistan.

 

TN: Yeah. Okay. That’s all really interesting. I think we could spend a long time talking about China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Russia, kind of where all those countries come together, Central Asia. But I want to end on this.

 

We’ve seen, a lot really changed with US standing in the world over the past couple of weeks over Afghanistan. We’ve seen a lot change in the US China relationship over the past year with the new administration. And so let’s talk for a minute about the overall US China relationship. What’s your thought there? Are they getting along? Is there a constructive dialogue? How do issues like Taiwan fit within that discussion? Can you just help me think about some of your thoughts there?

 

CB: So I was talking to someone, and I think they put succinctly the way that I would characterize the Biden administration’s record on China. You can’t criticize them for what they’ve done on China because they really haven’t done anything at all. Okay. Other than adding a couple of names to the Sanctiosn books, there really has not anything taken place.

 

They promised that they were going to get out their China strategy plan in June. Then there were rumblings that might happen in July, where now at almost rapidly approaching September 1. And now there’s not even talk of when it might be released. So really, nothing has been happened except for the Alaska meeting, which apparently went over like a lead balloon.

 

Everything right now just seems to be a stalemate. And the Biden administration is worrying, and that China is still moving forward, and the Biden administration is basically doing nothing.

 

The most telling point to me about the by administration approach, and I think this is something I think you should fault in. In fairness, Trump for is look, we can talk about values and do the right thing and all this kind of good stuff. But the United States, at some point has to actually put resources into this effort.

 

And the Trump administration, other than political capital with allies or other countries, never put any real hard resources or assets into these issues. And the point I would make is the Biden administration has made a point of spending literally trillions of dollars. And to the best of my knowledge, there has been almost zero spending passed that has really anything to do with China. Okay.

 

We cannot continue to talk to countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, South Korea, Japan. You cannot talk about the threat China poses and never spend any money on the issue.

 

TN: Sure.

 

CB: Okay. And look, this doesn’t have to mean we go out and increase military spending by 20%. This could simply mean we’re going to go into Vietnam and say, we want to have a development program and, you know, help solve issues. This can mean capitalizing the Development Finance Corporation to help countries like India and Malaysia and say, look, there is a real opportunity that does not involve the Belt and Road, where there’s going to be green standards or these non-corrupt standards and things like this to make sure that this money is really helping your country. You know, and it was probably something that was negotiated could be all the way back to the Obama administration.

 

There was some type of military center opened in, I believe, Jakarta with the Indonesian government that was supposed to have other governments. It’s a small center. Even those types of things. There’s simply not the resources being dedicated. And I think that’s indicative of where this ranks within the Biden administration priorities.

 

TN: I’ll be honest, Chris, it sounds like a mess. It sounds pretty bleak to me.

 

So great. I really appreciate this. I think if anybody knows has an idea of what China is thinking, I think you’re the guy. And I really, really appreciate your time.

 

Everyone watching. Please please subscribe to our YouTube channel. The more we have, the more we can bring to you as a part of our videos. And, Chris, thank you so much. And thanks to everyone. We’ll see you on the next interview. Thanks.

Categories
QuickHit

OPEC+, JCPOA & Delta Variant: Strength or weakness for oil & gas prices?

Energy commodities experts Tracy Shuchart and Sam Madani joined forces in this special #QuickHit episode to talk about crude, OPEC+, JCPOA, and how lockdowns will affect the market this year. Most importantly, how investors should plan?

 

Tracy writes for a Hedge Fund Telemetry, where she is the energy and material strategist. She also manages an energy and materials portfolio for a family office. Meanwhile, Samir Madani is the co-founder of TankerTrackers.com. They’re an online service that keeps track of oil that’s being shipped around the world. His specialty is the tricky tankers, the ones that like to play according to the rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

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

📊 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 July 17, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this OPEC+, JCPOA & Delta Variant: Strength or weakness for oil & gas prices? 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: We’ve seen kind of an uplifting crude prices. We’ve seen things like copper prices come down, natural gas prices really start to see some upward pressure recently. At the same time, we’re seeing talk about the JCPOA and some other Middle East type of changes with OPEC+ and UAE and Saudi. What’s your thoughts on the crude and natural gas markets? We can talk about commodities generally.I know that’s a big, wide open question. Tracy, do you want to give us generally your view and some of your positioning at the moment?

 

TS: Well, I’m very bullish on commodities, particularly industrial metals, base metals and minerals needed for this energy transition. So copper and things of that nature.

 

COMEX Copper forecasts for 2021

This is CI Futures July forecast for COMEX Copper this YTD.

Discover the forecasts for nearly 1,000 other assets.

Book a demo and get a free trial here.

We have seen a little bit of a pullback in a lot of commodities, which is not surprising. We had such a large move up. However, everybody’s looking at this as a group like the CRB index rate has pulled back. But if you look at individual commodities, you’re still seeing iron ore still at highs. So it’s not like a whole commodity collapse. You’re still seeing strength in a lot of different areas.

 

So my positioning is instead of index, I’m positioned in individual stocks and particularly on the minor side, because minors are going to have the same capex problem that oil is having.

 

TN: OK, that’s a great point. Sam, what’s your view like generally with with energy?

 

SM: I remain bullish when it comes to oil in particular, and I pat myself on the back for having gone long in at the end of March last year, when the the mutual funds were at the all time lowest in regards to oil. And that’s come up quite a lot since then.

 

I do believe that we will probably find a good footholding now in the 70s. And in order for that to remain, I think something drastic is going to have to happen on the upward probably scathe $100 and come back down so that the OPEC can look like the good guys in the mid 70s. So I think also because of the fact that there’s a capex shortage in the oil sector, they need this revenue to come in order to sustain production as well.

 

My original intended investment horizon was around three to four years. I’m going to be cutting that short until September of next year because the issue that we have now is that the lockdowns are still in effect in many areas, but also when it comes to Europe where I’m situated, most of the inoculations have only gone through the first phase. So we’re still waiting for the second shot and therefore this summer will be delayed. We’re not going to be traveling everywhere like we were in 2019. Instead, that will happen most likely next summer.

 

There’s still one big run up towards the three-digit oil price and that would be most likely to happen next year rather than now.

 

WTI Crude Oil Forecast for 2021

This is CI Futures July forecast for COMEX Copper this YTD.

Discover the forecasts for nearly 1,000 other assets.

Book a demo and get a free trial here.

 

TN: So you brought up OPEC. There’s been news this week around OPEC+ and a deal with Saudi and UAE and some other Middle East dynamics. What’s your view on that? How much downward pressure will that put on crude markets?

 

TS: Because of those factors in the Middle East, because I am of a belief we will see a deal and we will get some more barrels on the market, the market is actually very tight right now. But we’re also having lockdowns in some places in Asia. So right now, we already are seeing a pullback in crude. Until we get a little bit more certain that 65-75 range will probably hold us for a while, I see some consolidation there and after $115 move from the lows last year, it makes sense for oil to chill out, consolidate here a little bit.

 

TN: Sam, what’s your view on the kind of OPEC+, Saudi, UAE and other kind of OPEC countries wanting to tag along on the UAE?

 

SM: I think one issue that they themselves want to know is status of the JCPOA. They really want to know how much of an issue Iran would be if their balance come back to market. Now, that’s a big if.

 

But if we look at what happened during the Trump administration, the United States pulled out of the deal and that was not good optics for the U.S. side. But now what’s happened is that Iran is not complying with the deal. So the ball is now in their court instead. So the Biden administration is saying, yes, the United States wants to be part of the deal, even though it’s not a very popular deal in the US. I don’t see any popular support for it. It’s more of a let’s just get back in there so Iran can improve its compliance. But they’re not improving their compliance. Instead, what they’re doing is going the other direction and they’re increasing their enrichment. They’re becoming more brazen about how they move around the world with Navy vessels and so on.

 

And now, of course, there’s an Iranian president that’s going to take office in August. So I think the deal will play fall apart instead because of the fact that Iran is not complying.

 

TN: If the deal falls apart, does that chaos help oil prices, meaning rise or does it create the perception that there will be a dramatically larger supply in the market?

 

SM: I think the initial reaction will be that, “Oh, these barrels are not going to be reentering the market, therefore the price will go higher.” So that’s the first automated response. But then, you know, the dust will begin to settle after a while when there’s an understanding of what kind of barrels are not entering the market.

 

So in Iran’s case, they are shipping sour crude. Whether it’s light or heavy, it’s sour. In order for that oil to become sweet, which is more attractive, you have to de-sulfur the oil. And so Iran, what they do is they give you a discount if you want to buy light sweet oil, but then they’re buying like sour oil. Iran gives $10 discount, for instance, and then they just remove the sulfur at the refinery at their own expense. And that’s what’s causing, for instance, West Africa to lower their exports. So moving out a lot less oil now out of Africa than before on account of China buying more Iranian oil instead.

 

TS: I think what people forget, there’s already a lot of Iranian oil on the market. So even if they came back at production of 4 to 4.5 million, it’s not really a lot of extra added barrels that are not already on the market.

 

SM: Exactly. And it will be absorbed by the demand that’s coming of course.

 

TN: But it seems to me the kind of perception of legitimacy that would come through JCPOA may calm prices down a bit through the kind of perception of legitimacy of that supply?

 

TS: Yeah. I mean, if it came to fruition, which I don’t foresee it, I have to agree with Sam on this point. But yeah, the market would think, oh, OK, we have all these barrels coming on even though there isn’t, and that it would be a numbers game from there, then you’d have to see supply and demand numbers from the various agencies monthly reports.

 

SM: And the thing also does not happen overnight. So even if the process of JCPOA happens and Biden finally signs, for instance, initially a waiver, the whole process takes forever to reboot again. We saw it last time. Remember Tracy back in years ago, it took many months.

 

And also in the case of Iran, most of their domestic national fleet is tied up containing gas condensate. So they have around 70 million barrels of gas condensates floating. And that used up nearly all of the VLCC supertankers, the ones that can carry two million barrels. So what Iran has done is they put additional vessels, vintage VLCC. So now they have 200 vessels as opposed to 70. And those are the ones, the foreign flagged vessels that are moving the oil mostly to China.

 

TN: You both mentioned lockdowns earlier in the conversation. And I think the tone here is that we have a pretty strong basis for rising crude prices. But we’ve seen some moves over the last week in the Netherlands and California and other places for maybe not full lockdowns, but more severe compliance with masks and other things and that seems to be leading toward potentially some lockdowns. First of all, if there are lockdowns coming, what would be driving that? And we all know about the Delta variant and stuff. But are there political factors that would be driving that? Second of all, if there were, how would that impact the six to nine month view of crude markets for you guys?

 

TS: The United States is so big, I don’t believe that they’re going to lock down the whole country again. It just won’t happen. You would literally have riots on the streets in some places. So I don’t foresee that happening. I could see some of the states like California just reinstated their mask mandates. I’ve been watching those states that kind of had more severe lockdowns to begin with like Michigan. If they’d lockdown again in the fall, that would probably be more politically motivated, but we’ll have to see what the numbers are and whatnot.

 

As far as my crude view, I’m very bullish on crude. But that doesn’t mean like I’m expecting a $100 tomorrow. How I’m invested is longer term. So I’m invested for at least the next five years or so.

 

And I do believe that if we get through the fall and we don’t have lockdowns in the United States, Europe and Asia, then I definitely think six to nine months, we’re back in the swing of things, because that’ll put us right to basically next spring when oil demand really starts.

 

TN: Sam, what’s your view in Europe on lockdowns? Do you see that stuff coming back and how do you see that impacting consumption?

 

SM: I would think that it would be mostly in the countries with the high population density. Germany is obviously one of those countries and the UK is another. In other countries, not so much the case. I live here in Sweden. We never had lockdowns. So we had seniors living in retirement homes and so on. But then, we pretty much met the same statistic level as every other country — 10% population suffer through it, 1% or so perished as a result. But I don’t think that we’ll be seeing any big efforts on locking down countries again.

 

And what’s more interesting now is schools are coming up in a couple of months or at least a month and a half. Here in Sweden, life will pretty much continue as is. I have four kids and none of them missed more than a week of school, throughout the entire ordeal since 2020.

 

TN: So it sounds to me like you both see there may be some lockdowns at the edges, but it doesn’t sound like it’s something you expect to affect the mainstream. Maybe we see a slight dip in the rate of rise of demand. But it doesn’t sound like it’ll have a huge impact to the downside on energy prices generally, whether it’s crude or natgas or something like that. Is that fair to say?

 

SM: Yep.

 

TS: Absolutely.

 

TN: When it comes to natural gas, Tracy, I know you’ve been talking about that a lot lately. Can you tell us a little bit about your observations and your thesis and and what you’re seeing there?

 

TS: For natural gas, the reason I like it is it’s the great transition fuel especially for emerging markets, because it’s very inexpensive than to go straight into something like solar or wind just because the cost of those minerals and metals can make those are skyrocketing right now. So natural gas is abundant. It’s a great transition fuel. It’s cleaner burning than oil.

 

We just saw the EU green deal, they just stepped back and now are including that gas, whereas before there was no oil or gas, because I think they’re also realizing that it’s inexpensive, it’s a good transition fuel. If you look at Germany, there’s still a lot of coal going on in Germany. So for Europe, it’s not like fossil fuels are gone.

 

I think they realize also it’s an inexpensive transition fuel. In particular for the United States, what I like right now is we’re seeing European natgas ETF and JKM, which is the Asian natgas, are trading at significantly higher than the United States is right now. And so I think there is opportunity there because the US can export and still come in at a lower cost, even with the cost of transportation to Europe or to Asia.

 

TN: Interesting. Living in Texas, I have to say that I love that message. Sam, what about the tanker fleet? Is the global tanker fleet ready to to provide the capacity needed to power EMs with, say, American natgas or Middle Eastern natgas?

 

SM: So natgas, I haven’t checked too much. But tankers in general, the demand is not that great right now. When I say that, I mean that usually, they really step up to the plate whenever there’s a floating storage opportunity to talk about. So you had that case in Q2 of last year, and that really drove up the prices from the growing normal rate of 20,000 barrels a day to 500,000. That spike.

 

And it’s come down so much. Complete occupancy is far lower than what I normally see if I talk about the tonnage and it’s around under 40%, which is very little. We were looking at April of last year, it was around north of 55, close to 60%. So that’s a big swing. And that really crushed the prices for tanker rates. They’re even negative. Below zero. But when I look at the transfers of illicit oil, it’s around $38,000 a day. So there’s a lot lot of money to be made in those transfers, unfortunately. But for nat-G, I’m not entirely sure. So I can’t say for sure.

 

TN: OK, very good. Guys, thank you so much for your time. This has been really helpful. I’m really intrigued by kind of the long bull thesis for energy because we hope that we’re going to start recovering much quicker than we had been, which is fantastic. So thanks for your time. I really appreciate. Always, I really appreciate talking with you guys. Thanks very much.

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
Podcasts

IMF: Rich world recovering faster than expected

This podcast from BBC Business Matters discussed how rich countries are recovering faster than expected — and is it for real based on data? How about the world’s billionaires suggesting Americans to pay more taxes, is it fair? Also discussed are the NFTs or non-fungible tokens — do they have values or are these just a fad? Lastly, how the workplace changed since the 1980s in terms of safety and gender equality?

 

This podcast was published on April 7, 2021 and the original source can be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172xvq88yhlfkj.

 

 

BBC Business Matters Description:

 

The IMF says that the rich world is recovering faster than expected from the downturn resulting from the pandemic. But what about the developing world? Jubilee USA campaigns for debt relief for developing countries – we speak to its executive director, Eric Le Compte.

 

And in a world struggling to pull itself out of a pandemic, lockdowns and recession, why are there quite so many billionaires? We hear from Kerry Dolan, Assistant Managing Editor of Wealth at Forbes about their latest rich list.

 

Credit Suisse replaced two key executives and cut bonuses amid the fallout from two major business relationships; Peter Hody from Finnews.com in Zurich analyses what went wrong. And we’re joined throughout the programme by Mehmal Sarfraz, journalist and co-founder The Current in Lahore, Pakistan; we’re also joined by Tony Nash, chief economist at Complete Intelligence in Houston Texas.

 

 

Show Notes

 

JR: OK, well, let’s get the picture from the economy, which is going to swell, it would seem, according to the IMF, over the next year or so Tony. How are things in Texas?

 

TN: You know what’s interesting about the about Pakistan to kind of follow on what I said? What I find interesting about these numbers is you really have to average out  2019, 2020 and 2021 to really see how a country is doing. And so if you average out Pakistan for 19, 20, 21, there’s a 1% average growth rate that’s better than almost every other OECD country. The only country in Europe that actually shows growth over that period is the Netherlands. Germany, France, U.K., Italy and so on, they’re all negative average for the last three years. So for the U.S., it’s just over 1% average for the last three or so. So this may look like stellar growth, but it’s not because it’s using what’s called a base effect, meaning the U.S. economy is estimated to decline 3.5% in 2020. So a 5.1% growth rate on top of a 3.4% decline really is not stellar. So we’re struggling to get back to 2019 levels. And the message I would take away from here is countries are struggling to get back to 2019. Much of Europe will not be back at 2019 levels by the end of 2021.

 

JR: Tony, is Credit Suisse a typical bank, do you think, or a typical bank in the circumstances?

 

TN: I think they’re in a typical bank that got caught doing things that banks do pretty regularly. We have to be aware that these banks have risk management teams who look at the investments and evaluate how much of their capital is at risk when they make investments. I don’t doubt that banks make very risky risk management decisions on a regular basis. Credit Suisse. This problem is they didn’t get out in time. There were other banks that had built capital who got out earlier. So they made similar bets, but they got out of the trade earlier than Credit Suisse did.

 

JR: Do you think even Mr. Bezos thinking perhaps he should be doing a bit more taxes at a bit of a relief to us?

 

TN: Well, it’s it’s interesting. Nothing is stopping billionaires from paying more money to the Internal Revenue Service in the U.S. So if they want to pay more money, if companies want to pay more money, they’re welcome at any time to pay more money. So if Bezos personally or through Amazon wants to pay more money to the U.S. Treasury, they’re welcome to do that. There’s nothing in law that stopping them from contributing more to the U.S. Treasury.

 

JR: So I suppose in many ways this story is a kind of a sort of reflection of our earlier story, which is really about sort of rich rich countries and poor countries and how they’re coming out of this pandemic and the problems of inequality and whether it causes resentment, which we talked about in that report. Do you see resentment over this, do you think, in the United States?

 

TN: Well, I do. Warren Buffett has said the same. Americans should pay more tax. Your average middle class or higher American who here, a billionaire, say that people should be paying more tax, people get really resentful about it because, again, everyone knows that if someone wants to pay more tax, they can just write the check or send the wire and do more. So I think it is the the resentment is growing. The gains in equity markets are strange. They’re at strange highs. Central banks are enabling that. And the people who gain disproportionately from that are the ultra wealthy, not just the wealthy, but the ultra wealthy.

 

JR: Tony, when I listen to that report, I kept on thinking of tulips for some reason or another, and I kept thinking of bubbles. Do you feel the same way or are you convinced?

 

TN: It really depends on what you want to do with it. So if you actually own that image and you can license it and make money off of that image, then fine. That’s really interesting. Or if you want to own that image for the inherent value of that of owning that image like, let’s say a digital Mona Lisa, that’s fine. But I’m not sure that the kind of demand for that is there, meaning my kids of 19 year old twins, they’ll go out and copy images or whatever and throw them into presentations. I’ll do the same. Actually, I don’t know that there is an appreciation of the value of a digital image. And this is really the problem, right? When you have physical artwork, there is limited supply. When you have a digital image that can just be copied and pasted and then you have infinite number of those images. It’s difficult because there’s never a tangible, supply constrained number of those images, if that makes sense. So I I’m like you when I hear it. I think this doesn’t really make sense unless you’re using it to license. Let’s say there’s a logo for a company like Amazon and somebody owns that intangible property. How much is that logo image worth that?

 

JR: OK, so it’s actually quite close to a currency really isn’t it, or it’s close to an intangible thing like sort of a money, a unit of money, a unit of cash.

 

TN: Well, there’s a difference between money and an asset, right. If you hold let’s say gold, gold is really an asset. You don’t go down to your corner shop and spend gold. In the crypto world, these things aren’t really currencies because you can’t really spend them freely. Of course, you can always barter gold for something. You can always barter a crypto asset for something, but it’s not readily accepted in many, many places. So these things are really assets that you hold onto and wait for a buyer who appreciates the asset more than you to buy it.

 

You’re not going out and buying your groceries or a new car or anything with that asset. You can’t do that with this artwork. You can’t spend it. So it’s questionable. I’m not saying it’s nothing, but it’s questionable. It’s not really the market fit. I don’t really understand it. Maybe this is genius, but it just doesn’t seem like it right now.

 

JR: Tony, thanks very much indeed. I still keep on thinking of tulips anyway. Tony, I was just going to ask you whether you had a lot of similar experience, but experience of unpleasantness, London.

 

TN: Sure. Absolutely. In my 20s, I was with a retailer in their headquarters and and then again later in my career. You know, this is it’s not anything that is rare. I don’t think. Well, maybe it is more rare now, but it’s terrible for everyone involved.

 

JR: And it doesn’t seem to go away even in the virtual world. That’s where we got time for on business matters. Thank you very much indeed for listening. And thank you, Tony. Thank you so much for being my guest on Business Matters. Goodbye.

 

Categories
Podcasts

WHO says there’s no link between the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots

Tony Nash joins Rahul Tandon at the BBC Business Matters podcast and they discussed worries about the Covid vaccine AstraZeneca in Texas. Also discussed during the show are prevalence of electric cars in the street of America — is it now a more common scenario? And with Volkswagen and other car manufacturers jumping on the electric car making, what will be Tesla’s future now? Lastly, Oscars this year and next.

 

This podcast was published on March 16, 2021 and the original source can be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x1999n85jh0

 

 

BBC Business Matters Description:

 

The WHO’s conclusion came after several European countries have suspended the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, including France and Germany. But as the numbers of Covid-19 cases rise in Europe, what will this mean for the vaccine rollout? We speak to epidemiologist Dr Maria Sundaram.

 

Volkswagen has announced plans to increase its car battery production and charging network across Europe, the US and China. Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield is a tech journalist who specialises in electric vehicles, and was watching VW’s announcement.

 

Also in the programme, with obesity believed to be a major factor in which countries have the worst Covid-19 death rates, the BBC’s Manuela Saragosa reports on whether it could mark a moment of reckoning for food and beverage businesses, in terms of making their products more healthy.

 

Plus, the shortlist for this year’s Oscars has been released. KJ Matthews is an entertainment reporter in Los Angeles, and tells us what this year’s selection says about the impact of the pandemic on filmmaking, and progress made towards diversity in the industry.

 

Rahul Tandon is joined throughout the programme by Karen Lema, Reuters bureau chief for the Philippines – who’s in Manila, and Tony Nash, chief economist at Complete Intelligence in Houston, Texas.

 

 

Show Notes

 

RT: Tony, when you when you hear that from Karen, the U.S. is moving on with great speed when it comes to vaccination. Incredible numbers there. Are you seeing that in Texas as well, or is there a bit of vaccine hesitancy in Texas?

 

TN: I think there’s there’s a bit of both. So we in Texas, we’ve given about eight point three million doses of the vaccine. We have something like three million people who have been fully vaccinated. People are prioritized if they want to get vaccinated. Vaccines are available. We’ve had about almost 10 million doses shipped to Texas. People who want it are signing up and getting it.

 

RT: When you look at what’s happening in Europe at the moment, AstraZeneca is vaccine hasn’t been cleared yet in the U.S., even though I think you have 100 million doses that you’ve bought, what do you make of them? What do you think Americans make of what’s happening with AstraZeneca in this part of the world?

 

TN: I think most people honestly look at the Covid vaccine and believe it’s kind of all the same thing. And but I also think that communications around what it actually does could have been clear and could have been better. And also the fact that this is such an early vaccine, I’m not sure that the risks have been highlighted.  The person you interviewed talked about the risk communications. I’m not sure that was really done very well. I think it’s been positioned as only the benefits. But it’s really hard knowing that it’s such a young drug. And so I don’t blame the people who are worried about it because these are really innovative drugs. That’s great. It’s amazing, but they’re pretty untested. And so it makes sense that people are worried.

 

RT: Tony, you’re in Texas, a part of the world that, of course, we associate with oil very much the emergence of the electric car. It’s something that we’re going to see a lot more of on the road. Does that cause concern in Texas?

 

TN: No, Tesla just moved a big facility here. So Tesla now has its largest facility in Austin, Texas. So we have oil and gas firms and electric car firms here. So like it or not, Texas is the future.

 

RT: You always like to tell us that here on on Business Matters, but some of the things that Volkswagen is talking about are going to be a challenge to Tesla because they do have huge pockets which could see them challenge Tesla as the leader in this particular facility.

 

TN: Tesla had a head start among the big guys, but the big guys have distribution networks, they have maintenance networks, they have a lot of things that Tesla doesn’t really have. I think that as you have the Volkswagen’s, the Toyotas and other guys really come in a big, big way, along with these national charging networks and and other stations, I think we’ll start to see a lot of competition with Tesla. Not that I’m rooting for this, but it’s possible that Tesla is brought down to earth in terms of expectations. So it’s seen as a normal, as other car companies become electric car companies.

 

RT: Can I come back to you quickly here, because we’ve talked to you about it. How many you had that cold snap in Texas recently, heavily covid, where there was a lot of homes that were allowed without electricity for a long period of time. I was just reading an article which said that electric cars could have helped in that situation because people could have used some of the battery power. Do you think that is something that people will look at in the future?

 

TN: It’s an electric car. It’s just a big battery with four wheels and a couple of computers. So, you could have pulled your car into your home and potentially used that as a generator as needed. In fact, some people use old Tesla batteries as backup power for their homes, though, use solar panels, power up their Tesla battery and use it to power their homes. So they could have been helpful. But whether it’s an electric car or just a backup battery or a generator, it would all kind of achieve the same thing.

 

RT: And just paint a picture for us when you’re out there on the open roads. What do you see around you at the moment? Is it a lot of four by fours? Are we seeing more electric cars?

 

TN: Well, we’re definitely seeing more electric cars. I wouldn’t say they’re uncommon at all. They are more in affluent areas and you’re still seeing a lot of trucks and that sort of thing. So it’s a mixed. But, yes, electric cars are becoming a larger portion of the overall mix.

 

RT: And, Tony, if I can come to you here first, the U.S., one of the countries that’s really suffering from obesity levels at over 40 percent of the population at the moment post the pandemic, even during the pandemic. Are we seeing a much bigger debate about obesity taking place?

 

TN: I don’t really see people here talking about it. I think you’ll be shunned if you bring up obesity as a potential causal or coincidental factor. So I’m glad that the discussion is happening in Europe and I think it’s a healthy one to have.

 

RT: Do you see I mean, one does want to stereotype, but when you think of Texas, you probably don’t think the most healthy food. Is that a fair comment?

 

TN: I’ll be careful here. You could say that we’ve got all kinds of food here. People were farmers, right. And they burned a lot of calories during the day. So they ate hardier food. And, yeah, the traditional southern food is pretty rich.

 

RT: Yeah. I must say, listening to that report, I now come to regret the two pieces of cheesecake I had prior to the program. I am probably in the overweight. What about things like sugar taxes? Because this obesity is having a huge impact on health care health systems, isn’t it, on health care services as well? Would sugar tax work? What can we do to persuade people to try and eat more healthily?

 

TN: It is. But I think it would be a punitive tax disproportionately affecting people who can’t afford to eat healthier food. I think it’s really problematic whether people either can’t afford to eat better food or choose not to. And so I think things like a sugar tax, people need to eat what they want to eat. They suffer the consequences. And that sounds maybe dismissive. But I think, people need to take care of their own bodies and they need to choose what they eat.

 

RT: But sometimes we have to step in. I mean, in the same ways as government stepped in with smoking, if obesity is going to have a huge impact on people’s health, a huge impact on our health care services.

 

TN: But part of the reason people stop smoking is because insurance rates, health insurance rates went up dramatically if you’re a smoker. So if you’re obese, if your health insurance goes up dramatically, then that would be a huge disincentive to be obese. There are taxes on cigarettes. So kind of tobacco consumption plays both sides of that coin.

 

RT: K.J. Matthews is looking forward to this year’s Oscars. I’ve seen the trial of the Chicago some very good. I don’t see many of the others on that list to have you, Tony.

 

TN: No, I haven’t I don’t know how I missed them all, but I missed a lot of them.

 

RT: Never mind. We’ll make sure that, you know, before your next appearance and you can review them for the fact that we’re seeing a more diverse list of nominations there, Tony. That just reflects the changing nature of the industry, doesn’t it, that we see a lot more black as we see a lot more women directing films, and that’s a good thing?

 

TN: My youngest son is ethnically Indian and he’s also an actor. And so when I see stuff like this, I think of him and I think, great, he’s got a shot at awards and roles just like anyone else.

 

RT: Do you worry that when he entered the profession that he wouldn’t get so many roles?

 

TN: And I always find that. So yeah.

 

RT: But because of his background, because of that side of his background, did you worry more?

 

TN: Well, yeah, absolutely. So even right now, he’s in a play and he was cast in a role that wouldn’t necessarily have an Indian in that role. And he was so good they cast him, which warms my heart. So, I expect him to be as good or better than anybody. I don’t care what color they are. And if he’s not as good or better than them, then he shouldn’t get the role. It’s just it’s a tough business, right?

 

RT: I was saying this is clearly a chip off the old block. If he’s quite good at that. I think every part of the world loves movies, then they very quickly turn into and on good for the streaming services this year because of the pandemic. Do you think we could see the studios hitting back next year when when we have the Oscars, if things do get better?

 

TN: They could. It really all depends on how things go and how cinemas and all this works, but yeah, I can see him heading back. Absolutely.

 

RT: Well, let’s see what happens with the Oscars next year. Let’s see who wins this year at the Oscars.