Connect with us

Economy

Trade wars, currency wars and geopolitical clashes

Published

on

The Chinese yuan has already plummeted to the historic lows of the last seven months as against the dollar and nothing prevents us from thinking that the Chinese government is organizing a real devaluation of the yuan-renmimbi.

In fact, on June 27 last, the Chinese central bank set the parity as against the dollar at 6.596, by also cutting additional 391 points compared to the levels of the previous day.

A move that could largely expand the already significant size of China’s foreign trade, as well as avoid further tension with the USA on trade tariffs, and finally increase and differentiate Chinese exports.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that China really wants to significantly and clearly devalue the yuan. We rather fear that this threat is a sword of Damocles to be placed right on President Trump’s head.

The problem is, above all, of a geopolitical rather than of a financial nature.

As early as the 1990s, the US ruling classeshave ridden  their project of globalization, which has inevitably been matched by universal financialization.

On the one hand, this has created a new power – that of the major international regulators (the World Bank, the Basel Bank for International Settlements, the Monetary Fund, etc.), which have largely changed the course of US geo-financial interests since the USSR collapse – while, in the meantime, the advanced technologies have migrated to Asia and partly to the European Union.

Asia is currently a US global competitor, while Europe is now perceived by the United States as a useless buffer vis-à-vis the pan-Russian region and, above all, the pleasant geopolitical region that believes it has a currency, namely the euro,  preventing the dollar from fully developing.

By all accounts, on July 15 next, Trump and Putin could just decide to stop the escalation between Russia and the USA, thus together weakening the European region.

The region that has so far followed the new American Cold War blindly and even against its own clear interests.

Hence currently China wants to direct the whole globalization and financialization process of the world economies.

According to China’s decision-makers, the United States can no longer afford it, considering that -based on 2017 data – its trade deficit amounts to 567 billion dollars and its public debt is equal to 21.5 trillion dollars.

It should be recalled that this is the real bone of contention.

Moreover, despite President Trump’s tax reforms, the US companies still have 2.7 billion dollars held in tax havens.

All global tax havens hold 21-35 billion US dollars of private funds. Resolving this tension means becoming global leaders, both financially and industrially.

This holds true also for corruption.

For example, the African nations alone lost at least 1 billion US dollars in 2017 due to the capital flight, while the sum of these African countries’ foreign debt is currently only 200 million dollars.

This year Switzerland ranks first in the list of tax havens, but followed by the United States and the notorious Cayman Islands.

Hence while the capital market is grey and inelastic, as shown by most tax havens, when the public revenue stemming from corporate income decreases, personal income taxes can only increase. This is certainly not a formula for economic development, neither driven by exports nor by other operations.

Not surprisingly, over the last ten years the US public debt has grown at the rate of 1.23 billion dollars, but it has recently doubled, rising from 8.9 trillion dollars in 2007 to 20.1 trillion dollars in December 2017.

Hence, while currently the US globalization trick mainly favours China, military pressure and protectionism are the main and inevitable models of behaviourand protection of the US interests in the world.

Furthermore, protectionism is worth as much as manufacturing, considering that finance is already globalized everywhere: nowadays the US industry, including the energy system, produces only 21% of GDP, while the rest is produced by the service sector.

President Trump’s new proposals, however, i.e. the mix of FED’s “moderate” monetary policy, of trade deficit reduction and of tariff protection through the buy American policy, are worth approximately 1 billion dollars of increase in federal spending, with support to some new infrastructure, but with additional 4.4 trillion dollars relatingto tax reform.

The reduction of personal income and corporate income taxes from 35 to 20% – the focus of President Trump’s new tax policy – as well as the reduction of taxes on repatriated capital and the other corporate tax cuts, are all operations leading to a depreciation of capital income and hence, according to neoclassical models – to a corresponding investment increase which, however, never really materialize.

Therefore President Trump’s tax reform could certainly stimulate domestic demand and hence the GDP growth rate, thus resulting in greater household spending, but above all enabling companies to deduct new investment from taxes until 2022.

However, the amount of recently-issued US debt securities can raise interest rates significantly.

Hence short-term investment expands in the USA, while the market is well aware that, as from 2025, the public deficit and hence interest rates will fall significantly.

There could therefore be the corporations’ temptation to postpone investments for a few years. Nevertheless, in the short term, the tax rebate policy is a drain on public revenues, which are expected to decrease by 11 trillion dollars until 2027.

Corporations can stand it.

Currently the US debt-to-GDP ratio is equal to 105%, but in 2027 it is expected to reach 110% with a foreseen 3-3.5% yearly annual growth rate.

The US Congress calculates that the tax losses caused by President Trump’s reform should be 414 trillion dollars staggered over ten years.

Over the same period, the reduction in revenues is expected to be 1,633 trillion dollars.

Moreover, the increase in direct household income is supposed to be 8%, with a clear increase in taxable income.

Nevertheless, this obviously does not offset the primary decrease in revenues – otherwise we would have discovered the perpetual motion.

Hence US corporations could save 1.2-1.3 trillion dollars, which previously went on taxeswhile, if all goes well, President Trump’s reform could stimulate a further 9% GDP growth in the medium to long-term.

However, the US domestic market’s dependence on foreign markets is very high, even with a population of 320 million inhabitants and a high average consumption rate.

Hence if a policy is implemented to substitute imports from abroad to the USA, where the labour cost and taxes are comparatively higher, this will imply an obvious increase in inflation.

It should be recalled that currently the Russian Federation has already put in place as many as 780 projects of import substitution, while last March Chinese imports rose by 14.4% – a higher rate than expected – but with a corresponding 2.7% yearly fall in Chinese exports denominated in dollars.

For the time being, China aims mainly at import diversion, not so much at import substitution.

As we all know, another piece of President Trump’s tax and economic domino is the dismantling of Obamacare.

A substantial cut would be a dangerous political mistake on such an important issue from an electoral viewpoint.

Probably President Trump’s cuts will be mainly focused on education and research, considering that under President Obama’s Administration the social spending for income support had reached 66% compared to 15% of the previous Presidencies, including the Democratic ones.

The United States is not good at implementing Socialism- this is a specialty of the best Europe, as is also the case with social Catholicism.

The welfare Catholicismwas certainly not born only to take away votes from the Left, but also resulted from a long and  elaborate analysis that the Catholic Church made on capitalism, from the French Revolution until the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, with the refined philosophy of Mounier’spersonalism and, in Italy, with the extraordinary season of the Code of Camaldoli.

Within the framework of US typical capitalism, however, high social spending is a danger to the economic system and to domestic financial markets.

The US friends can afford neither democratic Socialism nor the social Catholicism of the Code of Camaldoli.

Furthermore, President Trump’s idea to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act – which, after the 2007-2008 crisis, redesigned the clear separation between investment banks and savings banks, invented by the Fascist legislation on the State holding IRI and later revivedby President Roosevelt in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, repealed in 1999 – is not entirely wrong.

If anything, President Trump wants to revive the 1933 Act, with an eye to the new “21st century” Glass-Steagall Act proposed by John McCain and Senator Elizabeth Warren – a new Act specifically banning the current dual role played by banks, both as institutional investors on behalf of corporate clients and as classic collectors of savings from small clients.

President Trump probably agreeswith the lines of a new Glass-Steagall Act that, according to the US President’s economic advisors, should favour the control and management of bank credit and the mass of credit liquidity.

Theringfencecurrently required of US banks is certainly not enough to regulate the cycle, but nowadays it is hard to well define the different types of financial investment.

Moreover, duration is not the only index to assess its dangerousness or not. We will talk about it at a later stage.

It is also worth recalling, however, that private consumption in the USA amounts to 70% of GDP, while the US citizens’ private debts are currently worth as many as 18.94 trillion dollars, equivalent to 96% of current GDP.

Hence either private debts are rescued or also the GDP is jeopardized, with ripple effects which are hard to foresee.

In our opinion, the policy line supported by President Trump, who wants a federal law regulating current and future financial markets, goes in the right direction.

This means that, as already happens, President Trump will do everything to provide stable employment to the Americans (158 million employees) by curbing the foreign manpower whocarries out direct wage dumping against US citizens, thus competing with them at a minimum wage level.

Domestic wage dumping will no longer be allowed in President’s Trump era and investment in manufacturing will be aimed at turning temporary jobs for Americans into stable jobs.

The President wants to do exactly the opposite of what the European Union is doing – and he will succeed.

During President Obama’s Administration, legal and illegal migrants totalled 27 million people.

Hence the three goals of what has been defined as Trumponomics are essentially the expansion of national production; the increase of the US  labour market in terms of size and income, as well as the repatriation of the huge amount of US capital held abroad.

Nevertheless, with specific reference to trade regulations,  rebalancing the US market is a complex process: in the USA there is no VAT for imported goods, except for a sales tax which, however, is applied only in some States of the Federation.

The solution would be to manipulate taxation on imports in such a way as to remove the difference between the external taxation levels of the various countries exporting to the USA and hence abolish the comparative advantages of the various countries selling in the US market.

Let us now analyse, however, the overall policy line and, above all, the energy tax policy that President Trump wants to implement.

The USA is still the first energy consumer in the world since it uses as much as 25% of all energy produced globally, with a share that is more or less equivalent to the US share of global economy.

The United States currently uses 19.7 million oil barrels a day.

Nowadays, based on March 2018 data, the North American autonomous oil production amounts to 10.4 million barrels a day- a share which, however, is worth only 52% of US consumption.

Nevertheless, it should be recalled that 68% of oil imports into the USA are duty-free.

It is also worth recalling that, based on the most reliable  predictions on shale oil and gas, by the end of 2022 the Americans expect to produce two-thirds of their own energy needs autonomously -hence it is extremely probable that NAFTA exporters to the USA, especially Mexico, shall accept an unexpected share of taxation on oil barrels exported to the United States.

This, however, could lead to a price war between NAFTA producers and competitors in the Gulf or other areas.

Obviously the taxes and duties on energy imports would mainly favour the US domestic production, thus allowing the massive internal consumption of US oil and gas and the re-exporting of thetaxed ones coming from the NAFTA regions.

With specific reference to natural gas, the US situation is equally rosy. Since 2009 the United States has gradually become the world’s largest producer of natural gas, with proven reserves in North America equal to Saudi Arabia’s, but 5.5 times less than Russia’s and 3.7 times less than Iran’s.

This will explain many things in the future.

In 2017, the USA produced 73.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, especially in the Appalachian regions, while the North American government agencies expect that gas – as long as it lasts – will not only saturate all domestic consumption, but will also enable the USA to become a net exporter of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), with facilities in Louisiana and Maryland, which are now on the point of being completed.

This new US presence in the energy sector will be a powerful lever to deal with the new tariff balances from a strong bargaining position.

With specific reference to infrastructure, there is a “Roosevelt-style” plan that, not surprisingly, President Trump is putting in place, by using a bill – originally submitted by the Congress – which provides for investment to the tune of 1.5 trillion dollars to stimulate private individuals and entities to further invest in this sector that is usually unattractive for US capitalists.

Only 200 billion dollars would be direct federal funds, while the remaining 1.3 billion dollars would, in fact, come from private individuals or entities or from States of the Union.

The goal is to modernize the railway network, motorways, airports and sea ports, as well as waterworks and hydroelectric dams.

Additional 50 billion dollars will be allocated to agricultural infrastructure and irrigation.

The States of the Federation will be responsible for the entire infrastructural operation, but we do not see how the necessary external investment can come to the USA  – an investment that will be unavoidable, considering the amounts at stake.

Hence, with Trump’s Presidency, the United States will basically tend to become an economic organization virtually impervious to external shocks. It will make all the companies which are essential for both military or economic national security go back into the Federation’s perimeter. It will finally expand the manufacturing sector to the detriment of the service and financial sectors.

Along with these geo-economic prospects, Trump’s Presidency will try to foster peripheral and marginal tensions in the world arena, above all to sell arms and later create the flow of high-tech investments which, as usual,   starts from the military sector and then affects also the civilian sector.

Trumponomics has so far worked well and has reached some good results.

In 2017 domestic demand rose by 4.6%, the fastest growth in the last three years.

Consumer spending, which is worth two-thirds of all US domestic trade, grew by 3.8% in late 2017, but families also benefited from the steady increase in stock market indices, as well as from the increase in property and real estate prices and in wages- which is certainly not a negligible fact.

Most of the growth in consumption, however, was directed to imports, which grew by 13.8% in the last quarter of 2017. In terms of balance of payments, this offsets the increase in US exports deriving from the relative weakness of the dollar.

The diversification of the North American economy has increased by 19% and the USA are collectively less dependent on the results of the various productive sectors.

Unemployment is falling also for the “Latinos” and the black people, with the lowest unemployment rate of the last 40 years, as well as the return of Chrysler-FIAT to the USA, for example, through a new factory for 2,500 workers in Michigan, while the opinion polls show that 70% of the US population believe that the economy is “excellent” or good”.

In 35% of cases,temporary jobs are turned into stable jobs -without particular racial differentiation.

According to Moody’s, since 2014 the US economy has produced over 2 million new jobs a year, while the unemployment rate is currently lower than 4%.

Nevertheless, imports obviously continue to be the Achilles’ heel of President Trump’s project.

The more the US economy grows, the more the share of imports increases.

In 2017 the USA imported 2.79 billion dollars of goods and services with a related export share of 2.32 billion dollars alone, resulting in a trade deficit equal to 566 billion dollars.

The imbalance between imports and exports, however, always leads to a 1.13% decrease of GDP.

The sectors that contribute most to this imbalance are the automotive and consumer goods sectors.

In 2017 the USA imported drugs, cars, clothes and other goods to the tune of 602 billion dollars, while it exported 198 billion dollars of consumer goods only.

The United States imported 359 billion cars, but exported only 158 billion ones.

In this sector the real US competitor is still China. In late 2017, however, the USA recorded a 375 billion dollar balance of payments deficit vis-à-vis China; a 71 billion dollar deficit with Mexico and a 69 billion dollar one with Japan, as well as a 65 billion dollardeficit with Germany.

Nevertheless the trade wars – which, as President Trump maintains, are “easy to win” – are not so much so.

The introduction of a single tariff on goods imported from China, as well as a 45% duty – 35% for Mexican goods –  would increase the cost of all imports, from any country, by 15%, with a 3% average price increase resulting in a 85 billion fall of US exports compared to the initial data.

Furthermore, the EU could easily increase its duties within two months.

Finally, China could respond by increasing customs rights and duties on as many as 128 types of imports from the USA, in addition to imposing a further 25% duty on cars, aircraft, oil and food from the USA.

In short, for a President very focused on the economy like Donald J. Trump, the prospect of protectionism will be less likely than we can currently anticipate and, however, the slow reconstruction of the US manufacturing and internal market – which are President Trump’s electoral and geopolitical goals – will continue.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Afghan crisis: Changing geo-economics of the neighbourhood

Published

on

The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has caused a rapid reshuffle in the geo-economics of South, Central and West Asia. While the impact on the Afghan economy has been profound, triggering inflation and cash shortage, it’s bearing on Afghanistan’s near neighbourhood has wider far-reaching consequences. The US spent almost $24 billion on the economic development of Afghanistan over the course of 20 years. This together with other international aid has helped the country to more than double its per capita GDP from $900 in 2002 to $2,100 in 2020. As a major regional player, India had invested around $3 billion in numerous developmental projects spanning across all the 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Indian presence was respected and valued by the ousted Afghan dispensation. With the US, India and many other countries deciding to close their embassies in Afghanistan and the US deciding to freeze Afghanistan’s foreign reserves amounting to $9.5 billion, the economy of the country has hit a grinding halt. IMF too has declared that Kabul won’t be able to access the $370 million funding which was agreed on earlier. The emerging circumstances are ripe for China and Pakistan to cut inroads into the war-torn country as the rest of the world watches mutely.

Beijing’s major gain would be the availability of Afghanistan as a regional connector in its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) linking the economies of Central Asia, Iran and Pakistan. Afghanistan is already a member of the BRI with the first Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2016. Only limited projects were conducted in Afghanistan under the initiative till now due to security concerns, geographic conditions and the government’s affinity towards India. Chinese officials have repeatedly expressed interest in Afghanistan joining the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor), a signature undertaking of the BRI. CPEC is a $62 billion project which would link Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province to China’s western Xinjiang region. The plan includes power plants, an oil pipeline, roads and railways that improves trade and connectivity in the region.

China also eyes at an estimated $1 trillion mineral deposits in Afghanistan, which includes huge reserves of lithium, a key component for electric vehicles. This mineral wealth is largely untapped due lack of proper networks and unstable security conditions long-prevalent in the country. Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi hosted Taliban representatives in late June in Tianjin to discuss reconciliation and reconstruction process in Afghanistan. Taliban reciprocated by inviting China to “play a bigger role in future reconstruction and economic development” of the country. After the fall of Kabul, China has kept its embassy open and declared it was ready for friendly relations with the Taliban. It had also announced that it would send $31 million worth of food and health supplies to Afghanistan to tide over the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Pakistan, a close ally of China, has on its part has sent supplies such as cooking oil and medicines to the Afghan authorities. Pakistan having strong historical ties with the Taliban will possibly play a crucial role in furthering Chinese ambitions..

The immediate economic fallout of the crisis for Iran is its reduced access to hard currency from Afghanistan. After the imposition of US sanctions, Afghanistan had been an important source of dollars for Iran. Reports suggest that hard currency worth $5million was being transferred to Iran daily before the Taliban takeover. Now the US has put a freeze on nearly $9.5 billion in assets belonging to Afghan Central Bank and stopped shipment of cash to the country. The shortage of hard currency is likely to affect the exchange rates in Iran subsequently building up inflationary pressure. Over the years, Afghanistan had emerged as a major destination for Iran’s non-oil exports amounting to $2billion a year. A prolonged crisis would curb demand in Afghanistan including that of Iranian goods with a likely reduction in the trade volume between the two countries. In effect, Iran would find itself increasingly isolated from foreign governments and international financial flows.

India had been the wariest regional spectator watching its $3 billion investment in Afghanistan go up in smoke. Long-standing hostility with Pakistan has prevented land-based Indian trade with Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republic’s (CAR’s). Push by India and other stakeholders for setting a common agenda for alternate connectivity appears susceptible at the moment. India has been working with Iran to develop Chabahar port in the Arabian sea and transport goods shipped from India to Afghanistan and Central Asia through the proposed Chabahar-Zahedan-Mashhad railway line. India is also working with Russia on the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200 km long multi-mode network of ship, rail and road routes for freight movement, whereby Indian goods are received at Iranian ports of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar, moves northward via rail and road through Iran and Azerbaijan and meets the Trans-Siberian rail network that will allow access to the European markets. According to the latest reports, the Taliban declined to join talks with India, Iran and Uzbekistan on Chabahar port and North-South Transport Corridor, which has cast shadow on the Indian interests in the region. India’s trade with Afghanistan had steadily increased to reach the US $1.5 billion in 2019–2020. An unfriendly administration and demand constraints may slow down the trade between the two countries.

With the US withdrawal, the CARs would find their strategic and economic autonomy curtailed and more drawn into the regional power struggle between China and Russia. While China has many infrastructure projects in Central Asia to its credit, Russia is trying to woo Central Asian countries into the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), though so far it was able to rope in only Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. CARs would need better connectivity through Afghanistan and Iran to diversify their trade relations with Indo-Pacific nations and to have better leverage to bargain with Russia and China. Uzbekistan, the most fervent of the CARs to demand increased connectivity with South Asia, expressed its interest in joining the Chabahar project in 2020, which was duly welcomed by India. The new developments in Afghanistan would force these countries to remodel their strategies to suit the changed geopolitical realities.

The fact that Iran is getting closer to China by signing a 25-Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership cooperation agreement in 2020 adds yet another dimension to the whole picture. India’s hesitancy to recognize or engage with the Taliban makes it unpredictable what the future holds for India-Afghan relations.

The hasty US exit has caused rapid reorientation in the geopolitical and geo-economic status-quo of the region. Most countries were unprepared to handle the swiftness of the Taliban takeover and were scrambling for options to deal with the chaos. The lone exception was China which held talks with the Taliban as early as July, 28 weeks before the fall of Kabul, to discuss the reconstruction of the war-torn country. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi also took a high-profile tour to Central Asia in mid-July which extensively discussed the emerging situation in Afghanistan with Central Asian leaders. Since the West has passed the buck, it’s up to the regional players to restore the economic stability in Afghanistan and ensure safe transit routes through the country. Any instability in Afghanistan is likely to have harrowing repercussions in the neighbourhood, as well.

Continue Reading

Economy

Turkish Economy as the Reset Button of Turkish Politics

Published

on

Democracy has a robust relationship with economic growth.  Barrington Moore can be seen as one of the leading scholars focusing on the relationship between political development and economic structure with his book titled “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy” first published in 1966. According to Moore, there are three routes from agrarianism to the modern industrial world. In the capitalist democratic route, exemplified by England, France, and the United States, the peasantry was politically impotent or had been eradicated all together, and a strong bourgeoisie was present, and the aristocracy allied itself with the bourgeoisie or failed to oppose democratizing steps. In Moore’s book, you can find out why some countries have developed as democracies and others as dictatorships.

It can be argued that economic development facilitates democratization. Following this argument, this article is an attempt to address the Turkish case with the most recent discussions going on in the country. One of the most powerful instruments used by the political opposition today is the rhetoric of “economic crisis” that has also been supported by public opinion polls and data. For instance, the leader of İYİ Party Meral Akşener has organized lots of visits to different regions of Turkey and has been posting videos on her social media account showing the complaints mostly centering around unemployment and high inflation. According to Akşener, “Turkey’s economic woes – with inflation above 15%, high unemployment and a gaping current account deficit – left no alternative to high rates.”

Another political opposition leader, Ahmet Davutoğlu raised voice of criticism via his social media account, saying “As if monthly prices hikes on natural gas were not enough, they have introduced 15% increase on electricity costs. It is as if the government vowed to do what it can to take whatever the citizens have.”

A recent poll reveals that about 65 percent think the economic crisis and unemployment problem are Turkey’s most urgent problems. Literature on the relationship between democracy and economic well-being shows that a democratic regime becomes more fragile in countries where per capita income stagnates or declines. It is known that democracies are more powerful among the economically developed countries.

The International Center for Peace and Development summarizes the social origins of democracy in global scale as the following:

“Over the past two centuries, the rise of constitutional forms of government has been closely associated with peace, social stability and rapid socio-economic development. Democratic countries have been more successful in living peacefully with their neighbors, educating their citizens, liberating human energy and initiative for constructive purposes in society, economic growth and wealth generation.”

Turkey’s economic problems have been on the agenda for a long time. Unlike what has been claimed by the Minister of Interior Affairs Süleyman Soylu a few months ago, Turkish economy has not reached to the level which would make United States and Germany to become jealous of Turkey. Soylu had said, “You will see, as of July, our economy will take such a leap and growth in July that Germany, France, England, Italy and especially the USA, which meddles in everything, will crack and explode.”

To make a long story short, it can be said that the coronavirus pandemic has exerted a major pressure on the already fragile economy of Turkey and this leads to further frustration among the Turkish electorate. The next elections will not only determine who will shape the economic structure but will also show to what level Turkish citizens have become unhappy about the ongoing “democratic politics.” In other words, it can be said that, Turkish economy can be seen as the reset button of Turkish politics for the upcoming elections.

Continue Reading

Economy

Finding Fulcrum to Move the World Economics

Published

on

Domenico Fetti / Wikimedia Commons

Where hidden is the fulcrum to bring about new global-age thinking and escape current mysterious economic models that primarily support super elitism, super-richness, super tax-free heavens and super crypto nirvanas; global populace only drifts today as disconnected wanderers at the bottom carrying flags of ‘hate-media’ only creating tribal herds slowly pushed towards populism. Suppose, if we accept the current indices already labeled as success as the best of show of hands, the game is already lost where winners already left the table. Finding a new fulcrum to move the world economies on a better trajectory where human productivity measured for grassroots prosperity is a critically important but a deeply silent global challenge. Here are some bold suggestions

ONE- Global Measurement: World connectivity is invisible, grossly misunderstood, miscalculated and underestimated of its hidden powers; spreading silently like an invisible net, a “new math” becomes the possible fulcrum for the new business world economy; behold the ocean of emerging global talents from new economies, mobilizing new levels of productivity, performance and forcing global shifts of economic powers. Observe the future of borderless skills, boundary less commerce and trans-global public opinion, triangulation of such will simply crush old thinking.

Archimedes yelled, “…give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world…”

After all, half of the world during the last decade, missed the entrepreneurial mindset, understoodonly as underdog players of the economy, the founders, job-creators and risk-taker entrepreneurs of small medium businesses of the world, pushed aside while kneeling to big business staged as institutionalized ritual. Although big businesses are always very big, nevertheless, small businesses and now globally accepted, as many times larger. Study deeply, why suddenly now the small medium business economy, during the last budgetary cycles across the world, has now become the lone solution to save dwindling economies. Big business as usual will take care of itself, but national economies already on brink left alone now need small business bases and hard-core raw entrepreneurialism as post-pandemic recovery agendas.

TWO – Ground Realities:  National leadership is now economic leadership, understanding, creating and managing, super-hyper-digital-platform-economies a new political art and mobilization of small midsize business a new science: The prerequisites to understand the “new math” is the study of “population-rich-nations and knowledge rich nations” on Google and figure out how and why can a national economy apply such new math. 

Today a USD $1000 investment in technology buys digital solutions, which were million dollars, a decade ago.Today,a $1000 investment buys on global-age upskilling on export expansion that were million dollars a decade ago.  Today, a $1000 investment on virtual-events buys what took a year and cost a million dollars a decade ago. Today, any micro-small-medium-enterprise capable of remote working models can save 80% of office and bureaucratic costs and suddenly operate like a mini-multi-national with little or no additional costs.

Apply this math to population rich nations and their current creation of some 500 million new entrepreneurial businesses across Asia will bring chills across the world to the thousands of government departments, chambers of commerce and trade associations as they compare their own progress. Now relate this to the economic positioning of ‘knowledge rich nations’ and explore how they not only crushed their own SME bases, destroyed the middle class but also their expensive business education system only produced armies of resumes promoting job-seekers but not the mighty job-creators. Study why entrepreneurialism is neither academic-born nor academic centric, it is after all most successful legendary founders that created earth shattering organizations were only dropouts.  Now shaking all these ingredients well in the economic test tube wait and let all this ferment to see what really happens.

Now picking up any nation, selecting any region and any high potential vertical market; searching any meaningful economic development agenda and status of special skills required to serve such challenges, paint new challenges. Interconnect the dots on skills, limits on national/global exposure and required expertise on vertical sectors, digitization and global-age market reach. Measuring the time and cost to bring them at par, measuring the opportunity loss over decades for any neglect. Combining all to squeeze out a positive transformative dialogue and assemble all vested parties under one umbrella.

Not to be confused with academic courses on fixing Paper-Mache economies and broken paper work trails, chambers primarily focused on conflict resolutions, compliance regulations, and trade groups on policy matters.  Mobilization of small medium business economy is a tactical battlefield of advancements of an enterprise, as meritocracy is the nightmarish challenges for over 100 plus nations where majority high potential sectors are at standstill on such affairs. Surprisingly, such advancements are mostly not new funding hungry but mobilization starved. Economic leadership teams of today, unless skilled on intertwining super-hyper-digital-platform-economic agendas with local midsize businesses and creating innovative excellence to stand up to global competitiveness becomes only a burden to growth.

The magnifying glass of mind will find the fulcrum: High potential vertical sectors and special regions are primarily wide-open lands full of resources and full of talented peoples; mobilization of such combinations offering extraordinary power play, now catapulted due to technologies. However, to enter such arenas calls for regimented exploring of the limits of digitization, as Digital-Divides are Mental Divides, only deeper understanding and skills on how to boost entrepreneurialism and attract hidden talents of local citizenry will add power. Of course, knowing in advance, what has already failed so many times before will only avoid using a rubber hose as a lever, again.  

The new world economic order: There is no such thing as big and small as it is only strong and weak, there is no such thing as rich and poor it is only smart and stupid. There is no such thing as past and future is only what is in front now and what is there to act but if and or when. How do you translate this in a post pandemic recovery mode? Observe how strong, smart moving now are advancing and leaving weak, stupid dreaming of if and when in the dust behind.

The conclusion: At the risk of never getting a Nobel Prize on Economics, here is this stark claim; any economy not driven solely based on measuring “real value creation” but primarily based on “real value manipulation” is nothing but a public fraud. This mathematically proven, possibly a new Fulcrum to move the world economy, in need of truth

The rest is easy  

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Reports26 mins ago

Study of Diversity Shows Scale of Opportunity in Media and Entertainment Industries

The World Economic Forum’s Power of Media Initiative has compiled a first-of-its-kind compilation of the state of diversity and representation...

South Asia4 hours ago

Afghanistan and the Quest for Democracy Promotion: Symptoms of Post-Cold War Malaise

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the first step in a reduced American overseas force posture. Democracy promotion in...

Middle East6 hours ago

UAE-Israel relations risk being built on questionable assumptions

A year of diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel has proven to be mutually beneficial. The question...

Americas8 hours ago

Afghanistan and Beginning of the Decline of American Power

Has America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan spoiled its global standing? The pictures of retreating American soldiers at Kabul International Airport...

Defense10 hours ago

North Korea’s Nuclear Shadow: A Worrisome Expansion

Abstract: The nuclear news from North Korea remains clear and threatening.  Ignoring both political warnings and legal prohibitions, Kim Jong...

Russia14 hours ago

Russia’s Blueprint For Success in the Middle East

As a tradition in the modern world the Middle East remains unstable. Continuous political turbulence in the region extinguishes all...

pakistan-terrorism pakistan-terrorism
Terrorism21 hours ago

India’s view of “terrorism: at the UNGA?

At the recent United Nations’ general Assembly session, India was furious at mention of Kashmir by Pakistan’s prime minister Imran...

Trending