Australian democracy is in very serious jeopardy | Macrobusiness

By Houses and Holes on November 4, 2016:

Australian democracy is in very serious jeopardy. China is making great strides towards it and its intentions are not benevolent. It’s obvious in local, regional and global trends and if we do not do something soon to protect our freedoms they are going to be sold into the burgeoning Chinese empire, as well as political hegemony, by a corrupt oligarchy.

Some of you will tell me to take off my tin foil hat for writing this. To you I say ‘listen up’.

For the next few decades the global political economy will be a contest between post-cultural free moving capital and deeply cultural labour. This will mean ebbs and flows between investment and regulation in an overall trend towards de-globalisation.

As nation states rise from the past few decades of globalisation to protect their respective labour pools, there will be an increasing Balkanisation of trade and investment flows, particularly in terms of regions. One can foresee a time when a European trading bloc competes with American and Asian trading blocs as each’s respective hegemon – US, China and Germany – muscles out its sphere of influence.

In terms of the magnitude of these respective spheres, the biggest loser will be the United States as it is increasingly contested in North Asia. Europe may also lose as the eurozone either disintegrates or shrinks. China will win big.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing that China will grow to rule the world, nor that the US will decline and fall. In fact, I expect US economic dominance to outlast China’s great leap forward owing to its immense sophistication, markets, research capability and excellent demographics. On the other hand, China faces an extremely difficult transition through the ‘middle income trap’ and terrible demographics.

Nonetheless, the sheer magnitude of these economies and powers mean that the great regional Balkanisation will transpire.

Thus Australia will find itself an object of contest within a region caught between respectively receding and advancing Super Powers. We are already seeing this very clearly in the shifts undertaken by both the Philippines and Malaysia. Both nations are led by highly dubious democratic leaders under intense pressure from a traditional US ally to come clean on corruption.

Yet both have instead turned to China to prop up their respective regimes with enormous investment deals that have come with fabulous reciprocal endorsements for Beijing, Manila and Kuala Lumpur. This while the US’s rather foolishly self-serving TPP dies on the shelf.

At the risk of stereotyping, these new Asian power relationships much more resemble a Confucian model that privileges patronage and filial bonds above the probity and meritocracy of democracy.  China’s goals here are very obviously to undermine not just US influence but to empower local entities that are sympathetic to its interests. It may or not be an explicit goal to undermine democracies as well but if promoting local ‘strongmen’ does so then all the better!

Now turn to our local circumstances. Australia is the midst of a terms of trade boomlet engineered exclusively in Beijing. After decades of stupidly pro-cyclical policy-making Australia is now little more than a southern province of Chinese economic policy. With the flick of a pen in an obscure public service department, China delivers tens of billions to our shores in coal revenues and our monumental trade deficit evaporates overnight.

There is no other economy on earth that I know of that works with this dependence. We call it lucky. And it is. But it also comes with strings attached and they have been on display for a decade or more. Australian policy attitudes towards China have morphed steadily from a middle power engagement that included dialogues on human rights and democratic process to today’s pragmatic “do what you like boss” attitude.

I’m not writing to judge that. The kids of Tibet and Tienanmen are not Australian and there are limits to how much anyone can care about far flung folk. Especially when you’re offered a hundred billion dollar blindfold. Moreover, China needs Australian dirt to power its development so the power transmission is not all one way. The natural asymmetry of the political relationship is counter-balanced by the natural asymmetry of the economic one.

That’s the past. The future is very different indeed. China is going to need less and less dirt over time as it grows richer and more regionally powerful. And that’s where the recent events in the Philippines and Malaysia are a very important cautionary tale for Australian democracy. As we’ve seen, the next phase of Chinese development will be to throw off enormous sums of capital and people. Australia is happily gobbling up both at the moment to offset the declines in its dirt fortunes.

But this wave comes with much more explicit power compromises than we have already seen in action. The Sam Dastayari donations and rampaging property developer corruption scandals are the tip of the iceberg. Since then we’ve seen more and more Chinese bids for Australian strategic assets. This week we saw barely former trade minister Andrew Robb take a job advising the Landbridge Group, the owner of the Darwin Port. Landbridge is a shadowy firm involved in all sorts of stuff from chemicals to armed militias. It is widely considered to be beholden to Beijing in some way. At the very least the Darwin Port is the butt end of Beijing’s One Belt, One Road trade bloc monster. So here we have a trade minister out of the job for six months, a job that involved intimate consultation on the US’s competing regional trade deal, the TPP, tipping his intelligence directly into the Beijing trade bloc.

A less generous analyst might see this as some form of commercial treason. I will say that it is indicative of just how unprepared Australian parliaments are to address Chinese soft power influence in its manifold forms. Indeed, with the current crop of money-grubbing mock-libertarian ideologues in charge, we are a complete bloody pushover. Our checks and balances appear gossamer-thin in the executive. The intelligentsia is under assault from the Chinese student pipeline and pseudo-intellects like Bob Carr and his Chinese apologism. Nor can we rely on the media to hold any to account. Of the duopoly, Murdoch will give China the nod the moment the deal is good enough. Fairfax is dying and in its death throes has grabbed for a real estate lifeline that is itself China dependent.

It is not at all hard to imagine a circumstance like that that has engulfed the politics of the Philippines and Malaysia happening here. An Australian PM finds himself under siege and turns to Chinese patronage to bail him out. Explicitly or otherwise it will only take one desperate narcissist and Australia too will be welcomed into the waiting arms of Beijing patronage with all of its carrots and sticks determining precisely who wins and who loses Downunder. The following election would be fought between a candidate armed with hundreds of billions of dollars of firepower versus a guy promising recession.

So, I worry. I worry a lot, actually, that Australia is on the verge of giving away its most prized possession – its freedom – quietly in the dark for a few pieces of silver. To stop it we must move now, not tomorrow. We need:

  • a big to cut the immigration intake and a rein the “citizenship exports sector”;
  • an overhaul of the Chinese investment regime such that it be placed alongside the nation’s strategic objectives;
  • a ban on foreign political donations (where is it?) and a Federal ICAC;
  • a proper enforcement of rules governing foreign buying of real estate;
  • a reboot of foreign policy that engages the US much more heavily in Asia.

Another couple of years of current policies and a few more Andrew Robbs and Aussie democracy as we know it is toast.

Reproduced with kind permission from Macrobusiness.

Gold: “Trump rally” unlikely to last

Gold reacted with urgency to the news that Donald Trump was closing on Hillary Clinton in the polls. After a lackluster start the rally gained new energy in the last week, with the yellow metal climbing to test resistance at $1300/ounce.

Spot Gold

Experienced pollsters seem to think that Trump’s gains are too little and too late. According to GOP pollster Whit Ayres, in this PBS Newshour interview, Trump has about the same chance of winning as drawing an inside straight in poker. “He has spent his entire campaign preaching to the converted rather than reaching out to undecided voters….”

Unless there is an upset in next week’s election, I expect gold to respect resistance at $1300/ounce, followed by a test of primary support at $1200.

Obama’s Wrong: The New Cold War’s Only Just Begun | The Daily Beast

Michael Weiss writes: “From propaganda to missile deployments, Russian leader Vladimir Putin is testing Obama’s resolve—while claiming to be America’s victim”…..

Putin has demanded, as the price for restoring at least the first frozen accord, that Washington end all sanctions against Russian officials; pay reparations for any losses sustained from those sanctions as well as retaliatory ones imposed by Russia against U.S. entities; cancel the Magnitsky Act, a landmark human rights law passed in 2012 aimed at penalizing corrupt and murderous Russian officials; reduce NATO personnel forces to levels they were as of 2000; and essentially rewrite the original radioactive disposal deal so America bears the brunt of the responsibility for it.

In response to what was, even by Putin’s standards, a risible attempt at extortion, the Russian opposition’s Leonid Volkov wrote on Facebook: “He should have asked for Alaska back, eternal youth, Elon Musk and a ticket to Disneyland.”

….what a turn for Obama, who has spent the last eight years insisting that the “Cold War is over” only to spend the eve of his departure witnessing its renascence.

The response should be to talk softly and continue polishing that big stick.

Source: Barack Obama’s Wrong: The New Cold War’s Only Just Begun – The Daily Beast

Why Putin will fail | UPI.com

From Harlan Ullman:

Frozen conflicts are not in Russia’s long-term interest. Of course, while the short-term aim of preventing Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO because of contested borders is working, the long-term economic damage done to Russia will prove politically destructive. Putin certainly is riding a political tiger. However, he has no clear exit strategy for safely dismounting this dangerous beast. That is a fundamental predicament….

What should the United States do? First, common sense and not confrontation is the best means to exploit Putin’s political weaknesses. By threatening Russia, his public will rally around Putin. This does not mean granting concessions. It means being smart not petulant. It also means shifting NATO’s strategy to local defense based on a “porcupine” posture with emphasis on Stinger-like anti-air and Javelin anti-vehicle missiles all reinforced by alliance capabilities to blunt Russian cyber, propaganda, intimidation and other non-conventional forms of war.

Second, the United States needs to dial back on belligerent rhetoric. By all means plan for “full spectrum war.” But do not use a PR bullhorn to announce what is being done. Teddy Roosevelt applies — speak softly but carry a big stick….

Source: Why Russian President Vladimir Putin will fail – UPI.com

May Looks Beyond Brexit | Bloomberg

Robert Hutton at Bloomberg discusses Theresa May’s speech, Wednesday, at the Conservative Party’s annual conference:

….May’s comments mark a change of emphasis from the views of her predecessor. In his 11 years as Tory leader, David Cameron argued that the party needed to show that it was in touch with modern Britain by focusing on climate change and gay rights. May, by contrast, argues that the party needs to reach “ordinary working-class people.”

She’ll say she sees the role of the government as providing “what individual people, communities and markets cannot.” And she’ll argue that this means “providing security from crime, but from ill health and unemployment too. Supporting free markets, but stepping in to repair them when they aren’t working as they should. Encouraging business and supporting free trade, but not accepting one set of rules for some and another for everyone else.”

….three senior figures in May’s administration said financial-services companies would get no special favors. The extracts of May’s speech suggest she thinks Cameron was too focused on that sector. “If we act to correct unfairness and injustice and put government at the service of ordinary working people,” she’ll say, “we can build that new united Britain in which everyone plays by the same rules, and in which the powerful and the privileged no longer ignore the interests of the people.”

Source: May Looks Beyond Brexit to Portray Herself as Workers’ Tribune – Bloomberg

Kevin Andrews and the challenges for Australian conservatism

By William Hill:

The Liberals …have to decide how to confront the anti-business, anti-immigration trend that is developing on their right flank.

John Howard was able to manage One Nation by moderating his criticism and by appearing to assuage some of their concerns. On the BBC Howard responded to a criticism of his refugee policy by arguing that the handling of the former helped to mitigate opposition to orderly migration.

Concerns are real and perceived but the economic insecurity confronting so many Australians and their children is a palpable thing. Some people voice their frustration by voting for a moderate protectionist such as Nick Xenophon and others hitch themselves to One Nation’s more assertive and aggressive style. The Liberals are in difficulty when so many of its natural voters are suspicious of capitalism and the importation of more and more people into the country.

……The supporters of Hanson, Xenophon, Lambie and Katter do not feel that the present arrangements in parliament are working for them and we should not rush to dismiss them. We should also give these voters the benefit of the doubt that they do not share the faults and naiveties of the people they have elected. Andrews advocates a more conciliatory approach when it comes to Hanson’s supporters:

“You have to listen to their concerns, the fact that a person votes for One Nation doesn’t mean that they are a racist, redneck, homophobic whatever. Some might be but usually there is an underlying concern about the direction of the country and the direction of the economy that’s motivating them.”

That underlying concern is nothing less than their fear for their economic wellbeing and that of the next generation. If the Liberal Party is going to defend free enterprise, free trade and immigration against protectionists and nationalists then it had better do as Howard did successfully and give the concerns of the latter fair hearing.

Source: Kevin Andrews and the challenges for Australian conservatism after Hanson – On Line Opinion – 21/9/2016

Niall Ferguson: The West and the Rest – The Changing Global Balance of Power

Niall Ferguson is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University.

I would love to see Ferguson re-visit this 2011 talk every five years. One certainty about the future: it isn’t what we think it’s going to be. China’s economic rise seems to be slowing far more rapidly than was expected. Foreign reserves have declined by $800 billion in the last two years (from a peak of $4 trillion) through PBOC efforts to prevent the collapse of the Yuan in the face of rising interest rates from the Fed. China’s growth-through-infrastructure-investment model seems to have run its course and is now facing diminishing returns. Transition to a consumer society is not going to be easy. And China’s property bubble has created an extremely fragile banking system with massive bad debts.

On the plus side, Ferguson seems to have been right about rising Chinese nationalism — to deflect the population’s attention from enormous inequality in the distribution of wealth — and the CCP’s ability to maintain tight political control. Let’s hope that he is also right about China’s inability to suppress personal and political freedom in the long-term if it wants to maintain stable growth.

Margaret Thatcher: Interventions

The habit of ubiquitous interventionism, combining pinprick strikes by precision weapons with pious invocations of high principle, would lead us into endless difficulties. Interventions must be limited in number and overwhelming in their impact.