Why the establishment were clean-bowled by Trump

Forget private email servers and sex tapes. Forget men versus women. This election was decided on the following three issues:

1. Globalization.

Currency manipulation by emerging economies like China and consequent offshoring of blue-collar jobs has gutted the US manufacturing sector. Accumulation of $4 trillion of foreign reserves enabled China to suppress appreciation of the Yuan and maintain a competitive advantage against US manufacturers.

China Foreign Reserves ex-Gold

Container imports and exports at the Port of Los Angeles (FY 2016) highlight the problem. More than 57% of outbound containers are empty. Container shipping represents mainly manufactured goods, rather than bulk imports or exports, and the dearth of manufactured exports reflects the trade imbalance with Asia. Even the container statistic understates the problem as many outbound containers contained scrap metal and paper rather than manufactured goods, for processing in Asia.

Port of Los Angeles (FY 2016) Container Traffic

Manufacturing job losses were tolerated by the political establishment, I suspect, largely because corporate profits were boosted greatly by offshoring jobs and low-cost imports. And corporations are the biggest political donors. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP almost doubled over the last two decades.

Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP

2. Immigration

This is a similar issue to that highlighted by the UK/Brexit vote. Blue collar workers, losing jobs to globalization, felt threatened by high levels of immigration which, among other problems, stepped up competition for increasingly-scarce jobs.

3. Wall Street

Wall Street bankers with their million-dollar bonuses were blamed for the global financial crisis and collapse of the housing market, the primary store of wealth for middle-class families. While there is no doubt Wall Street had their snouts in the trough, the seeds of the GFC were laid years earlier when Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act with backing from a Republican congress. Failure to prosecute or otherwise punish even the worst offenders of the sub-prime mortgage debacle was seen by the public as collusion.

The Democrats in 2015 recognized that Hillary had been damaged by the private email server controversy and did their best to maneuver the election into a Trump-Clinton stand-off. Their view was that Hillary would be beaten by either Rubio or Kasich. Even the reviled Ted Cruz was seen as a threat. Hillary was seen as having the best chance against a flawed Trump who would struggle to unite the Republican party behind him.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton was presented as the ‘safe’ candidate in the election, representing the status quo and stability. But that set her up for a fall as their strategy underestimated the anger of American voters and the risks they were prepared to take to bring about change.

While I am relieved that we can “close the history book on the Clintons”, to use Trump’s words, I viewed him as a lame-duck candidate, too flawed to hold the office of President. Fortunately there are many checks and balances in the US political system. It survived Nixon and should be able to survive this too. Especially if Trump takes a hands-off approach, along the lines of Reagan who was reputed to doze off in cabinet meetings. A lot will depend on his appointees and the next few months will be critical in setting the direction for his presidency. Expect financial markets to remain volatile until they have grown accustomed to the change. It could take a year or even longer.

EUROPP – Divided Nations: Why global governance is failing, and what we can do about it

Ian Goldin, Professor of Globalization and Development at the University of Oxford, discusses the challenges of cross-border governance presented by globalization and presents 5 core principles necessary for a solution:

….Yesterday’s structures are not equipped to deal with today’s problems, but thankfully it is not too late. Aggressive action must be taken, and such action would be effective if it incorporates five core principles which I have developed together with my Oxford colleague, Ngaire Woods. First, global action is only required on global problems. Local jurisdictions matter and should continue to address local and national problems on their own terms.

Second, while not everyone must be included in global negotiations, inclusion of key actors is essential. It is an obvious point that if the biggest polluters are left out of climate change agreements, the agreement is useless—but this principle must be central to any reform efforts.

Third, efficiency is essential. Unwieldy bodies that include everyone are worse than nimble, exclusive bodies that involve the key players. Who are the key players? It depends on the issue. The small island nation of the Maldives, sinking from rising sea levels, should not be included in questions about regulating climate change but must be included on negotiations about mitigating its impacts. If small groups of key countries with much at stake are involved, gridlock can be broken.

Fourth, legitimacy is required for effective global governance. A system must be in place wherein countries may disagree with certain rules of the game, but accept the referees. Fifth, enforceability is paramount. None of these principles matter if they cannot be enforced.

Global governance is the challenge of our time. Our arsenal of stale institutions cannot cope with existing threats to peace, stability, and prosperity. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together. It’s time we start acting like it.

Read more at EUROPP – Divided Nations: Why global governance is failing, and what we can do about it.

Is the market overpriced? Episode IV

In my last post I said that, with interest rates, tax rates and real wages at historic lows, corporations are likely to make fat profits over the next few years and stocks remain reasonably buoyant. But at least one of these factors can be expected to change.

  1. Recovery of the housing market would cause the Fed to lift interest rates;
  2. Revision of the tax code by a President who can work with both sides of the House; or
  3. A dramatic fall in exchange rates placing upward pressure on wages as manufacturers regain export markets.

What I did not emphasize is that none of the above are likely to occur without a strong economic recovery — and the net effect of any change could well be a boost to corporate earnings.

What also dawned on me after reading The Inequality Puzzle by Larry Summers is that there may be a common thread. The impact of new technologies over the last two decades and access to cheap labor through increased globalization may have created a sustainable increase in corporate profits as a percentage of GNP. Could this time really be different? Only time will tell. I will be watching sales growth and profit margins over the next few years with interest.

French Industrial Policies Are Aiding Rapid Decline of Peugeot – SPIEGEL ONLINE

By Dietmar Hawranek and Isabell Hülsen:

When Helping Is Hurting
Ironically, the victims of these two developments — focusing on production in France and high wage increases — are those whose cause is being championed by governments and labor representatives: the autoworkers themselves. Workers at the [Peugeot] Aulnay plant had to look on as their company went into gradual decline. Aulnay was once one of the most modern plants in the country, annually producing more than 400,000 cars. Today, fewer than 140,000 vehicles roll off its assembly lines each year. An auto plant that produces so few vehicles can hardly be profitable. If President Hollande and the unions compel Peugeot to keep the plant in operation, they will only accelerate the company’s demise.

via French Industrial Policies Are Aiding Rapid Decline of Peugeot – SPIEGEL ONLINE.