Trade

Could this be the death of the dollar?

philmullan Changing world order, Debt, Geopolitics, Trade

The single most important prop sustaining the US economy today is the global power of the dollar. America’s current relative prosperity (which until recently was dubbed ‘US exceptionalism’) rests far more on the role of its currency than on its tech companies, abundant resources or famed entrepreneurial spirit. Because the dollar is accepted as world money, when the American state and its corporations spend or borrow abroad, foreigners have been willing buyers. This has enabled a seemingly endless flow of cheap money to support the economy at home.

Today, however, this special benefit is looking increasingly vulnerable. And the greatest threat to the dollar’s status doesn’t come from Russia or China or even Europe, but from the US government’s own actions.

Read the full article here.

The death of the West?

philmullan Changing world order, Geopolitics, Politics, Rivalries, Trade

‘There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen’, Vladimir Lenin is supposed to have said. But the globalised world order collapsing within the space of weeks would be momentous even by the Bolshevik leader’s standards. This is certainly what many international politics watchers think is happening.

Bronwen Maddox, director of the Chatham House think-tank, has said that the concept of the West as an alliance of liberal democracies is ‘probably’ over. Michael Clarke, a former director general of the Royal United Services Institute, has been more forthright. ‘The West is dead’, he said. Meanwhile Marc Chandler, chief strategist at Bannockburn Global Forex, has said that Trump’s policies will ‘end globalisation’.

The problem with these obituaries to the West, these valedictions to the world order and to globalisation, is that they assume that a decisive transition has taken place in recent weeks. But this is not what is happening. Rather these declarations express the dawning, and deepening, recognition by the west’s elites of the existing instability of global politics and economics, even though this has been so for some time.

In truth, the geopolitical and economic shifts and fractures that Trump has brought to the fore over the past few weeks have been taking place for years.

Read the full article here.

Trump is hardly the West’s only trade warrior

philmullan Creative destruction, Economic growth, Geopolitics, State intervention, Trade

Enough of the hyperbole about Trump’s tariffs. His tariffs are wrong, but so is the rest of the west’s obsession with Trump-driven trade wars. For a start the hysteria over Trump’s tariffs ignores, and distracts, from just how protectionist most mature economies have become. Protectionism in its many forms impedes the domestic business investments needed for productivity growth. And the parallel fear-mongering about a ‘trade war’ is clouding the bigger geopolitical, as well as the economic issues, at stake today.

Read the full article here.

Video introducing my latest book “Beyond Confrontation”

philmullan Politics, Rivalries, State intervention, The longest depression, Trade

My latest book “Beyond Confrontation: Globalists, Nationalists and Their Discontents” addresses the escalation of international rivalries – West-East, US-China and intra-Western – all of which have been amplified by the impact of the pandemic.  In this short video posted on LinkedIn I explain more about the book.

Brexit: it’s time to seize the day

philmullan Brexit, Politics, Trade

There was rather too much ‘shock-and-horror’ reaction to a recent interview with Sajid Javid, the UK chancellor, who merely said that Britain could diverge from European Union rules after Brexit. ‘There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule-taker, we will not be in the Single Market and we will not be in the Customs Union – and we will do this by the end of the year.’ Businesses, he suggested, should get on with adapting to these unfamiliar circumstances.

The ‘surprise’ shown by business organisations seemed a tad overdone. What did they, or anyone else following developments since the 2016 referendum, expect? That Britain would forever remain a rule-taker from the European Commission? The truculent reaction to what Javid said is not credible from those with even a rudimentary grasp of the meaning of sovereignty: a nation deciding its own laws and regulations.

Countries do not often adopt fully aligned, identical rules to others in order to trade with them. For instance, the Chinese and the Americans today export a lot to customers in the EU without aligning to Single Market rules. Indeed, the recognition of regulatory ‘equivalence’ – rather than exact congruence – has become a common practice in postwar economic relations. Countries accept the flow of products and services that accord with regulations established by others as long as regulatory goals are shared. This is what is meant by ‘outcome-based equivalence’.

Why should any future UK-EU deal be different in this respect to the hundreds of other trade agreements between sovereign nations? A reason for doubt could be the European Commission’s desire to ‘have its cake and eat it’. It appears that some EU politicians want to treat Britain as a ‘third country’ but also want to retain control over Britain’s rules and regulations, as if it were still a member state. Javid was simply reminding the world that the General Election mandate prevents the British government from going along with such a half-in, half-out position.

Read the full article here.