Trump vs. China
Back in 1930, the US introduced the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised their already high tariffs, triggering a currency war and, as economists argue, exacerbating the Great Depression. With President Donald Trump’s threat to put 10% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese imports that aren’t subject to his existing levies, sending markets tumbling from Asia to Europe, the question on everyone’s lips is: Is history about to repeat itself?
In August, in a bid to hit back against Trump’s administration, Beijing allowed the Chinese yuan to plummet past the symbolically important $7 mark. Economists suggest that this currency manipulation is China’s attempt to display dominance and gain the upper hand in the trade war between the two countries as devaluating its currency could help counteract the effects of US’s long list of tariffs on Chinese goods.
As protectionist actions escalate and US-China relations continue deteriorating, investors and markets have been growing increasingly concerned even though Trump has delayed the imposition of his new tariffs until December. A full-blown trade war wouldn’t be good news to anyone and could seriously weaken the global economy, as the IMF has warned, making the world “poorer and more dangerous place”. Both sides are expected to experience losses in economic welfare, while countries on the sidelines could experience collateral damage. Furthermore, if tariffs remain in place, losses in economic output would be permanent, as distorted price signals would prevent the specialisation that maximises global productivity. The one thing that’s certain, no matter how things pan out, is that there will be no winners in this war.
Economists suggest that this currency manipulation is China’s attempt to display dominance and gain the upper hand in the trade war between the two countries as devaluating its currency could help counteract the effects of US’s long list of tariffs on Chinese goods.
Cyberattacks & data fraud
Millions, if not billions, of people’s data has been affected by numerous data breaches in the past couple of years, whilst cyberattacks on both public and private businesses and institutions are becoming a more and more frequent occurrence. With the deepening integration of digital technologies into every aspect of our lives and the dependency we have on them, cybercrime is one of the greatest threats to every company in the world.
Cyberattacks are rapidly increasing in size, sophistication and cost, as cybercrime and data breaches can trigger extensive losses. In 2016, Cybersecurity Ventures predicted that cybercrime will cost the world $6 trillion annually by 2021, up from $3 trillion in 2015. According to them, ”this represents the greatest transfer of economic wealth in history, risks the incentives for innovation and investment, and will be more profitable than the global trade of all major illegal drugs combined”.
Emerging Markets crisis
Since the early 1990s, emerging markets have been a key part of investors’ portfolios, as they have been offering strong returns and faster growth. However, global trade tensions, a stronger US dollar and rising interest rates have hit emerging markets hard. Still far from catching up with the developed world, many supposedly emerging markets are developing at a slower pace, which combined with the threat of a global trade war and higher borrowing costs on the rise, has made investors pull in their horns. Emerging markets are the ones feeling the strain and financial panic has been gripping some of the world’s developing economies.
With political instability, external imbalances and poor policymaking which has led to full-blown currency crises in the two nations, Turkey and Argentina have been at the centre of an emerging market sell-off last year. But they are not the only emerging economies faced with a currency crisis – according to the EIU, some economies which are already in the danger zone and could suffer from the same currency volatility include Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.
Still far from catching up with the developed world, many supposedly emerging markets are developing at a slower pace, which combined with the threat of a global trade war and higher borrowing costs on the rise, has made investors pull in their horns.
If the currency crises in Turkey and Argentina continue and develop into banking crises, analysts predict that investors could abandon emerging markets across the globe. “Market sentiment remains fragile, and pressure on emerging markets as a group could re-emerge if market risk appetite deteriorates further than we currently expect”, the EIU explains.
Climate crisis
In recent months, the media is constantly flooded with reports on the horrifying environmental risks that the climate crisis the Earth is in the midst of poses, but we’re also only starting to come to grips with the potential economic effects that may come with it.
Despite the significant degrees of uncertainty, results of numerous analyses and research vary widely. A US government report from November 2018 raised the prospect that a warmer planet could mean a big hit to GDP. The Stern Review, presented to the British Government in 2006, suggests that this could happen because of climate-related costs such as dealing with increased extreme weather events and stresses to low-lying areas due to sea level rises. These could include the following scenarios:
- Decrease in agricultural areas crop yields due to hotter weather and draught.
- Rebuilding roads that have been destroyed by flooding caused by rising seas and more frequent hurricanes.
- Having to build more efficient power grids because the existing ones are not able to withstand extreme weather conditions.
Due to climate change, low-lying, flood-prone areas are currently at a high risk of becoming uninhabitable, or at least uninsurable. Numerous industries across numerous locations could cease to exist and the map of global agriculture is expected to shift. In an attempt to adapt, people might begin moving to areas which will be affected by a warmer climate in a more favourable way.
A US government report from November 2018 raised the prospect that a warmer planet could mean a big hit to GDP.
All in all, the economic implications of the greatest environmental threat humanity has ever faced range from massive shifts in geography, demographics and technology – with each one affecting the other.
Brexit
Fears that the UK could be on the brink of its first recession in 10 years have been growing after figures showed a 0.2% contraction in the country’s economy between April and June 2019. A weakening global economy and high levels of uncertainty mean the UK’s economic activity was already lagging, but the potential of a no-deal Brexit and the general uncertainty surrounding the UK’s departure from the EU, running down on stock built up before the original 29th March departure date, falling foreign investment and car plant shutdowns have resulted in its GDP decreasing by 0.2% in Q2. This is the first fall in quarterly GDP the country has seen in six and a half years and as the new deadline (31st October) approaches, economists are concerned that it could lead to a second successive quarter of negative growth – which is the dictionary definition of recession.
And whilst the implications of Brexit are mainly expected to be felt in the country itself, the whole Brexit process displays the risks that can come from economic and political fragmentation, illustrating what awaits in an increasingly fractured global economy, e.g. less efficient economic interactions, complicated cross-border financial flows and less resilience and agility. As Mohamed El-Erian explains: “in this context, costly self-insurance will come to replace some of the current system’s pooled-insurance mechanisms. And it will be much harder to maintain global norms and standards, let alone pursue international policy harmonisation and coordination”. Additionally, he goes on to note that tax and regulatory arbitrage are likely to become more common, whilst economy policymaking could become a tool for addressing national security concerns.
“Lastly, there will also be a change in how countries seek to structure their economies”, El-Erian continues. “In the past, Britain and other countries prided themselves as “small open economies” that could leverage their domestic advantages through shrewd and efficient links with Europe and the rest of the world. But now, being a large and relatively closed economy might start to seem more attractive. And for countries that do not have that option – such as smaller economies in east Asia – tightly knit regional blocs might provide a serviceable alternative.”
The White House is on fire. Every day – almost every few hours – new scandals are breaking. From investigations about Russian collusion to alleged obstruction of justice, the blaze is white hot. But when it comes to the world of businesses and law, it's not the alleged criminal law bombshells that are causing the most panic. James Goodnow, talks to Finance Monthly.
On June 1st, US President Donald Trump formally announced what everyone knew was coming: the US is out of the Paris Climate Accord. The announcement and its build up set off another explosion the likes of which Trump and his Twitter account aren't as accustomed to fighting: a neck-snapping backlash from the business community and the lawyers who represent them.
Trump Thumbs His Nose at Business
“Global warming is an expensive hoax!” Donald Trump famously — or infamously — tweeted in January 2014. With that shot across the bow at the global scientific community, Trump started his war against climate change. His claim served as a rallying cry for his base supporters — many of whom believed that rejecting limits on carbon emissions would lead to a resurgence of US jobs in the coal industry. And the strategy was largely successful, catapulting Trump into the White House.
Despite Trump's bluster, the business community largely took a wait-and-see approach following Trump's election. The reason: Trump engaged in plenty of campaign hyperbole that was ultimately dialed back once he assumed office. Obamacare "repeal and replace" is stalled, construction has not started on Trump's border wall with Mexico, and his travel ban has been blocked by the courts. Perhaps the withdrawal from the Paris Accord would end with the same fate: a promise that would be delayed or not fulfilled.
The business world miscalculated. What business leaders monitoring the situation failed to account for is the fact Trump was backed into a corner. He needed a win with his base. And withdrawal from the Paris Accord is one of the only "successes" he could accomplish unilaterally.
The Business World's Reaction
The response from the business and legal community has been swift. On June 1, 25 major US companies, including juggernauts Apple, Facebook, Google and PG&E signed an open letter to the president that appeared in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The letter makes the business case for the Paris Accord: "Climate change presents both business risks and business opportunities."
The day before the announcement, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave Trump an informal ultimatum on Twitter, saying he will have "no choice but to depart" from Trump advisory councils if Trump pulled the plug on the Paris Accord. Musk's comments are not isolated. Since the election, over 1000 businesses signed the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement.
The chorus of voices coming from the business community is united by a common theme: US withdrawal from the Paris Accord is not only ethically questionable, but leads to dangerous instability for business. Every day, business leaders make difficult decisions about where to allocate resources. A stable and uniform framework allows businesses to confidently invest in technology that will last into the future. According to the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement: "Investment in the low carbon economy ... give[s] financial decision-makers clarity and boost[s] the confidence of investors worldwide."
Legal Community Reaction
Trump's decision has also put lawyers into hyper-drive. Within Washington, there is widespread disagreement about the legal implications of Trump's move. Last week, a group of 22 US lawmakers, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, warned Trump in a letter that his failure to withdraw from the Paris Accord could open the litigation floodgates: “Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk." But it's far from clear that US withdrawal from the Paris Accord will immunize the White House from the courts – with groups that favor the agreement already having vowed to sue.
In-house lawyers are no doubt sweating, as well. Lawyers at large corporations with operations in the United States are tasked with providing recommendations to business leadership on what they can and can't do from a regulatory perspective. With Trump pulling the US out the Paris Accord, lawyers now have to look to domestic regulations — a scheme that itself could be turned upside down — and try to reconcile those with international protocols. All of this uncertainty may translate into lawyers feeling like they are walking on quicksand.
Trump's Political Miscalculation?
Trump prides himself on operating on instinct. Prior to making his decision to pull out from the Paris Accord, he no doubt felt the rumblings of this business backlash coming. Why, then, did he move forward? Part of the answer may lie in his examining his base. Recent polls show that, for the first time, Trump's support among his core supporters is starting to erode. And that may spell danger for Trump, who relied on a mobilized and rock-solid base to ride into the White House. Trump thus decided that his need for a political victory and appeasing his base was worth the kickback from the business community.
But Trump may be missing something here. According to many reports, moderate conservatives and centrists who voted for Trump did so in part because they believed his rhetoric was nothing more than puffing that wouldn't ultimately be acted on. They were willing to throw their support behind him believing that he would revert to more traditional GOP, pro-business values.
But Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord demonstrates that Trump isn't all talk. When his back is against the wall, he is willing to act – even if it means acting against the interests of non-base voters who helped elect him. That realization may alienate the critical segment of the business electorate he needs to win again in 2020. More immediately, it may spell trouble for Republican members of Congress in 2018.
The White House is on fire. But it may not be heat from the blaze that stops Trump politically – but rather a cooling to Trump and his policies from moderate Republicans and the business world.
James Goodnow is an attorney and legal and political commentator based in the United States. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Santa Clara University. You can follow him on Twitter at @JamesGoodnow or email him directly at james@jamesgoodnow.com.
