Speaking Loudly And Leaning On A Big Schtick

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Yesterday saw the regular schtick where the Middle East situation remains worrying, but markets reacted to more positive narratives. After four crew and two rescuers were killed in a Houthi Red Sea attack on a ship and the US struck another in the Gulf of Oman’ trying to break its Iran blockade; Iran said Hormuz will stay closed unless the US meets its over-reach conditions; Trump doubled down on economic warfare vs Tehran because he thinks it’s “bleeding badly” -with the other option still being to “hit them really hard”; yet the Wall Street Journal reported ‘Iran Is Defying US Pressure by Becoming a ‘Survival Economy’; Pakistan claimed a US-Iran deal is close, and US Energy Secretary Wright said far more oil is flowing through Hormuz than others estimate, suggesting the US doesn’t really need to act.

This routine will likely continue through to the US midterms – and then we will see what happens. The old presidential adage is that one should speak softly and carry a big stick. Speaking loudly and leaning on a big schtick is not going to work for ever. On which, recent reports that the US is ‘out of munitions’ are true for precision varieties, not more traditional types that need to be used in greater proximity. If the US isn’t ultimately prepared to take those kinds of risks in a war against Iran, it will carry a geopolitical message that will not speak softly at all.

What the US (and allies) are running low on is Patriot missile defences. Yet just after the Pentagon gave US military industries 21 days to submit plans for “significantly faster” weapons production, Boeing has unveiled a cheap radar seeker built from off-the-shelf parts. They say necessity is the mother of invention; just not of higher margins, perhaps. (Then again, as I have repeatedly stressed, wars are won with bullets, not profits.) Yet much broader structural shifts in economics, not just economies, is evident on the ground and the Establishment intellectual level.

The pro-free trade Economist argues China’s neo-mercantilist, Leninist trade model is so effective that no form of western capitalism can withstand it. Stop looking at your screen for a moment and contemplate what that implies both right now and going forwards.

The sine qua non free trade academic Paul Krugman just admitted two hundred years of positive-sum free-trade thinking has been a ”sunny view… based on the assumption that we care about economic prosperity, not national power” – which is not true. War is raging and economies, currencies, and commodities have been weaponised. He admits we now need to look at ‘geoeconomics’ instead, which is the history of zero-sum economic statecraft and neo-mercantilism.

Foreign Affairs (‘The Right Way to Balance Trade: What Comes After the Neoliberal Order’) attacks Trump’s tariffs but argues for a West+ bloc common tariff against China and any trans-shipment, with low intra-bloc trade restrictions for those who also don’t run large trade surpluses, and industrial policies. Regular readers might recall this is what we have previously argued was the logical US grand macro strategy – and that attacks on Canada and Europe, etc., could be attempts to force them into accepting the common external tariff over the heads of vested interests vociferously against them. (If so, would a carrot not be better than a stick? Perhaps: but this wasn’t a normative call, just a descriptive one.)

Some also point out that even as Europe warms up for a potential trade war with China, it does not grasp the scale of the change in the world economy is lives in.

In particular, the Chinese industries the EU will likely take aim at are now mature, so require few direct subsidies that the EU will be looking for; the Leninist Chinese model helps supersize future industries so they can then stand on their own two feet. What policy framework, and working with whom, will Europe ultimately put in place within a ‘rules-based approach’ to try to retain its mature industries and to ensure that it develops new ones? (The same question also applies to the US, of course.)

As a signal, Vietnam — a GDP growth star via a low valued-added, FDI-based, export-driven economic model– is pivoting: it now wants to grow its own Korean-style ‘chaebol’ conglomerates to boost productivity and growth longer term on its terms. Is it wrong to do so when it could instead be focusing on quarterly earnings reports and outsourcing everything that it can?

Football provides an analogy to what the above may mean for us all in time: the world’s Beautiful Game –which recall isn’t actually big in India, China, or the US, the three most populous and first-, second-, and fifth-largest economies– might split.

Trump backs FIFA President Infantino, under furious attack over a World Cup sale plan dreamed up during a hydration break. UEFA, with some other federations, are developing a new rival framework for running world game. Might we end up with World Cups with different rules, sponsors, and participants?

If so, note what was a medieval mob game took a long time to grow into the rules-based one played first by English gents before then becoming a globalized money-making behemoth; and that there were early splits between those who wanted to play only with feet and those who wanted to also handle the ball – which ultimately became other sports.

In short, the West needs to relearn the Beautiful Great Game. But are its universities teaching geoeconomics or neo-mercantilism to allow the next generation of leaders to think up, and the bureaucrats to implement, such policies? Are its economists really capable of adapting to that reality rather than giving the same old advice under a new label? Are its analysts capable of projecting the dots of what it all implies?

Notably, the ECB’s annual conference in September will be held under the title ‘Geoeconomics and the International Trading System’, but the participants are still economists rather than the likes of Edward Luttwak, who coined the phrase geoeconomics in 1990 to describe how the “logic of conflict” merges with the “grammar of commerce.”

Today, of course, we can put that all aside to focus on US CPI, as if it isn’t intimately tied up with the above backdrop. Here is an ugly game all of its own – and one where the ‘rules’ change all the time.