A Discomforting Certainty
by Mark P. Dangelo
The sound bites from Davos, politicians, and economists all warn of pending nationalism and a retraction of globalization. Arguments assert that any “buy internal” demands of consumers or governments will result in a severe and lasting depression, not to mention violation of international treaties and trade relationships.
Furthermore, according to world leaders, tens of millions more jobs linked with sustainable economic prosperity will be permanently lost in a matter of months if protectionist measures are passed. But how realistic are these fears? Are protectionism ascertains based in fact? What constitutes protectionism? Finally, are these suspicions grounded in today’s reality?
Like most Americans, I am not a protectionist. I firmly believe, as part of a mature society and economy, that Americans are globalization pragmatists who appreciate the interdependency and long-term benefits of inter-country economic cooperation. For the last 233 years, Americans have advocated and died for the rights of prosperity and freedom for all nations. How many countries have come to America expecting aid in times of their crisis? How many have been turned away?
However, unlike most American business personnel, I have spent nearly half of my career offshore setting up facilities and operations, conducting post-deal M&A integrations, and growing very fond of foreign cultures and the real value they can systematically deliver. Whereas, the net impact of these arrangements has been overwhelming positive, there were exceptions often created by self-important philosophies and overgeneralization of cultural challenges.
Nevertheless, bidirectional pragmatic globalization is extremely important for domestic interests, local consumers, and the offshore workers that benefit from increases in standards of living and cross-cultural business interactions.
Contrast this against older globalization ideals and iterations where one country was frequently disadvantaged at the long-term expense of the other. Older globalization consequences often manifested themselves in currency challenges, lopsided trade imbalances, market barriers, unsustainable engagement rules, and a correlated dependency on the consumer nation to continuously behave in historical roles (i.e., pure consumption versus global supplier).
However, as we must now recognize as precipitated by the on-going financial depression, adherence of the older globalization ideals make good media headlines, but their efficacy and cries of protectionism facing new market realities are seriously in doubt. As the legendary singer and composer Billy Joel melodically delivered in a song many years ago, I see globalization and protectionism moving forward “in shades of gray.”
Current Situation and Reality
Let’s start with the basics — the macro conditions. The estimated U.S. GDP for 2009 is estimated to be $13.5 to $14 trillion. It is still the largest economy in the world, followed by Japan with China nipping at its heels. Germany is now fourth. Of the nearly $6 trillion in U.S. treasuries outstanding, almost half is held in the hands of foreign governments, organizations, and citizens[i].
The 2009 projected and collective American deficits (including extraordinary programs) are currently anticipated to range from $1.5 trillion to $2.2 trillion or approximately 10% to 15% of GDP. Because of the heavy debt burdens anticipated, government yields are moving up dragging mortgage rates up even as the Federal Funds rate is at one-quarter of a percent[ii].
Additionally, there are growing concerns about the downgrades of U.S. sovereign debt ratings presently at triple-A. Why? Ask yourself how much money is realistic for a sovereign entity “to print,” and who is going to buy up a 40% to 50% increase in government debt instruments?
Pile on top of that 2.6 million net lost jobs in 2008 and already over 500,000 in January 2009, and it is likely that unemployment could exceed the 8% pessimistic projections from just two months ago. The commitment to create 3 million jobs now pales in comparison to the accelerating destruction witnessed in all segments of the economy.
So with the national economy is such a state, why are foreign entities so up in arms over localized initiatives to buy “local?” Let’s digest the data points a bit further.
What is the most suspicious is where the bulk of the “warnings” are originating from – off the U.S. shorelines. For instance, country leaders from China, with the national currency “reserves” estimated to range at $2 to $3 trillion, lecture the world on the implications of protectionism.
Yet, it is anticipated that when China begins to allocate another $250 billion on domestic efforts in 2009, this will be allocated towards putting their workers to work[iii]. Other Asian and EU countries are also following suit, albeit in subtle ways to promote their own national firms[iv] (e.g., France, Spain). Will their internal stimulus packages be open and fair to American organizations? None of the answers are a simple yes, or no.
The complexities of doing business are global – technology, skills, processes, risks, finance. Hence, to levy protectionism claims at one country or another is misguided, just as the 19th century bureaucracies governing today’s relationships are woefully inadequate for the 21st century realities.
In another example, it was acclaimed economist and writer David Smick in early 2008, who warned that China would face civil unrest if its growth rate pushed below 7.5% per annum[v] – in 2009 it is projected grow 5% to 7%. Moreover, the Chinese historically relied on foreign consumers to fuel their trade engine and year-over-year economic surpluses. This in turn allowed China to purchase vast quantities of U.S. Treasuries projected well in excess of 15% total debt outstanding. Is the Chinese need for growth and world dependency on cheap labor just a different form of protectionism?
Additionally, if the U.S. defaults on any debt or even if it is downgraded, the valuation of portfolioed debt assets diminishes. In unlikable terms, China (like other rapidly emerging economies) needs the U.S. to succeed so that they can retain influence over their population and their own destiny. So to antagonize an American populace already leery of emerging market leader intentions is unwise and fraught with peril. The same can be said of the Treasury’s recent rhetoric against emerging regional superpowers like China. Citizens of all countries involved could all do without the drama.
Bottom line, we are well beyond simple trade issues and protectionist dialogues as we are locked in a symbiotic dependency with many emerging market players – and them with us.
What’s painfully obvious is that a single stance or principle of leadership regarding globalization of the old is quickly expiring. As noted by Crispin Odey[vi] in January 2009, “A sustainable global economy cannot be built on cheap credit, skewed economics, and trade imbalances.” World leaders throw labels around like they are shields for their internal problems – they are not. If fact, it appears purely diversionary.
Likewise, by relying on old methods of globalization coupled with protectionism hype, are not the same countries that benefited from the debtor nation of U.S. consumers advocating more self-inflicted pain if jobs cannot be created in the U.S.? What is more, could foreign governments utilize their trillions in sovereign wealth funds (SWF’s) to indirectly promote domestic protectionism, while adhering to all international treaties?
Foreign entities also need to ask, what U.S. administration will ever be able to pay the debt that they are demanding be created in Treasuries (via spending programs that benefit non-domestic firms and workers) in an effort to aid their own foreign economies? The logic quickly becomes circular, old school, and fraught with ironies. It is almost as if they are expecting a foreign nation to fix their internal, domestic challenges. Analogous to risk management, the current globalization and trade models are broke – they lack bidirectional global pragmatism. They are built on old world principles, now disguised in new wrappers.
The Survival Impetus to Save the “Home Front”
Let us face the facts. The world is teetering on a global depression – and not just in financial services. New arguments have come from world leaders that “to protect globalization they must create jobs at home regardless of the costs.” Under the old rules, one can argue this is just protectionism sporting distinctive packaging.
And, by-the-way, these “new approaches” are actively being promoted across Europe just as they condemn the American policies. Taking this even further, several EU countries even have enlisted the help of their SWF’s to ensure lending remains internal to their countries and their organizations[vii].
Does that make them “villains” or “protectionists?” From a pragmatic standpoint, these discrete actions have to be done as globalization cannot succeed at the expense of any one country or economic class.
Domestic turmoil does not foster global consumption or production. Yet, if these tactics are applicable and appropriate for smaller economies, then why shouldn’t domestic approaches be used to retain taxpayer funded approaches for the betterment of local workers and their families?
This adaption and reaction to crisis is the premise of new globalization realities, and the need for improved and flexible bi-directional cooperation. Authors of trade agreements have forgotten the underlying business cycles – definition, adoption, sustainability and adaptation. Globally speaking, we are currently experiencing adaptation on our way to a new definition of cross-border financial, systemic, cultural, political, and risk structured arrangements.
For any in-country taxpaying pragmatist, there is a desire and demand that monies allocated to stimulate domestic workforces and local economies truly have a local impact. It has everything to do with standards of living, foreclosures, and helping families feed themselves.
An example of the widespread economic cancer can be seen in the foreclosure and delinquency rates (depending upon the source) that are exceeding 10% of all outstanding residential loans – an approximate 250% increase in just two years. Domestic job losses continue to create huge spikes in ABS / credit card defaults within the last 90 days.
For the American economy, unemployment may not peak until 2010 or as some pessimists believe, 2012. American jobless claims are the highest in nearly a quarter of a century. If left unchecked without stimulus and job creation the global hope for sustained property recovery is tenuous and regional growth highly suspect. A clear double bottom may be unavoidable if a sustainable domestic job engine(s) cannot be defined and started.
If the runoff rate of organizations closures and worker displacement accelerates, then these dismal events will in turn create higher need for government support thereby straining resources and increasing debt and debt to GDP ratios. How long can it go on before it all collapses without domestically employed workers contributing to the local, state and federal governments?
Moreover, as we have watched millions of jobs go overseas with none of that revenue or firms hiring domestically (e.g., for one outsourcing firm, 100 sales jobs and 14,900 jobs offshore), how does that benefit the American economy and consumer? How does it make the domestic workers able to purchase foreign goods and services in the future? Without jobs, how will they ever repay the debt? So, is globalization for these countries and the organizations they represent always one-way?” Is it a dual recipe for global failure?
What’s old school with today’s protectionist claims is that foreign governments believe they have an unalienable right to U.S. taxpayer monies to create revenue and jobs within their countries. As a pragmatist, one must say “OK, that is fine, we’ll abide by the old rules of the trading game.” However, if the reverse is also true, then are we not merely filing complaints and allegations against one another as the host economy fades into harmonic dissonance? Will not the consumer country simply implode at some point taking even more market value with them triggering catastrophic consequences?
There are also curious statements being made by old school trade believers (primarily within the EU) who state existing trade rules and laws must not be changed due to popular sentiment or local interest. It is curious in that laws are made by people and are changed to meet the needs of society at large. Are not governments meant to serve their people and their plights – not the reverse? As we can see, much has to change in principle, sentiment, and operation if the average worker in any country is to benefit.
“It is about the economy stupid,” has been echoed by nationalist and the domestic populace for many years. When jobs are lost, the masses that underpin government leaders quickly “turn on their handlers.” Unrest ensues. Changes are demanded – at hyper speed. Therefore, without domestic workers and jobs necessary to support the local economies, what good are protectionist claims by foreign governments if there is no business to conduct? Be careful what you wish for.
The Dependency on Foreign Workers and Firms
To discuss protectionism without acknowledging the positive contributions made by foreign corporations and their workers is short-sighted. This is not a new revelation, but one that historically has existed throughout history. It has been individuals with visas, those firms offering innovative and cost effective goods, and select governments with the foresight to expand their solutions beyond geographic lines or political ideals all working together to create higher standards of living for hundreds of millions.
As this decade draws to a close and for the first time, global interdependent economies are being forced to adapt their rhetoric and principles in the face of a withering and protracted global crisis. And adopt they will. Why? Let’s look at a few of the underlying implications.
Policy changes: With the launch of the 111th Congress, there are many changes being proposed not the least of which is a larger government and sweeping changes to financial oversight / regulatory guidance. Hidden within these debates will eventually be the painful realization that America is now dependent upon others for debt purchases, capital infusions, and investor confidence. With a smaller global pool of liquid capital investments, Congressional decisions made regarding economic stimuli, tax changes, and incubated business programs (e.g., clean energy), will have a dramatic effect on American growth.
Trade agreements: There are many each with varying requirements and legal challenges. However, while “buy internal” clauses create great angst among trading partners, many of these agreements fail to face new economic realities let alone prior loopholes. Therefore, what will be certain is growing government recognition that “tweaks” will need to be made to benefit all parties of the deals – to achieve the spirit and intent of the architectonic foundations.
Layering of Relationships: What many people fail to understand, much like the layering of risks were within complex financial instruments, is that the cross-border labor and trade relationships have become just like the financial products that triggered the depression-like environment. Facing facts, just because jobs are awarded to a domestic firm does not mean that the bulk of the return will be entirely domestic. Given far-reaching supply chain arrangements, the “domestic label” may be little more than window dressing. Protectionism just isn’t what it used to be – many shades of gray.
Technology / Innovation: Innovation has never been greater or more hopeful. New methods of communication, dialogues, idea sharing, knowledge management, and data aggregation are moving faster than governments and people can internalize. The result is a breakdown in traditional market barriers and exits that in 2000 seemed like science fiction. Just ask the governments who try to suppress dissention only to find it manifests itself in other ways. The U.S. NSA is a prime example of how they have had to adapt to global terrorists – their old rules became obsolete and irrelevant. The global jobs of tomorrow are structured around layering and interoperability across borders – not self contained within an artificial boundary – regardless of whether you are talking about manufacturing, research, or back-office processing. Protectionism is becoming a meaningless ideal against a new reality.
Changing Demographics: The” developed” world is rapidly aging. In some instances, negative birth rates are creating a future liability for many countries and their growing dependency on social programs / entitlements. Just take a look at the world population demographics for 2025, 2040, and 2050 and you will see striking shifts. This global economic crisis may be the last time the old school ideals of protectionism have any efficacy. 15 years from now, marked diversions from the old ideals governed by antiquated treaty principles will have been undertaken and implemented.
The dependency on purely organic job growth, like politicians attempted in the last depression, is a non-starter. But, it is not for the same reasons that most anti-protectionist provide. Within this article we’ve briefly examined the complexities – they are not the same as they were in the years following the second Industrial Revolution. It’s like comparing a vacuum tube to a DRAM chip.
* * * * * * * *
This is not an easy topic to “wrap your mind around,” and a book could be written on any given item mentioned in this article. However, like many of you, I have become doubtful regarding the various proclaimed anti- protectionists (i.e., globalization pundits) and their public messages.
For example, the savings rate in the U.S. has nearly tripled in the last six months. Consumers are finally getting frugal and addressing what the world has levied at the American markets for years – buying items and assets they could ill afford to purchase (i.e., excessive consumption)[viii]. Consumer debt had reached historical highs and leverage was unsustainable. As we now recognize, something really bad was just waiting to happen.
Now that consumers are being forced to make the hard choices, it appears that these same countries are complaining Americans are not buying enough, and that we are not going to buy gods and services from them? Is it not disingenuous to complain about your customer country, and then restrict investments and purchases from others within your own country– is that quid pro quo?
Moreover, it is wise to seek litigation and demands of your customers for products that you may not be entitled to win? Is that free market entrepreneurship or is it, dare I say, socialism driven into America by a foreign entity? No, I think it is something else.
Perhaps what is being discussed is really how to approach a new order of globalization, the fifth major iteration of globalization? Perhaps, those who are complaining the most are also those with the most to lose if the current rules of global engagement change (e.g., WTO[ix], trade agreements, nationalistic sentiments, personal greed, et al)?
Perhaps, what we are all really “vigorously discussing” is orchestrated globalization and who will be our new “conductors?[x]” Perhaps, just perhaps, pragmatism and balance will overcome media screamed shock-messages and “I win, you lose,” global positioning?
Yes, globalization is fundamentally a good thing. However, the new version has yet to be written by all parties coming together – without their lawyers and lobbyist. To claim everything is doom and gloom as all countries attempt to deal with nationalistic challenges not seen in 80 years is, well, wrong.
Let the processes work out and let every country work together to make each successful. I wonder how many foreign protectionists are merely finding an “excuse” for their own inability to adapt to the new realities. Globalization and treaties should never be “steady-state” or one-size fits all. In fact, isn’t that is how globalization really began centuries ago…?
[i] “Treasury Reveals Record US Debt Sales,” Financial Times, Michael Mackenzie and Krishna Guha, February 4, 2009.
[ii] ibid
[iii] It should be noted that the last time social unrest was triggered in China it was precipitated by a lack of employment opportunities. It reached its zenith at Tiananmen Square in 1989.
[iv] “Each to their own,” Financial Times, Richard Milne, February 4, 2009.
[v] David Smick, The World is Curved, The Penguin Group, 2008, page 119.
[vi] “Inflation can be your friend in cold world of credit crash,” Financial Times, Crispin Odey, January 28, 2009
[vii] “Each to their own,” Financial Times, Richard Milne, February 4, 2009.
[viii] For example, the length of time US car-buying consumers are keeping their vehicles has increased nearly 20% in just under 18 months.
[ix] It should be noted that some of those threatening complaints are not even members of the WTO treaty. According to recent analysis (see Financial Times, “Buy American Not Cast in Stone”, February 3. 2009), major trading partners such as China, India, Brazil are not entitled to do so because they themselves have not signed the government trade requirements. Global trade practices and treaties are a web of apparent inconsistencies.
[x] Competing in a Flat World, Fung, Fung and Wind. Wharton School Publishing, 2008.