Global Trade:  Fading to Black

Global Trade: Fading to Black

Dear colleagues,

Greetings from Tuscany! Here I sit perched in the homeland of my forefathers marveling at a beauty even I find hard to describe. Perhaps, though, landscape is not my forte.

On the other hand…surprise, surprise. I couldn’t resist querying the local merchants and businesspeople. In the spirit of kicking off conversation, I complimented the country’s ability to issue a 50-year sovereign bond for such a low yield – 2.85 percent! Heck, the U.S. 30-year yields 2.5 percent. Clearly investors see value in the Italian economy.

One restaurant owner’s rebuke to this conclusion was swift: “There is not much to say about our economy. It no longer exists!”

OK, maybe I was unfairly baiting him with hollow praise knowing full well Italians are known to wax passionately on such matters, OK, on all matters. But the truth is, the country’s manufacturing sector has been ravaged to the extent that most Italians bitterly mourn for the good old days, before the euro, technological advances and that little thing called China changed things forever.

The anger among Italians is in fact palpable. Bear in mind, the anti-elite, anti-establishment movement here aims not to leave the European Union, Brexit-style, but rather to reclaim the lira so the country has a fighting chance to compete on the global stage once more.

Sadly, politicians stand in between the will of the people and their success in effecting change and it’s not just Italian citizens held captive despite their “right” to vote. You see where I’m going with that line of thinking?

More on this in this week’s installation from abroad, Global Trade: Fading to Black.

Ciao tutti!

Danielle 

Global Trade: Fading to Black

Rarely does an idiom manifest itself in as many mediums as does the seemingly ubiquitous “Fade to Black.”

Spreading far from its beginnings as the director’s call to slowly dim the lights, end the scene and fade away, it runs the gamut from dark beer, to mystery novels to documentaries, from slasher films, to music, lots and lots of music. And, with the music there can be darkness, perhaps even the darkness of suicide. Dire Straits’s self-titled cut is a bitter rebuke to a wicked woman with black widow tendencies. Tommy Cash chose the idiom but not the darkness in his 2008 album, “Fade to Black: Memories of Johnny,” a tribute to his older brother, “The Man in Black.”

Urban lore consigns to Metallica, the thrash metal band formed in 1981 Los Angeles, the honor of bringing the most darkness and crossing the boundaries of metaphorical meaning in its version of “Fade to Black.” Have a listen: “I have lost the will to live, Simply nothing more to give, There is nothing more for me, Need the end to set me free.” Now, you may think there’s no gray area in those words, but you would be wrong. Rather than suicidal tendencies, the song was written by James Hetfield, the group’s lead singer, after the band’s van was broken into leaving him robbed of his favorite Marshall Amp. Call that a really bad day for the lead of one of the 80’s “big four” thrash metal bands.

And for us, is there a fading to black that could bring us a really bad day? Miles of airwaves have been devoted to the vulnerable state of an enormous economic engine. Will the backlash against globalization and the rise of protectionism herald the death of global trade as we’ve known it for most of our adult lives? Late last month, the World Trade Organization (WTO) dramatically decreased its forecast for the growth in the trades of goods in 2016 to 1.7 percent from 2.8 percent. The implication was that trade would grow at a slower pace than global gross domestic product for the first time in 15 years. The outlook beyond year end is no more uplifting. The WTO lowered its 2017 forecast to between 1.8 percent and 3.1 percent from a previous 3.6 percent.

For any of you wondering if this development came out of left field, look no further back than March 2015 when the Baltic Dry Index (BDI), a gauge of shipping rates, hit a 30-year low. At the time, The Economist cautioned worrywarts to not get carried away with the dire message the index was communicating, pointing to several commentators’ suggestions that the decline was a good thing.

Forbes Contributor Tim Wortstall best captured the tenor of the glass-is-half-full thesis. He observed that while there was a possibility that the crash in the BDI reflected curtailed demand for shipping, the more likely cause was an increase in the supply of tankers, which reduced shipping costs and was therefore a good thing. His conclusion: “Other than a few ship owners who might now regret having ordered more ships, that’s actually good news, not bad, for the global economy.”

It’s conceivable that investors in South Korea’s Hanjin felt a wee bit more than “regret” when news arrived August 31st that the world’s seventh largest shipper had filed for bankruptcy, the largest in the history of the industry. Perhaps the punditry should have paid closer attention to the CEO of Maersk, who warned over a year ago that it was not an oversupply issue but rather slowing economic growth in every country outside the United States that was pressuring shipping rates downwards.

The sticky part comes down to where the onus lies to escape the global economy’s slide. As has been the case for all too long, most continue to look for refuge in central bankers’ actions. If only we could get economic growth off the floor, a virtuous cycle could be ignited as a trade revival follows.

While the drumbeat of this modern-day zeitgeist is convenient to embrace, evidence to the contrary suggests the actions of other leaders, as in those of the political ilk, are needed to begin to fill the economic vacuum. That’s where the situation gets dicey, as yet another detracting obstacle presents itself, that of the growing protectionist movement sweeping the globe.

In the event you missed it, the Economist also recently did a deep dive into the protectionist movement and its underlying causes. The conclusion was much more nuanced than you would have thought looking purely through the prism of traditional macroeconomics. An extensive study of 40 countries cited in the special report found that borders closed to trade resulted in high income earners losing 28 percent of their purchasing power. For the lowest 10 percent, however, 63 percent of their spending power would vanish into thin air due to a heavier reliance on cheaper imported goods.

Before closing the case on this stark conclusion, consider the veritable plight to which many of the least educated in developed countries have been subjected. The situation in the United States is particularly fraught. Most rich developed countries spend 0.6 percent of GDP per year on “active labor market policies,” as in retraining and helping retrofit displaced workers so they can become once again gainfully employed. That little thing we refer to as dignity is thus preserved. The U.S. for its part, though, assigns a mere 0.1 percent of GDP.

It’s with less frequency that yours truly agrees with the Economist, for many reasons. But the newspaper’s conclusion on the travesty of encouraging permanent workforce refugees is spot on: By neglecting those whose jobs have been swallowed by technology or imports, America’s policymakers have fueled some of the anger about freer trade.” Does anyone object to adding to that list neglecting to reform the education system such that all American children have opportunities to excel in STEM studies after, and if, they graduate from high school?

Exacerbating this dynamic is what is not happening in the land that consumed so many manufacturing jobs in developed nations during its historic and compressed rise as an economic powerhouse.

Leland Miller is a good friend who also happens to be an expert on China. From his perch as the head of the China Beige Book (CBB), a quarterly survey that tracks the world’s second-largest economy, he sees troubling signs that suggest the slide towards protectionism will get little in the way of relief from China. The country’s leadership has been bending over backwards to convince the rest of us that it is intent on retreating from its role as a predominantly export-driven nation.

“While it’s only one quarter, CBB’s data saw an almost total reversal of rebalancing trends in the third quarter,” said Miller. “Spurring growth is the only priority and restructuring is being left by the wayside.”

Miller worries that there is too little recognition among policymakers and that exporting their way out of economic trouble is not a viable option. It is rather a “laser-focus internally on structural reform” that holds the key to future prosperity. He adds that the quiet currency wars underway render the dynamic that much more sensitive.

“Who is doing this well?” Miller asked. “Maybe no one; certainly not the USA and certainly not China.”

The deterioration in world trade, multiple depressants and all, presents yet another example of the rising cost of our world leaders being incapable, or worse yet, unwilling to address the serious challenges facing the global economy. This will not end well. The more money central bankers pump into the financial system, the greater the divide that opens between the haves and have nots, a direct consequence of the fallacy of the wealth effect. Global trade fading to black is simply what stares back at central bankers when they look in the mirror even as the anger rises unchecked in nearly every corner of the globe.

It’s interesting to note that Metallica’s version of Fade to Black was by no means the band’s most popular, though it was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America. Rather than fading in popularity, it became a staple of the band’s tour repertoire. It never has, though, lost its reputation as an anthem to demise. It was thus fitting that it was the last song played on the Los Angeles heavy metal radio station KNAC, which went off the air on February 15, 1995, as the metal movement faded, making way for the next musical wave.

World leaders should be so lucky. But first, they must get out of their own ways and implement the structural reforms needed to shore up their domestic economies -- without stifling trade. Though a nettlesome needle to be threaded no doubt, pigheaded politicians could find themselves unwillingly channeling the ghosts of Smoot & Hawley as the world economy itself fades to black in coming years.

For a full archive of my writing, please visit my website Money Strong LLC at www.DiMartinoBooth.com 

Click HERE to purchase Fed Up: An Insider's Take on the Willful Ignorance and Elitism At the Federal Reserve



pulse1658@comcast.net Let's connect SAP Human Capital Broker, 19,000+ Followers

Alan Patterson FRICS

Real Estate Economist and Strategic Investment Advisor at VARE Consulting Ltd

8y

If you are locked in a common currency, this is not the mechanism for depreciation, so it is understandable that there should be a longing for a free-floating currency. Unfortunately, leaving the euro is incompatible with staying in the EU. The alternative - which is what the advocates of a common currency would argue - is for Italian wages to be reduced.

Guy Berger, Ph.D.

Director of Economic Research

8y

Worth noting this is "trade in goods" - i.e. It excludes trade in services which I imagine is still growing quite briskly. It's a trend that reflects disappointing growth in EM but has much less aggregate impact on the developed world.

Amin Hemani

Option Trader | Growth Stock Investor | Blogger | Mentor

8y

I strongly believe in US democracy and that is why I emigrated to this country. There are a lot of things wrong but we still have the best country to live in. It is truly a land of opportunity and I strongly believe that any financial crisis will make us a better nation in the long run. Americans and its institutions are innovative and we always set a good economic model for the rest of the world. My point is that we as citizens need to take a very active role in our governments and not accept being pandered by the politicians. They ought to be challenged otherwise things will continue as they are,. Government is not the solution and we ought to limit the powers of the government.

Suppose that ten persons amass all the existing money in their bank accounts.Now how do you think other people can buy goods and services?Don't we live to put more money into our bank accounts?The root of all our problems is the humongously disproportionate distribution of wealth in the society.My student Tina says money is important.I say ok I have money but I do not give you any.She says no you should give us money.Even small Tina understands that if I amass money but I do not give her money , she cannot buy anything,ergo there will be no bloody economy.I wonder how economists do not understand this.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics