Category: Monty L. Donohew

Capital Flight — The Strategy Behind Trump's Sanctions


When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable human beings flee, seeking refuge in safer countries.  Everyone is familiar with the plight of refugees, and the challenges refugees create for surrounding nations.  People need and deserve support, and it requires resources to meet this need.

When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable capital and wealth also flee.  The “problem” of fleeing capital is different, however.  Because capital and wealth are not as encumbered and physically restricted as are human beings, especially in the modern electronic age, capital moves far from the source of instability.  Capital flight makes support of human refugees even more difficult, as capital often flees nations burdened with the obligation of support, nations in close proximity to the underlying cause of flight.  

Unlike human refugees, who consume resources and capital, fleeing capital is welcome with inviting arms by safe havens.  Capital and wealth must “go somewhere,” and if they land in the banks and markets of a particular nation, that nation reaps the reward of that investment.  Banks can lend at lower interest rates.  Businesses can grow, expand, modernize, and invest.  There is great reward and little cost to a recipient nation, especially if that nation has already invested heavily, historically, in the safety and security of the investment, by, for example, modern economic protections, strong security, a stable political system, and reasonable taxation. 

The recipient nation does not have to reduce or compromise taxes, regulations, environmental protections, workers’ protections, and the like, in order to be more “competitive,” in the global market, all costs to capital investment, because these costs are easily accepted and paid in exchange for safety and security.  In other words, when confronted with high risk of loss, those who invest capital and wealth will accept higher investment cost, and lower ultimate returns.  It is not necessarily a simple calculus, but its truth is undeniable. 

Turkey provides an excellent example of capital flight, and insight into Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy.  The Turkish lira is plummeting.  It is plummeting because the Trump administration announced that it would “review” Turkey’s duty-free access to the U.S. market, after Turkey hit the U.S. with tariffs on U.S. goods in response to American tariffs on steel and aluminum.  President Trump also hit Turkey with sanctions over the country’s hostile detainment of an American pastor.  The result is that capital is fleeing Turkey, because according to the Wall Street Journal,  investors are alarmed  by the amount of control Turkish president Erdogan holds over monetary policy. Analysts bluntly told the Journal that improving relations with the U.S. and raising interest rates would help stabilize the country’s currency.  Turkey has refused to do either. Capital flees Turkey because Turkey is unsafe.

Some economist have struggled to understand the U.S. stock market.  Investment in U.S. domestic and multinational companies is at an all-time high.  Investment advisers worry that valuations of companies don’t reflect well the amount invested and warn of a bubble.  Some are surprised daily that the bubble hasn’t burst.  “It just keeps going up!”  After all, “what comes up…” 

If, however, the U.S. economy generally, and the U.S. stock market, particularly, is seen as a safe haven, the appreciation resulting capital flight is understandable, rational, and beneficial.  More, it may mean that the bubble risk isn’t dire; a bursting bubble means that capital has suddenly flown elsewhere, and in a world of a multitude of choices, capital is always free to flee where it is best employed by its owners to produce wealth.  But, what if the risk of flight is just too high?  Capital might be expected to stay where it is safe, especially if that safety endures, and other opportunities for safe investment with reasonable return do not materialize. 

Consider the many causes of the flight of capital in recent years.  Are competing markets as strong and stable as they were seven years ago, and more importantly, are they as strong and stable as is the U.S. market?  Capital is fleeing Canada.  Capital is fleeing China (strange — people who  command wealth get a bit skittish when several hundreds of their kind simply disappear).  EU instability has caused capital to flee Europe (link behind subscription wall). Capital has flown from India. Capital has flown from Russia, although early indications are that new Trump sanctions may not encourage additional capital flight.  Capital is fleeing Latin America.  There are a multitude of examples, but the point is, too, that capital is not fleeing the U.S. 

Not all capital flight winds up in the U.S., of course, but it’s safe to say that a good percentage is winding up here.  Simple economics: more money chasing the same goods or investment opportunities causes prices to increase. With share prices high, companies can grow, expand, modernize, and invest. The investment increases the value of companies, generates returns for investors, and generates revenues for the U.S. government.  

Trump is counting on U.S. strength and safety to lure even more investment, especially if there is uncertainty, instability, and conflict resulting from trade disputes and sanctions.  Trump calculates that, regardless of the effect on a particular good or service in the long term, the short term or immediate effect will be capital flight.  This flight is particularly certain if nations seek to return to a trade system that is not fair to the U.S.; sanctions and economic risk are not likely to cause capital to flow from the U.S. to nations from which capital has or is already flowing.  

Trump is not employing a philosophically driven foreign and trade policy wielding empty threats of carrot and stick like his predecessors.  His foreign policy is disruptive, and intended to create meaningful reform in both statecraft and trade, first and foremost, to advance U.S. political, economic, and military interests. Achieving these objectives, even in the slightest of degrees, increases the safety and security of the U.S. as a safe haven, which strengthens Trump’s ability to reform both foreign services and trade.  

The Trump administration knows well that there will be a price for economic dislocation and higher costs for goods in some segments of the economy, which is precisely why the administration has invested in worker training.  Trump understands, nonetheless, the value of dislocation, disruption, and instability in reforming markets and institutions. The very consequences experts fear, are the very tools through which Trump will ensure reform.  

When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable human beings flee, seeking refuge in safer countries.  Everyone is familiar with the plight of refugees, and the challenges refugees create for surrounding nations.  People need and deserve support, and it requires resources to meet this need.

When there is war, conflict, or instability, vulnerable capital and wealth also flee.  The “problem” of fleeing capital is different, however.  Because capital and wealth are not as encumbered and physically restricted as are human beings, especially in the modern electronic age, capital moves far from the source of instability.  Capital flight makes support of human refugees even more difficult, as capital often flees nations burdened with the obligation of support, nations in close proximity to the underlying cause of flight.  

Unlike human refugees, who consume resources and capital, fleeing capital is welcome with inviting arms by safe havens.  Capital and wealth must “go somewhere,” and if they land in the banks and markets of a particular nation, that nation reaps the reward of that investment.  Banks can lend at lower interest rates.  Businesses can grow, expand, modernize, and invest.  There is great reward and little cost to a recipient nation, especially if that nation has already invested heavily, historically, in the safety and security of the investment, by, for example, modern economic protections, strong security, a stable political system, and reasonable taxation. 

The recipient nation does not have to reduce or compromise taxes, regulations, environmental protections, workers’ protections, and the like, in order to be more “competitive,” in the global market, all costs to capital investment, because these costs are easily accepted and paid in exchange for safety and security.  In other words, when confronted with high risk of loss, those who invest capital and wealth will accept higher investment cost, and lower ultimate returns.  It is not necessarily a simple calculus, but its truth is undeniable. 

Turkey provides an excellent example of capital flight, and insight into Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategy.  The Turkish lira is plummeting.  It is plummeting because the Trump administration announced that it would “review” Turkey’s duty-free access to the U.S. market, after Turkey hit the U.S. with tariffs on U.S. goods in response to American tariffs on steel and aluminum.  President Trump also hit Turkey with sanctions over the country’s hostile detainment of an American pastor.  The result is that capital is fleeing Turkey, because according to the Wall Street Journal,  investors are alarmed  by the amount of control Turkish president Erdogan holds over monetary policy. Analysts bluntly told the Journal that improving relations with the U.S. and raising interest rates would help stabilize the country’s currency.  Turkey has refused to do either. Capital flees Turkey because Turkey is unsafe.

Some economist have struggled to understand the U.S. stock market.  Investment in U.S. domestic and multinational companies is at an all-time high.  Investment advisers worry that valuations of companies don’t reflect well the amount invested and warn of a bubble.  Some are surprised daily that the bubble hasn’t burst.  “It just keeps going up!”  After all, “what comes up…” 

If, however, the U.S. economy generally, and the U.S. stock market, particularly, is seen as a safe haven, the appreciation resulting capital flight is understandable, rational, and beneficial.  More, it may mean that the bubble risk isn’t dire; a bursting bubble means that capital has suddenly flown elsewhere, and in a world of a multitude of choices, capital is always free to flee where it is best employed by its owners to produce wealth.  But, what if the risk of flight is just too high?  Capital might be expected to stay where it is safe, especially if that safety endures, and other opportunities for safe investment with reasonable return do not materialize. 

Consider the many causes of the flight of capital in recent years.  Are competing markets as strong and stable as they were seven years ago, and more importantly, are they as strong and stable as is the U.S. market?  Capital is fleeing Canada.  Capital is fleeing China (strange — people who  command wealth get a bit skittish when several hundreds of their kind simply disappear).  EU instability has caused capital to flee Europe (link behind subscription wall). Capital has flown from India. Capital has flown from Russia, although early indications are that new Trump sanctions may not encourage additional capital flight.  Capital is fleeing Latin America.  There are a multitude of examples, but the point is, too, that capital is not fleeing the U.S. 

Not all capital flight winds up in the U.S., of course, but it’s safe to say that a good percentage is winding up here.  Simple economics: more money chasing the same goods or investment opportunities causes prices to increase. With share prices high, companies can grow, expand, modernize, and invest. The investment increases the value of companies, generates returns for investors, and generates revenues for the U.S. government.  

Trump is counting on U.S. strength and safety to lure even more investment, especially if there is uncertainty, instability, and conflict resulting from trade disputes and sanctions.  Trump calculates that, regardless of the effect on a particular good or service in the long term, the short term or immediate effect will be capital flight.  This flight is particularly certain if nations seek to return to a trade system that is not fair to the U.S.; sanctions and economic risk are not likely to cause capital to flow from the U.S. to nations from which capital has or is already flowing.  

Trump is not employing a philosophically driven foreign and trade policy wielding empty threats of carrot and stick like his predecessors.  His foreign policy is disruptive, and intended to create meaningful reform in both statecraft and trade, first and foremost, to advance U.S. political, economic, and military interests. Achieving these objectives, even in the slightest of degrees, increases the safety and security of the U.S. as a safe haven, which strengthens Trump’s ability to reform both foreign services and trade.  

The Trump administration knows well that there will be a price for economic dislocation and higher costs for goods in some segments of the economy, which is precisely why the administration has invested in worker training.  Trump understands, nonetheless, the value of dislocation, disruption, and instability in reforming markets and institutions. The very consequences experts fear, are the very tools through which Trump will ensure reform.  



Source link

The Trump Administration's Disruptive Reform of Political Communication


While traditional political labels- liberal, conservative, moderate- simply won’t adhere to the Trump Administration, it is clear that Trump is an effective disruptive reformer. The Trump Administration increasingly employs actions and policies designed to disrupt the establishment and render useless the traditional tools used to keep and maintain the establishment.

What is Disruptive Reform?

Disruptive Reform is change that removes the competitive advantage of incumbent or establishment institutions and tools, thereby permitting competing insurgents or reform an opportunity to survive. “Disruptive” does not imply violence or even unlawful or illicit behavior. Disruptive means that reform is accomplished by replacing the traditional tools and institutions that normally support and sustain the establishment with those that challenge, change, and ultimately replace or reform the establishment.

The concept is perhaps Progressive, but the tools developed by Progressives are increasingly being appropriated by others. Others have noticed that it seems to be the Right, and not the Left, that is making effective use of disruptive reform. See, e.g, “Innovation Nation: The Indian Right’s Real Idea Is Disruptive Innovation.”

The effectiveness of disruptive reform is increasingly demonstrated in a rapidly changing technological world, that is less cohesive and more personal. Disruptive reform has revolutionized the computer, telecommunications, and automotive industries. Disruptive reform is the driving force behind recent rapid changes in the use of social media and to secondary education. Disruptive reform has repeatedly been suggested as necessary to reform the health care industry. See, for example, “The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care.” It is natural for someone like Donald Trump, whose experience is in the business sector, to reject the traditional tools of politicians in favor of effective tools from the business sector.

Trump’s Disruptive Reform of Political Communication

There are many examples of the Trump Administration engaging in disruptive reform. In my previous article, ‘The real significance of the ‘Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,’ for example, I discussed how Trump Administration immigration policy implementation intends to bypass traditional media information sources, and generate effective alternate narratives thereby  threatening establishment immigration policy values. But it is political communication that is the most potent example of Trump Administration disruptive reform.

Traditional establishment politics values finely tuned, disciplined, discreet messages designed to find the greatest support and least opposition possible (whether or not true or accurate, by the way). Traditional political communication reinforces the establishment, and discourages reform by relying upon scripted talking points suggesting broad and enduring consensus, whether or not these exist, and threatening catastrophic consequences with alternatives, whether or not these consequences are true or likely. Traditional political communication values the use of surrogates to initiate communication, and values highly repetitive recitation of messages across a variety of media to reinforce the message thereby suggesting consensus. Traditional political communication values trial balloons and nuance that allows politicians and institutions to distance themselves from positions or ideas that later prove controversial or unpopular. Discourse leading to reform is rendered difficult, if not  impossible, as those upholding the traditional establishment reject real debate or discussion as threatening established consensus and enduring underlying values.

Disruptive reform rejects and abandons these restraints on discourse as tools of the establishment, and so only utilizes the tool of traditional political communication to engage opponents and achieve discreet objectives. The Trump Administration’s reliance upon “direct to citizenry” communication while decried by the establishment as “dangerous,” “unprofessional,” and “inexperienced,” continues to reinforce Trump’s affiliation with those “outside” the establishment. Direct to citizenry content bypassses the establishment filters that would render the message less volatile, and less effective at challenging establishment ideas and institutions. Whatever the content, by communicating in an anti-establishment manner, any suggestion that Trump is co-opted by the establishment is likely to ring false.

Disruptive communication, unlike traditional political communication, can encourage and value vehement opposition, particularly where the opposition reveals opponents, bias, and weakness, or expends energy or resources that otherwise might be marshaled to actually frustrate reform. Opposition can invite consideration, and generate publicity.  Opposition communication and discourse under a campaign of disruptive reform reveals in time that the establishment threats of adverse consequences are untrue or unlikely, thereby blunting the effectiveness of reform opponents. It undermines trust and confidence in establishment values, institutions, and structures, replacing traditional communication mechanisms that support the establishment with those that threaten the establishment. In this way, reform communication replaces the establishment emphasis and reliance upon the status quo.

The Trump Administration’s mistrust of traditional media outlets is not new; its unrelenting full-throated attack, coupled with non-traditional means of communicating narratives is new. The ability of the establishment to reject by monolithic opposition and by repetition through various media outlets is muted as consumers of information find effective, inexpensive, and convenient alternatives.

Moreover, once confronted, the establishment predictably threatens extreme, outrageous, and unthinkable consequence. The establishment attack becomes unbelievable and increasingly lacking credibility as people realize that reform is not dangerous – Trump is not Hitler, is not rounding up homosexuals, and is working to parse the difficult immigration issues such as the protection of families, for example. As the establishment becomes more desperate, its agents and operatives become “useful idiots,” unwittingly revealing the true face of the establishment, and the need for reform.The establishment opposing the Trump Administration is increasingly revealed as less concerned with the lives of real people, and more with keeping and maintaining power and influence. It will be interesting to see whether establishment Republicans accept or reject these changes, and whether, if they side with the establishment against the Trump Administration, there will be a political cost that, in a traditional binary Republican-Democrat establishment, enhances or diminishes the Trump Administration’s authority.

While traditional political labels- liberal, conservative, moderate- simply won’t adhere to the Trump Administration, it is clear that Trump is an effective disruptive reformer. The Trump Administration increasingly employs actions and policies designed to disrupt the establishment and render useless the traditional tools used to keep and maintain the establishment.

What is Disruptive Reform?

Disruptive Reform is change that removes the competitive advantage of incumbent or establishment institutions and tools, thereby permitting competing insurgents or reform an opportunity to survive. “Disruptive” does not imply violence or even unlawful or illicit behavior. Disruptive means that reform is accomplished by replacing the traditional tools and institutions that normally support and sustain the establishment with those that challenge, change, and ultimately replace or reform the establishment.

The concept is perhaps Progressive, but the tools developed by Progressives are increasingly being appropriated by others. Others have noticed that it seems to be the Right, and not the Left, that is making effective use of disruptive reform. See, e.g, “Innovation Nation: The Indian Right’s Real Idea Is Disruptive Innovation.”

The effectiveness of disruptive reform is increasingly demonstrated in a rapidly changing technological world, that is less cohesive and more personal. Disruptive reform has revolutionized the computer, telecommunications, and automotive industries. Disruptive reform is the driving force behind recent rapid changes in the use of social media and to secondary education. Disruptive reform has repeatedly been suggested as necessary to reform the health care industry. See, for example, “The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care.” It is natural for someone like Donald Trump, whose experience is in the business sector, to reject the traditional tools of politicians in favor of effective tools from the business sector.

Trump’s Disruptive Reform of Political Communication

There are many examples of the Trump Administration engaging in disruptive reform. In my previous article, ‘The real significance of the ‘Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,’ for example, I discussed how Trump Administration immigration policy implementation intends to bypass traditional media information sources, and generate effective alternate narratives thereby  threatening establishment immigration policy values. But it is political communication that is the most potent example of Trump Administration disruptive reform.

Traditional establishment politics values finely tuned, disciplined, discreet messages designed to find the greatest support and least opposition possible (whether or not true or accurate, by the way). Traditional political communication reinforces the establishment, and discourages reform by relying upon scripted talking points suggesting broad and enduring consensus, whether or not these exist, and threatening catastrophic consequences with alternatives, whether or not these consequences are true or likely. Traditional political communication values the use of surrogates to initiate communication, and values highly repetitive recitation of messages across a variety of media to reinforce the message thereby suggesting consensus. Traditional political communication values trial balloons and nuance that allows politicians and institutions to distance themselves from positions or ideas that later prove controversial or unpopular. Discourse leading to reform is rendered difficult, if not  impossible, as those upholding the traditional establishment reject real debate or discussion as threatening established consensus and enduring underlying values.

Disruptive reform rejects and abandons these restraints on discourse as tools of the establishment, and so only utilizes the tool of traditional political communication to engage opponents and achieve discreet objectives. The Trump Administration’s reliance upon “direct to citizenry” communication while decried by the establishment as “dangerous,” “unprofessional,” and “inexperienced,” continues to reinforce Trump’s affiliation with those “outside” the establishment. Direct to citizenry content bypassses the establishment filters that would render the message less volatile, and less effective at challenging establishment ideas and institutions. Whatever the content, by communicating in an anti-establishment manner, any suggestion that Trump is co-opted by the establishment is likely to ring false.

Disruptive communication, unlike traditional political communication, can encourage and value vehement opposition, particularly where the opposition reveals opponents, bias, and weakness, or expends energy or resources that otherwise might be marshaled to actually frustrate reform. Opposition can invite consideration, and generate publicity.  Opposition communication and discourse under a campaign of disruptive reform reveals in time that the establishment threats of adverse consequences are untrue or unlikely, thereby blunting the effectiveness of reform opponents. It undermines trust and confidence in establishment values, institutions, and structures, replacing traditional communication mechanisms that support the establishment with those that threaten the establishment. In this way, reform communication replaces the establishment emphasis and reliance upon the status quo.

The Trump Administration’s mistrust of traditional media outlets is not new; its unrelenting full-throated attack, coupled with non-traditional means of communicating narratives is new. The ability of the establishment to reject by monolithic opposition and by repetition through various media outlets is muted as consumers of information find effective, inexpensive, and convenient alternatives.

Moreover, once confronted, the establishment predictably threatens extreme, outrageous, and unthinkable consequence. The establishment attack becomes unbelievable and increasingly lacking credibility as people realize that reform is not dangerous – Trump is not Hitler, is not rounding up homosexuals, and is working to parse the difficult immigration issues such as the protection of families, for example. As the establishment becomes more desperate, its agents and operatives become “useful idiots,” unwittingly revealing the true face of the establishment, and the need for reform.The establishment opposing the Trump Administration is increasingly revealed as less concerned with the lives of real people, and more with keeping and maintaining power and influence. It will be interesting to see whether establishment Republicans accept or reject these changes, and whether, if they side with the establishment against the Trump Administration, there will be a political cost that, in a traditional binary Republican-Democrat establishment, enhances or diminishes the Trump Administration’s authority.



Source link