Business leaders need to speak up against Trump trade policy
Corporate America is failing to make the case for the international economic order
Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson
A year ago this month, America’s chairs and chief executive officers scrambled to leave Donald Trump’s business councils after his equivocal response to a deadly rally by white supremacists in Charlottesville. Now, though, some have decided it is safe again to be seen with the US president.
Mr Trump last week credited Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo’s outgoing CEO, with giving him the idea of having the Securities and Exchange Commission reconsider its requirement that companies report earnings quarterly. Other CEOs have shared beef tenderloin and lobster tail with the president at his Bedminster golf club in recent weeks.
They will have had much to catch up on: it has been an eventful year in the relationship between corporate America and a commander-in-chief who touts his pro-business credentials.
If they were looking to butter-up their host, the CEOs might have praised the tax reform package he signed in December, which cut the corporate rate from 35 per cent to 21 per cent and funded a record-breaking round of share option-boosting buybacks. They might equally have hailed his administration’s rollback of financial and environmental regulations.
But the year since Charlottesville has also been marked by CEOs diverging from the president on a number of occasions. On subjects as diverse and polarising as climate change, marriage equality, guns, race and immigration big business has found its voice, defining what Aaron Chatterji of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business calls a new age of CEO activism.
But no subject has concerned business more this year than Mr Trump’s protectionist trade policy, and on this executives have remained curiously muted. The Bedminster dinner was a friendly one, according to one attendee quoted by Politico, but featured a presidential “rant” about China taking advantage of the US in trade that must have given many around the table indigestion. The US-led international economic order has worked out well for America’s multinationals, and upending the global trading system that underpins it threatens their cost bases and supply chains. You might think this is one subject businesses would find it easy to speak up about. Apparently not.
Analysts pushing executives to spell out how tariffs will hit their numbers have been greeted with reassuring forecasts about the next quarter and weak — if any — defences of free markets. Mary Barra told them blandly that at General Motors “we generally are free traders”, Apple’s Tim Cook made a brief argument that the world needed both the US and China to do well, and GE’s John Flannery hedged that while his company was built for free trade “that is obviously a subject of debate and discussion”.
The full fallout from Mr Trump’s tariff threats has yet to show up in most companies’ figures, and how many of them take effect remains up for negotiation. Yet CEOs seem torn between wanting to warn of the dangers of a trade war and not daring to frighten investors about what one might do to their stock.
“They’re very worried and quite articulate about the danger in private, but it is frustrating that they are remarkably unwilling to go on the record,” says Simon Johnson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. It is short-sighted, he says, but “who wants to stick their head up above the parapet if it hasn’t hit their numbers yet?”
When customers and staff are as divided as voters, any time a business speaks up it is taking a risk. According to a recent Morning Consult survey, 60 per cent of Americans want companies to stay out of political and cultural debates.
Prof Chatterji argues that the rise of populism, coupled with the loss of trust in big business since the financial crisis, makes it “thornier” for CEOs to stand up for capitalism. They are soft-pedalling their core economic beliefs because those beliefs “are not very popular right now”, he says.
CEOs cannot escape blame for that. While they were becoming social activists, they forgot to make the case for the rules-based global economic order that allowed their companies to thrive. Anger about rising executive pay has also undermined their ability to win over the shop floor. But that is where they should be making the argument, not in Bedminster.
Some business leaders have given up hope of changing Mr Trump’s mind on trade and hope Congress will act to soften the blow. But Congressional Republicans are largely standing with the president, and many of their Democratic rivals share his protectionist views.
Away from Capitol Hill, Mr Trump’s voters firmly back his stance and polling shows stronger support among Democrats for socialism than capitalism. Business risks losing the argument with both parties’ voters: until they can see the benefit in the system business hopes to defend, it will remain vulnerable.
This is not about CEOs siding against a particular president or party: it is about them making the case for the principles that will determine their companies’ success in the longer term — and reflecting on how business allowed support for them to become so fragile.
BUSINESS LEADERS NEED TO SPEAK UP AGAINST TRUMP TRADE POLICY / THE FINANCIAL TIMES OP EDITORIAL
THE NETWORK EFFECT: HERE´S WHY BITCOIN IS GOING MUCH HIGHER / SEEKING ALPHA
The Network Effect: Here's Why Bitcoin Is Going Much Higher
Victor Dergunov
Summary
- Market participants are preoccupied with the approval of Bitcoin ETFs, but longer term Bitcoin is likely going much higher regardless.
- How much was Facebook worth when it only had 28 million users? How much was the internet worth in 1995 when 0.4% of the population was online?
- There are fewer than 28 million blockchain wallets right now, but how much will Bitcoin be worth when 280 million or 2.8 billion people start using cryptocurrencies?
- The network effect is an extremely powerful dynamic that could lead to substantially higher market share for the cryptocurrency complex and much higher prices for Bitcoin.
Nevertheless, Bitcoin is showing signs of stabilization, and has successfully defended the $6K level on four separate occasions. The cryptocurrency is seemingly building a base around the $6,000 level, and its price is unlikely to go much lower from here. In addition, Bitcoin’s network effect coupled with other elements should drive its price significantly higher over the long term.
The Bitcoin bear market will likely conclude relatively soon, which makes this a good time to add to positions in Bitcoin as well as in other systemically important digital coins.
If we go back further we see that Bitcoin had a similar percentage drop in the 2013 bear market, where its price fell by roughly 75% from peak to trough. So, as we observe the history of Bitcoin’s bear markets we see that on average Bitcoin deflates by about 70-80% from peak to trough in such periods.
Why Bitcoin is Not Likely to Fall Much Further

Moreover, the cost of mining Bitcoin will likely only increase with time, because as fewer Bitcoin’s are left to mine, they become increasingly more difficult to derive. The current global energy usage required to mine Bitcoin is estimated to equate to the amount of power used by a modest sized country like the Czech Republic with a population of about 10 million people.
However, eventually the mining requirements are estimated to approach roughly 16 times that.
This implies that eventually we could be looking at an average mining cost of about $76,000 per Bitcoin.
The $4,800 approximate mining cost per Bitcoin, or breakeven cost, also coincides closely with the 75% retracement level, and prices are not likely to fall below this point. The primary reason is because at around this level many Bitcoin miners will be forced to suspend operations, which would constrain supply. A disruption in the supply of newly minted Bitcoins would likely produce an imbalance in the supply demand dynamic, which would likely cause the price of Bitcoin to rise. Also, approaching a breakeven cost in any commodity, not just Bitcoin historically signals that a bottom is likely near.
So, What Caused the Recent Wave of Selling?
The SEC cited concerns regarding fraudulent activity, and manipulation, due to the vast majority of Bitcoin activity taking place in unregulated offshore markets. The SEC noted that more than 75% of all the volume in Bitcoin occurs outside the U.S. and about 95% of the volume occurs on non-U.S. exchanges. In addition, the bid-ask spreads vary widely across exchanges, and Bitcoin futures volume is relatively small, just about 2.5% of silver.
Does Bitcoin Even Need an ETF?
In addition, GBTC trades at a significant premium to Bitcoin, sometimes by as much as 100%.
We see that a premium of roughly 33% is being paid right now to own GBTC, and the premium was as high as roughly 100% in late December. Also, we can see that the price does not track Bitcoin all that well. GBTC is now substantially lower than where it was at the February bottom, whereas Bitcoin is above the price.
Nevertheless, Bitcoin's success does not rely on its ETFs being approved, instead it will simply help the digital asset gain wider acceptance faster, but the digital asset should continue to do well regardless.
The Network Effect
To see such robust creation as we’ve witnessed in the past two months we must look back to the hyper growth era of late last year. So, essentially we are beginning to see signs of increased interest and reacceleration in the participation on the cryptocurrency network once again.
And how much is Facebook worth now? $500 billion.
So, Why Use Bitcoin at All, You Ask?
If I want to send $10,000 to someone, or to myself in another country, I need to be physically present at my bank, to fill out paper work, confirm my identity, and jump through various other hoops just to gain access to my own money. This is highly inconvenient, and sometimes impossible, as I recently learned trying to process a wire transfer while traveling overseas.
This is Going to Be a Big, Big Market
So, this is at just 1% of the applicable market share, what happens at 5%? Well, at about 5% penetration of the applicable market share the cryptocurrency complex becomes worth about $15.45 trillion. In this case, we can potentially expect Bitcoin’s dominance to be around 10% - 20% of the entire complex’s, implying a valuation of $1.5 - $3 trillion for Bitcoin alone, and a price of about $88,600 -$177,000 per Bitcoin.
Prominent Coins and the Future Economy
Some of the biggest winners could turn out to be extremely efficient transactional currencies such as Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, and others. As these instruments, could evolve into mainstream medium of exchange vehicles over time. The network effect plays an extremely powerful role in this dynamic, and as more and more people switch from fiat to crypto the value of such coins is likely to rise substantially over time. And of course, there's Bitcoin, the likeliest candidate to retain a leading position in the store of value segment, and can also evolve into a mainstream transactional vehicle due to the significant improvements provided by the Lightning Network.
Threats to Bitcoin
ECB DETERMINES EUROZONE STILL NEEDS "SIGNIFICANT" STIMULUS / THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
ECB Determines Eurozone Still Needs ‘Significant’ Stimulus
Minutes from the European Central Bank’s last meeting underscore a widening gulf with the Federal Reserve
By Brian Blackstone
ECB President Mario Draghi Photo: Alex Kraus/Bloomberg News
The eurozone economy still needs “significant” stimulus from monetary policy to ensure inflation continues to climb, according to the minutes of the European Central Bank’s last meeting in late July.
The ECB’s comments underscore a widening gulf with the Federal Reserve, which in its own meeting minutes released Wednesday signaled plans to raise interest rates further in September from the current range of 1.75% to 2%.
“Overall, the uncertainties around the inflation outlook still called for caution and it was widely felt that monetary policy had to remain patient, prudent and persistent,” the ECB’s minutes said.
The euro traded at $1.158 at around midday Thursday, down 0.2% from Wednesday. The euro has lost ground against the dollar this year, likely due to higher U.S. interest rates compared with the eurozone.
U.S. economic growth has outpaced that of the eurozone in recent months, and the unemployment rate is much lower than in Europe. Annual U.S. consumer-price inflation was 2.9% in July, versus 2.1% in the eurozone. Both banks target inflation rates of around 2% over the medium term.
The ECB said in June that it expects to phase out its bond-purchasing program by the end of 2018, although it has signaled that its policy rates—which include a minus-0.4% deposit rate—will remain unchanged at least through next summer, a message it reiterated in July.
This cautious approach was highlighted Thursday by the head of Germany’s central bank,Jens Weidmann,who is considered one of the ECB’s most conservative members when it comes to fighting inflation.
“The normalization process will probably take place only gradually over the next few years. exactly why it has been so important to actually get the ball rolling without undue delay,” he said at an event in Berlin.
ECB officials were happy with how financial markets were absorbing their communication on monetary policy, particularly the pledge to keep rates unchanged at least through the summer of 2019.
“This formulation was considered to have struck an appropriate balance between being sufficiently precise to provide effective forward guidance and maintaining a suitable degree of flexibility,” according to the minutes.
Although officials saw the risks to the European economy as generally balanced, they appeared concerned about the toll that trade tensions could have on the global economy, both directly through the costs of tariffs and indirectly by hurting confidence.
“Concerns were also expressed about the implications for emerging market economies and the recent depreciation of their currencies,” the minutes stated.
YET ANOTHER UNFUNDED LIABILITY: TOO MANY PEOPLE IN HURRICANE ALLEY / DOLLAR COLLAPSE
Yet Another Unfunded Liability: Too Many People In Hurricane Alley
One of the big recent changes in American life is the ongoing mass-migration from the middle of the country to the coasts, especially in the Southeast and Gulf States. South Florida and the Carolinas, along with Houston and surrounding Texas counties, have gained millions of new residents seeking to trade snow and monotony for sun and water. Coastal state governments have by-and-large encouraged this immigration and the resulting construction, paving, and deforestation, because new residents pay taxes and developers contribute to political campaigns.
This is turning out to be a huge, perhaps insanely expensive mistake, similar in a lot of ways to out-of-control public pensions: A short-term benefit that produces long-term costs – i.e., an unfunded liability – which accumulates more-or-less secretly until something happens to turn an accounting issue into a cash flow nightmare.
Consider Houston. Over the past few decades hundreds of thousands of people have moved in, and developers have accommodated them by paving over much of the land that used to absorb floodwaters during storms. When hurricane Harvey hit in 2017, the city found itself underwater for days, with damages totaling $125 billion. Much of this was covered by tax payers via federal flood insurance.
Now fast forward to today’s North and South Carolina, also very popular destinations for Americans from colder climes, and the scene of rapid construction of homes, hotels and stores within a few miles of the ocean. In the following article, the New York Times lays out the downside of this kind of short-sighted public policy.
Why the Carolinas Have Become More Vulnerable to Hurricanes
Twenty-nine years ago this month, Hurricane Hugo barreled ashore just north of Charleston, S.C., a category 4 storm with maximum winds estimated at 140 miles an hour and the highest storm tide ever recorded on the East Coast.
Here is where people lived in the region in 1990. Hugo was the nation’s costliest hurricane ever at the time, with damages of about $7 billion.
Over the next three decades, an estimated 610,000 homes were added within 50 miles of the coastline, according to my research.
Most will be affected by Hurricane Florence, the monster storm that is advancing on the coast, with landfall expected Friday morning.
We often hear that climate change is influencing the frequency and strength of tropical storms, heat waves and wildfires, and this is certainly true, though it is too early to say what influence the warming temperatures may be having on Hurricane Florence. That answer must await a post-mortem by climate scientists. But it is also true that rapid coastal development is amplifying the impact of weather and climate events like Hurricane Hugo and those expected with Hurricane Florence over the next few days.
In fact, according to research by me and colleagues, the root cause of the country’s escalating number of weather- and climate-related disasters is not necessarily a rise in the frequency or intensity of these events but the increasing exposure and vulnerability of populations that lie in their path.
That may seem obvious, though perhaps not for the people who have moved to places that are likely to end up disaster areas someday. That fact has either escaped their notice or seems to be of little consequence to them.
This process of population and development growth that influences disaster frequency and magnitude is known as “expanding the bull’s-eye effect.” It isn’t just the population increase that is important in raising the disaster potential but also how the population and built environment are distributed across a landscape. As the targets — people, homes and businesses — become more numerous and spread, so does the likelihood that it will be hit by a tornado or hurricane or wildfire. And that expanding pattern determines the severity of the disaster.
Since 1940, development within 50 miles of the Carolina coastline has increased an estimated 2,180 percent, or by 1.3 million homes. And as I mentioned, nearly half of this development has taken place since Hurricane Hugo, and many of these homes were added in high-risk areas like floodplains.
There seems to be something of a “disaster amnesia” going on with respect to our land development practices after a calamity.
More than a decade ago, 10 leading climate experts felt compelled to issue a statement saying the debate then about whether global warming was intensifying hurricanes was a distraction from “the main hurricane problem facing the United States.” The problem, they said, was the continued “lemming-like march to the sea” in the form of unabated coastal development in vulnerable places. “These demographic trends,” they said, “are setting us up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricane disasters.”
We know much more about how the warming climate is influencing tropical storms. And in many places along the nation’s coastlines, the lemmings are still marching toward the sea.
Nearly 30 percent of the American population lives along a coast, and an even larger percentage resides in flood-prone regions. The Census Bureau recently reported that the Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions have continued to grow despite costly and damaging hurricanes, with their combined populations rising to 59.6 million people in 2016 from 51.9 million in 2000.
It is not a matter of whether a disaster will strike, but when for individuals living in many of these regions.
And when disaster knocks at the door, the bill is left to taxpayers who subsidize the National Flood Insurance Program. That money is often used to rebuild homes in the same high-risk locations. Unfortunately, given current insurance programs, rates that don’t reflect the true risk of insured entities in hazard-prone regions and the lack of incentives to persuade people not to live in these areas, the system we have is unsustainable.
We need to be smarter about where we are developing and how we’re doing it, building in resilience in any new construction in areas prone to weather and climate extremes.
People who choose to live in high-risk areas should bear the cost when disaster strikes. Of course, we should be helping people hit by storms like Hurricane Florence. But I’d rather see those dollars directed to hazard mitigation, and making existing and future development better able to withstand a disaster before one hits.
Just because we can live somewhere doesn’t mean we should. After all, as the saying goes, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
Among the many crucial quotes from the above article: “In fact, according to research by me and colleagues, the root cause of the country’s escalating number of weather- and climate-related disasters is not necessarily a rise in the frequency or intensity of these events but the increasing exposure and vulnerability of populations that lie in their path.”
In other words, you don’t need climate change to make the policy of encouraging people to move to hurricane alley a bad idea. There have always been – and always will be — monster storms, so a continuation of historically normal weather guarantees the occasional Cat-5 direct hit on the Eastern Seaboard. The more people we put there, the higher the cost of cleaning up afterward.
And since we haven’t had a direct hit in quite a while, all those extra people and buildings that have been added recently will raise the cost beyond anything seen in the past. In this sense, Hurricane Florence is a taste of things to come, but just a taste. The main course is the inevitable “big one” that hits Miami one of these days, after which we’ll finally be able calculate this latest unfunded liability.
THE FALLOUT FROM A CURRENCY CRUNCH / GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES
The Fallout From a Currency Crunch
Checking the pulse of our annual predictions, every two weeks.
By GPF Staff
|
|
Bienvenida
Les doy cordialmente la bienvenida a este Blog informativo con artículos, análisis y comentarios de publicaciones especializadas y especialmente seleccionadas, principalmente sobre temas económicos, financieros y políticos de actualidad, que esperamos y deseamos, sean de su máximo interés, utilidad y conveniencia.
Pensamos que solo comprendiendo cabalmente el presente, es que podemos proyectarnos acertadamente hacia el futuro.
Gonzalo Raffo de Lavalle
Las convicciones son mas peligrosos enemigos de la verdad que las mentiras.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Quien conoce su ignorancia revela la mas profunda sabiduría. Quien ignora su ignorancia vive en la mas profunda ilusión.
Lao Tse
“There are decades when nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.
Warren Buffett
No soy alguien que sabe, sino alguien que busca.
FOZ
Only Gold is money. Everything else is debt.
J.P. Morgan
Las grandes almas tienen voluntades; las débiles tan solo deseos.
Proverbio Chino
Quien no lo ha dado todo no ha dado nada.
Helenio Herrera
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
Karl Marx
If you know the other and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
Sun Tzu
We are travelers on a cosmic journey, stardust, swirling and dancing in the eddies and whirlpools of infinity. Life is eternal. We have stopped for a moment to encounter each other, to meet, to love, to share.This is a precious moment. It is a little parenthesis in eternity.
Paulo Coelho

Archivo del blog
-
►
2019
(2024)
- ► septiembre (187)
-
▼
2018
(1928)
- ▼ septiembre (173)
-
►
2017
(1947)
- ► septiembre (160)
-
►
2016
(2576)
- ► septiembre (182)