Tag Archives: Social economy

The Unwinnable Trade War

By Weijian Shan – There are at least two reasons why Chinese exports to the United States have not fallen as much as the Trump administration hoped they would. One is that there are no good substitutes for many of the products the United States imports from China, such as iPhones and consumer drones, so U.S. buyers are forced to absorb the tariffs in the form of higher prices.

The other reason is that despite recent headlines, much of the manufacturing of U.S.-bound goods isn’t leaving China anytime soon, since many companies depend on supply chains that exist only there. (In 2012, Apple attempted to move manufacturing of its high-end Mac Pro computer from China to Texas, but the difficulty of sourcing the tiny screws that hold it together prevented the relocation.)

Some export-oriented manufacturing is leaving China, but not for the United States. According to a May survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, fewer than six percent of U.S. businesses in China plan to return home. Sixty percent of U.S. companies said they would stay in China.

The damage to the economy on the import side is even more pronounced for the United States than it is for China. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and elsewhere found that in 2018, the tariffs did not compel Chinese exporters to reduce their prices; instead, the full cost of the tariffs hit American consumers. As tariffs raise the prices of goods imported from China, U.S. consumers will opt to buy substitutes (when available) from other countries, which may be more expensive than the original Chinese imports but are cheaper than those same goods after the tariffs. The price difference between the pre-tariff Chinese imports and these third-country substitutes constitutes what economists call a “dead-weight loss” to the economy.

Beijing’s nimble calculations are well illustrated by the example of lobsters. China imposed a 25 percent tariff on U.S. lobsters in July 2018, precipitating a 70 percent drop in U.S. lobster exports. At the same time, Beijing cut tariffs on Canadian lobsters by three percent, and as a result, Canadian lobster exports to China doubled. Chinese consumers now pay less for lobsters imported from essentially the same waters.

The uncomfortable truth for Trump is that U.S. trade deficits don’t spring from the practices of U.S. trading partners; they come from the United States’ own spending habits.

The United States has run a persistent trade deficit since 1975, both overall and with most of its trading partners. Over the past 20 years, U.S. domestic expenditures have always exceeded GDP, resulting in negative net exports, or a trade deficit.

The shortfall has shifted over time but has remained between three and six percent of GDP. Trump wants to boost U.S. exports to trim the deficit, but trade wars inevitably invite retaliation that leads to significant reductions in exports.

Even a total Chinese capitulation in the trade war wouldn’t make a dent in the overall U.S. trade deficit. more>

Updates from ITU

ITU Green Standards Week adopts Call to Action to accelerate transition to Smart Sustainable Cities
ITU News – ITU Green Standards Week has brought together governments, city leaders, businesses and citizens to share their experiences in driving the behavioral change required to achieve smart city objectives.

These participants have adopted a ‘Call to Action’ urging city stakeholders to accelerate the transition to Smart Sustainable Cities.

These participants have adopted a ‘Call to Action’ urging city stakeholders to accelerate the transition to Smart Sustainable Cities.

The Call to Action highlights that our cities – as powerful hubs of innovation, and a central force behind humanity’s impact on our environment – must make a defining contribution to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). more>

Related>

Obama’s Idealists

American Power in Theory and Practice
By Peter Beinart – In different ways, each book traces a narrative arc that begins with a vow, made in young adulthood, to use the United States’ might for good and ends with a sober realization about how hard fulfilling that vow actually is. For Rice, the arc begins with her failure, as a young NSC aide, to rouse the Clinton administration to halt the 1994 Rwandan genocide, after which she pledged “to go down fighting, if ever I saw another instance where I believed U.S. military intervention could . . . make a critical difference in saving large numbers of human lives.” For Power, it starts during her time as a war correspondent in Bosnia, where the besieged residents of Sarajevo asked her to “tell Clinton” about the horrors she had seen. For Rhodes, it begins with 9/11 and the Iraq war, which left him yearning to harness the idealism he felt the Bush administration had squandered.

In each book, three moments during the Obama administration play outsize roles in chastening this youthful idealism: the decision to bomb Libya in 2011, the decision not to bomb Syria in 2013, and the 2016 election.

The problem isn’t that Rice, Power, and Rhodes shade the truth to make themselves look good. To the contrary, all three are, at various points, admirably frank about their mistakes. The problem is that by refusing to reveal what happened behind closed doors, they fail to help readers understand what lessons to draw from the Libya debacle. Is the lesson that presidents who lack the stomach for nation building shouldn’t topple regimes? Is it that the United States needs greater diplomatic capacity? Is it that brutal dictatorships are better than failed states? By not explaining Libya’s lessons, liberal internationalists like Rice, Power, and Rhodes make it easier for nativist bigots like Trump to proffer a lesson of their own: that Washington should care less about people overseas, especially if they are not Christian or white.

In each, the saga of disillusionment reaches its nadir in 2016, with Russia’s electoral interference and Trump’s election. After witnessing the limits of the United States’ ability to defend democracy and human rights abroad, Rice, Power, and Rhodes realize to their horror the limits of its ability to defend those principles at home. When Obama asks Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, to issue a joint statement condemning Russian interference in the election, McConnell refuses, a move that Rhodes calls “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic.”

Although none of the authors puts it this way, it’s possible to read their books not only as tales of tempered idealism but also as chronicles of America’s declining exceptionalism. In retrospect, the belief in democracy promotion and humanitarian intervention that Rice, Power, and Rhodes embraced early in their careers rested on a faith that democracy was stable at home. With that faith now eroded—and the United States battling its own rising tribalism, authoritarianism, and brutality—it is hard to imagine a book like Power’sA Problem From Hell,” a critique of the country’s repeated failure to stop genocide, becoming the sensation it did in 2002.

As Americans have grown more preoccupied with, and more pessimistic about, their own country’s moral condition, they have turned inward. As a young woman, Power helped expose concentration camps in Bosnia. Today’s young activists are exposing them in Texas. As of September, foreign policy has barely figured in the Democratic presidential debates. more>

The EU’s rule-of-law test

By Tytti Tuppurainen – In his book The Origins of Political Order, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued that the rule of law is the most difficult pillar for a successful modern society to construct.

Organizing government administration and staging elections to a legislative body is relatively easy, and only a small number of failed states have no functioning public administration or legislature. But in far more countries, the absence of the rule of law is the primary source of instability and political decay.

For the EU, the rule of law is of central importance, because the EU is not simply a joint economic undertaking (although, as the economist Hernando de Soto has emphasized, the rule of law is also a prerequisite for a developed market economy). The EU’s raison d’être, like that of its predecessors, is to guarantee peace between European countries and to safeguard human rights within its member states. And the bloc is founded on common values enshrined in its treaties.

The EU’s commitment to the rule of law, set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, is straightforward. It stands for legality, legal certainty, the prohibition of arbitrary exercise of authority, the separation of powers, and an effective and independent judiciary. Respect for the rule of law affects different layers of society in very practical ways: at the level of the Union, the nation-state, companies, and citizens.

Within the EU, the rule of law is not a political statement or unattainable moral ideal, but a principle that public officials and courts are responsible for upholding. more>

Updates from Ciena

5G wireless needs fiber, and lots of it
When the topic of 5G wireless comes up, your first thought likely isn’t about fiber networks running under the ground. 5G mobile networks will significantly affect both the wireless side (obviously!) and the wireline side of the global network infrastructure. In fact, 5G’s formidable network performance goals are heavily predicated on the availability of fiber, and lots of it, to cell sites.
By Brian Lavallée – According to the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) latest “Trends in Telecommunication Reform” report, ongoing capital investments related to fiber infrastructure are expected to total a staggering $144.2B between 2014 and 2019. One of the primary drivers for this immense capital investment into fiber infrastructure deployments comes out of thin air, in the form of tomorrow’s 5G radios.

5G mobile networks will significantly affect both the wireless side (obviously!) and the wireline side of the global network infrastructure, as airborne bits jump to and from terrestrial wireline networks. In a previous post, I summarized the main aspirational performance goals of 5G, which are listed below. These formidable network performance goals are heavily predicated on the availability of fiber, and lots of it, to the cell sites.

  • Up to 1000 times increased in bandwidth, per unit area
  • Up to 100 times more connected devices
  • Up to 10Gbps connection rates to mobile devices in the field
  • A perceived network availability of 99.999%
  • A perceived 100% network coverage
  • Maximum of 1ms end-to-end round trip delay (latency)
  • Up to 90% reduction in network energy utilization

Traditionally, 2G and 3G mobile networks often used copper-based Time Division multiplexing (TDM) circuits, such as multiple bonded T1s or E1s, to connect cell sites to a nearby Mobile Switching Center over the Mobile Backhaul (MBH) network. Although this now legacy MBH architecture has indeed served the industry well for decades, it’s quickly showing its age with advent of 4G. MBH upgrades are taking place all over the world converting legacy copper-based MBH serving cell sites to packet-based transport over fiber, which enables far higher capacities to best future-proof MBH networks.

The increased adoption of 4G LTE and LTE-Advanced mobile network technology is accelerating these MBH fiber upgrades, which can and will be leveraged by future 5G networks, given the almost unlimited bandwidth that fiber-based networks offer.You can examine viable options for the road ahead with our Essentials Series guide: Mobile Backhaul. more>

Related>

Updates from Chicago Booth

Whistle-blowers act out of a sense of morality
By Alice G. Walton – Say you witness a coworker subtly misleading a client, or rounding off sales numbers in her favor. Do you report it, or not?

Chicago Booth postdoctoral scholar James A. Dungan, Boston College’s Liane Young, and Northwestern’s Adam Waytz looked at what goes into the calculation people make when considering whether to report bad behavior. Moral concerns figure highly, they find, above employees’ feelings about their employers, fear of reprisal, and satisfaction with the recognition and rewards they receive at their job.

To understand the factors that predict the likelihood of whistle-blowing, the researchers analyzed data from more than 42,000 participants in the ongoing Merit Principles Survey, which has polled US government employees since 1979, and which covers whistle-blowing. Respondents answer questions about their past experiences with unethical behavior, the approaches they’d take in dealing with future unethical behavior, and their personal characteristics, including their concern for others and their feelings about their organizations.

Concern for others was the strongest predictor of whistle-blowing, the researchers find. This was true both of people who had already blown the whistle on bad behavior and of people who expected they might in the future.

Loyalty to an immediate community—or ingroup, in psychological terms—was also linked to whistle-blowing, but in an inverse way. “The greater people’s concern for loyalty, the less likely they were to blow the whistle,” write the researchers.

Organizational factors—such as people’s perceptions about their employer, their concern for their job, and their level of motivation or engagement—were largely unconnected to whether people spoke up. more>

Related>

The Unwanted Wars

Why the Middle East Is More Combustible Than Ever
By Robert Malley – The war that now looms largest is a war nobody apparently wants.

A conflict could break out in any one of a number of places for any one of a number of reasons. Consider the September 14 attack on Saudi oil facilities: it could theoretically have been perpetrated by the Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group, as part of their war with the kingdom; by Iran, as a response to debilitating U.S. sanctions; or by an Iranian-backed Shiite militia in Iraq.

If Washington decided to take military action against Tehran, this could in turn prompt Iranian retaliation against the United States’ Gulf allies, an attack by Hezbollah on Israel, or a Shiite militia operation against U.S. personnel in Iraq. Likewise, Israeli operations against Iranian allies anywhere in the Middle East could trigger a regionwide chain reaction. Because any development anywhere in the region can have ripple effects everywhere, narrowly containing a crisis is fast becoming an exercise in futility.

The Middle East has become the world’s most polarized region and, paradoxically, its most integrated. That combination—along with weak state structures, powerful nonstate actors, and multiple transitions occurring almost simultaneously—also makes the Middle East the world’s most volatile region. It further means that as long as its regional posture remains as it is, the United States will be just one poorly timed or dangerously aimed Houthi drone strike, or one particularly effective Israeli operation against a Shiite militia, away from its next costly regional entanglement.

Ultimately, the question is not chiefly whether the United States should disengage from the region. It is how it should choose to engage: diplomatically or militarily, by exacerbating divides or mitigating them, and by aligning itself fully with one side or seeking to achieve a sort of balance.

Economically, it ranks among the least integrated areas of the world; institutionally, the Arab League is less coherent than the European Union, less effective than the African Union, and more dysfunctional than the Organization of American States. Nor is there any regional entity to which Arab countries and the three most active non-Arab players (Iran, Israel, and Turkey) belong.

Yet in so many other ways, the Middle East functions as a unified space. Ideologies and movements spread across borders: in times past, Arabism and Nasserism; today, political Islam and jihadism. more>

Updates from ITU

The network operator of 2025: can telcos retain a leading role in the digital era?
ITU News – After building much of the infrastructure for the digital transformation we see across industries and society, traditional telecommunications network operators continue to be confronted by extensive changes in markets, technologies, consumer demands and value chains.

“We’re talking about the industry that 20 years ago was the sexiest industry in the world,” said Tomas Lamanauskas, founder and Managing Partner at Envision Associates, Ltd. “We’re at a little bit of a different stage now.”

That could be the understatement of the decade.

With new market players, multi-billion dollar mergers, massive infrastructure investment requirements and shrinking traditional revenue bases, the question arises: Can telecommunications companies (telcos) retain a leading role in the digital era? And what role will regulators have in this increasingly dynamic space?

The answers to these questions have great implications for people worldwide whose lives could be greatly benefited by a range of services from mobile banking and smart farming to intelligent transport systems and customized, precision healthcare solutions. And they have great implications for ITU, which counts telcos as some of its most active, most influential traditional private-sector members. more>

Related>

The dirty secret of capitalism

By Nick Hanauer – I am a capitalist, and after a 30-year career in capitalism spanning three dozen companies, generating tens of billions of dollars in market value, I’m not just in the top one percent, I’m in the top .01 percent of all earners. Today, I have come to share the secrets of our success, because rich capitalists like me have never been richer. So the question is, how do we do it? How do we manage to grab an ever-increasing share of the economic pie every year? Is it that rich people are smarter than we were 30 years ago? Is it that we’re working harder than we once did? Are we taller, better looking?

Sadly, no. It all comes down to just one thing: economics. Because, here’s the dirty secret. There was a time in which the economics profession worked in the public interest, but in the neoliberal era, today, they work only for big corporations and billionaires, and that is creating a little bit of a problem.

So, what is a society to do? Well, it’s super clear to me what we need to do. We need a new economics. So, economics has been described as the dismal science, and for good reason, because as much as it is taught today, it isn’t a science at all, in spite of all of the dazzling mathematics. In fact, a growing number of academics and practitioners have concluded that neoliberal economic theory is dangerously wrong and that today’s growing crises of rising inequality and growing political instability are the direct result of decades of bad economic theory. What we now know is that the economics that made me so rich isn’t just wrong, it’s backwards, because it turns out it isn’t capital that creates economic growth, it’s people; and it isn’t self-interest that promotes the public good, it’s reciprocity; and it isn’t competition that produces our prosperity, it’s cooperation. What we can now see is that an economics that is neither just nor inclusive can never sustain the high levels of social cooperation necessary to enable a modern society to thrive.

So where did we go wrong? Well, it turns out that it’s become painfully obvious that the fundamental assumptions that undergird neoliberal economic theory are just objectively false, and so today first I want to take you through some of those mistaken assumptions and then after describe where the science suggests prosperity actually comes from. more>

Updates from Chicago Booth

The real cost of discrimination: A case study from Nazi Germany
By Robin I. Mordfin -Policies such as the Trump administration’s ban on visitors from a string of majority-Muslim countries are likely to harm American companies, research suggests.

Chicago Booth’s Kilian Huber and University of Munich’s Volker Lindenthal and Fabian Waldinger draw their conclusion from a study of companies in Nazi Germany. Purging Jewish managers from German companies reduced the aggregate market valuation of all companies listed on the Berlin Stock Exchange by approximately 5 percent between 1933 and 1943, or nearly 2 percent of the German gross national product, they find.

The researchers collected data on 30,000 managerial positions at German companies that had been listed on the Berlin Stock Exchange in 1932, when Hitler was on the path to becoming the leader of the country. At the time, Jews held about 15 percent of senior management positions in these companies.

After the Nazis took power in 1933, those managers either left or were forced out of their positions. The share prices of these companies then declined relative to companies that had never employed Jewish executives. The share prices of companies that lost Jewish managers started falling in 1933 and remained persistently 10 percent lower than the share prices of peer companies that had never had Jews in senior positions. more>

Related>