Sunday, January 22, 2017

Jack Ma to Trump: How to make America great again

"From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first. America first," Donald Trump said in his Presidential inaugration speech.

"Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families."

"We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it," Trump said.

Certain political pundit saw Trump's speech as similar to his political campaign, still without substantive plan. He is beginning to talk like a politician.

In the eyes of Jack Ma, Trump is not making the critical decision to "make America great again", the campaign line he used. 

In his inaugration speech, Trump did made the first Presidential decision is to pull out of the 12-nation TPP [read The Star here]. Malaysia expected Trump's decision. Without TPP, it will pursue government-to-government FTAs or various RTAs in existence. 

Trump did say he will renegotiate the trade agreements that did not favour the US and the American workers.

But Trump did not have the political will to address the elephant in the room. To know the critical factor Jack Ma suggested Trump do, hear this session at the World Economic Forum: highlighted Trump expressed concern on the trillions of money spent on war overseas. However, he intend to rebuild the military [read here].

CNN's Fareed Zakaria agreed with Jack Ma. Fareed Zakaria's article in the New Straits Times yesterday:
Embrace globalisation

By Fareed Zakaria - 21 January 2017 @ 10:44 AM

The World Economic Forum this year feels like an exercise in ritual self-flagellation, which — as with the old Christian practice of fasting and whipping one’s own body — is supposed to purify the sinful nature of man. The sin, of course, is globalisation, which everyone now seems to agree has been lopsided, inequitable and dangerous. In fact, most of the flaws attributed to globalisation are actually mistakes in national policy that can be corrected.

It took a Chinese billionaire to speak frankly on this topic. Jack Ma, the founder of the e-commerce giant Alibaba, estimated that over the last three decades, the United States government spent US$14.2 trillion (RM63 trillion) fighting 13 wars. That money could easily have been invested in America, building infrastructure and creating jobs.

“You’re supposed to spend money on your own people,” he said. “It’s not (that) the other countries steal jobs from you guys — it is your strategy.” He pointed out that globalisation produced massive profits for the American economy, but much of that money ended up on Wall Street. “And what happened? Year 2008. The financial crisis wiped out US$19.2 trillion (in the) USA alone. What if the money [was] spent on the Midwest of the US developing the industry there?”

You don’t have to accept Ma’s specifics and statistics to recognise the validity of his general point. Globalisation created huge opportunities for growth, many of which were taken by US companies. The global economy today is still pervasively dominated by large American firms; 134 of Fortune Global 500 are American. And, if you look at cutting-edge industries, the vast majority are American. These companies have benefited enormously by having global supply chains that can source goods and services around the world, either to lower labour costs or to be close to the markets in which they sell. Since 95 per cent of the world’s potential consumers live outside the US, finding ways to sell to them will have to be a core strategy for growth, even for a country with a large domestic economy like America.

Obviously, globalisation has large effects on national economies and societies, and it produces some significant problems. What complex phenomenon does not? But, it also generates opportunities, innovation and wealth for nations that they can then use to address these problems through good national strategies. The solutions are easy to state in theory — education, skills-based training and retraining, infrastructure. But, they are extremely expensive and hard to execute well.

It is much easier to rail against foreigners and promise to fight them with tariffs and fines. But, the cost of addressing these problems at the global level is massive. The Economist reports, in a survey on globalisation, that in 2009 the Obama administration punished China with a tariff on their tyres. Two years later, the cost to American consumers was US$1.1 billion, or US$900,000 for every job “saved”.

The impact of such tariffs is usually felt disproportionately by the poor and middle class because they spend a larger share of their income on imported goods like food and clothing. That same Economist survey points to a study that calculated that, across 40 countries, if transnational trade ended, the wealthiest consumers would lose 28 per cent of their purchasing power, but the poorest one-tenth would lose a staggering 63 per cent.

Perhaps most important, the key driver that is depressing wages and eliminating jobs in the industrialised world is technology, not globalisation. For example, between 1990 and 2014, US automotive production increased by 19 per cent, but with 240,000 fewer workers.

Even when manufacturing comes back to the US, it is high-end manufacturing. It’s not just new Intel plants that have few workers anymore. Adidas has set up a new shoe factory in Germany that is run almost entirely by robots. It will open a similar one in Atlanta later this year. And, the few workers in these factories tend to be highly skilled technicians and software engineers. You can’t turn off technological revolutions. Nor can you stop China from growing. Tariffs on China will simply mean that production will come from some Third World country.

The best approach to the world we are living in is not denial but empowerment. Countries should recognise that the global economy and the technological revolution require large, sustained national efforts to equip workers with the skills, capital and infrastructure they need to succeed. Nations should embrace an open world, but only as long as they are properly armed to compete in it. And that requires smart, effective — and very expensive — national policies, not some grand reversal of globalisation.

Fareed Zakaria is an American journalist and author. He is the host of CNN’s ‘Fareed Zakaria GPS’ and writes a weekly column for ‘The Washington Post’

Recommended by Jack Ma is to hear China President Xia Jin Peng himself:

Those in pursuit of a military war or political war or trade war should reconsider and not lose sight of the bigger picture and larger benefit [read Rocky Bru here and his links].

This Friday, President Xi is due to deliver his important Chinese New Years message.

Check it out.

1 comment:

IT.Scheiss said...

I have been an opponent of globalisation since the 1990s and continue to be so, albeit from a left wing perspective and I am delighted that there has been a global paradigm shift against globalisation with the election of Duterte, Brexit, the shift away from globalisation in Europe and recently the election of Trump and his killing of the TPP even though with the exception of Duterte, these have mostly come about from the far-right of the political spectrum.

The Neo-liberal economic tide became dominant following the election of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. and President Reagan inthe U.S., whilst the tide of globalisation came to the fore following the formation of the World Trade Organisation at the 1994 GATT conference and now the pendulum has reach the end of its swing and is now on its reverse swing.

Hopefully, under Trump, the U.S. will interfere less in the internal affairs of other countries, especially in the Middle East and reduce or end U.S. imperialist interference in the region and let them come to terms with their own problems through negotiations and political solutions, such as the talks in Astana between Syrian antagonists:-

"Bringing the primary antagonists in the Syrian conflict to the negotiating table in Astana, Kazakhstan is already a massive result, political analyst Marwa Osman told RT."

Hopefully, the U.S. under Trump will bring and end to the dominance of Neo-Conservatives and their liberal interventionism in other countries which has dominated previous Democrat and Republican presidencies and also bring an end to the dominance of globalist, neo-liberal economic policies which U.S. and western imperialism has tried to impose upon the rest of the world, with disastrous results the people's of the world, as well as ordinary working people in the U.S. and Europe.

My Say