Notes From Underground

First, I am reposting part of the January 29 post as a reminder to pay attention to the narrative of Trump rolling back to the concept of Pax Americana. As the Trump administration begins to reveal its ambitions, there is a great deal of conversation about Trump becoming more presidential and that the “grown ups” are taking charge of policy. The demotion of Stephen Bannon ignited a discussion about the Wall Street crowd (Mnuchin, Ross, Cohn, Kushner) becoming aligned with the “Deep State.” The concept of the deep state is really the power of the entrenched bureaucracy as the primary source within the beltway.

This is what I warned about in January when I discussed the role of press leaks undermining the Trump administration. The bureaucratic influence and prestige supporting 70 years of Pax Americana is not to be easily dismissed. The entrenched bureaucracy has prevailed for the moment but the drain-the-swamp crowd will be fighting its own rearguard actions as it comes to understand the political terrain of Washington. Bannon is an ideologue, not a policy maker so he will resort to bomb-throwing attacks on his self-defined adversaries.

Tonight I am posting the latest episode from the Financial Repression Authority (click on the blue link to listen). I do these for no remuneration as I think the information flowing out of this group creates great conversation and can generate some very profitable investment opportunities. Yes, it’s 34 minutes long but it is more LEARNATIVE than the network news. So pour a stiff whisky and listen while doing other reading. I share this with, you readers because I am honored to be a part of this great dialectical process. One of the key points in tonight’s post is the development of a narrative in which to analyze the world of Trump. It is not a partisan narrative but one I am developing as I attempt to discern the unfolding global dialogue being put forward by Team Trump.

The major idea I forward is that President Trump is going to try to ROLL BACK Pax Americana. In international relations terms, Pax Americana was the theoretical basis to define American behavior in a post-World War II global configuration. America would bear any burden and any cost to promote a world order in which democracy and trade were promoted, and totalitarianism was to be confronted wherever it thought to expand. Yes, the Soviet sphere of influence was vast in territory but very few countries willingly signed up to be in the Soviet orbit. The U.S. had its empire and so did the Soviets. But the cost of maintaining an empire is expensive. The Soviets learned that when the price of oil rose and the cost of subsidizing the deficient socialist economies of eastern Europe became too exorbitant. Pax Americana, based on capitalism and its expanding growth, was much more capable of sustaining a global empire. But maybe we have reached the limits of what America can afford. I THINK THIS IS THE NARRATIVE ON WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP IS OPERATING.

Now, this is just a conjecture but I think it is important to utilize a construct to help understand the nuances of the new administration. The VIX may say the financial world is comfortable, but we have seen money flows and experts be wrong in their assessments for their models fail to acknowledge the turbulence beneath the waves. The end of Pax Americana, or at least a move away from U.S. dominance, always promotes great anxiety and potential for upheavals. Trump is proclaiming that Pax Americana is over and if the present world structure is to be sustained more nations will have to bear the cost. This is why Trump continues to denigrate the established world order.

The problem is that the world is far more DYNAMIC than President Trump assumes so the global response will be far more uncertain than the Trump foreign policy team imagines. Going forward our task will be to recognize the financial opportunities in a radically changing global system. Also, what Trump may underestimate will be the bureaucratic battle that will take place in Washington D.C. as the foreign policy establishment ensconced in Pax Americana thinking will be fighting rearguard actions to undermine the attempts to displace the existing order (think, a great deal of leaking). This narrative is an effort to understand and navigate the markets in an age of  heightened uncertainty.

Remember, President Trump’s mantra during his campaign was that the NATO nations and other alliance partners were not paying their share of the cost of defense. Empires are expensive and when the cost is deemed a positive it is worth maintaining. But one the benefits accrue away from the CENTER of the EMPIRE questions arise about the sustaining of status quo.

This is just a reminder of the complexities involved in making policy in a world populated by with true believers. Trump has been moving away from the ideologues but watch this weekend’s meeting with the IMF to get a sense of possible changes in the status quo of Pax Americana. I noted the importance of the Wilbur Ross comment calling the IMF rhetoric on U.S. trade policy. Pure rubbish.

Today, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin attempted to soften any possible acrimony between the Trump administration and the IMF … again. Mnuchin talked nice about Christine Lagarde and in a Financial Times interview, he said he would not take a position on the IMF’s bailout of Greece. This was in violation of IMF rules as Greece is a wealthy country when it is part of the EU community. The IMF had no business in providing loans to Athens but Mnuchin wished not to stir that pot. However, Mnuchin did throw more RUBBISH on the pile with his comments about the U.S. dollar. He said: “What I’ve talked about is the long-term value of the dollar. And as the world’s currency, the primary reserve currency, I think that over long periods of time the strength of the dollar is a good thing. It’s a function of the confidence and the strength of the U.S.economy.”

Yes, Mr. Secretary, this is of course correct but it is always a reflexive, relative issue and the valuation of the U.S. currency has been manipulated for short-term political advantage when necessary. Define for us, if you will, what long-term means. In answering if the president was talking down the dollar, Mnuchin said, “The President’s comments, which again, I agree with, over short periods of time, the strength of the dollar creates certain issues which hurt our exports.” Mnuchin’s claim for a strong dollar policy is RUBBISH. Trump has shown that he will use dollar policy as a cudgel to brandish as an economic threat to affect foreign policy.

His tweet about not naming China as a currency manipulator in order to achieve cooperation on North Korea is a perfect example. The dollar will be a tool in this administration and in the long-term Mnuchin won’t be around to see its effective policy use. When Robert Rubin was Secretary of the Treasury he promoted a strong dollar policy until the Chinese complained about a weak YEN (June 1998). When President Clinton was on his way to Beijing, the U.S. Treasury intervened in the currency markets by purchasing Japanese yen in an effort to raise the currency’s value. It worked and the Chinese were placated. The dollar is a short-term tool of the foreign policy establishment and the politicians in Washington. So it goes.

Tags: Christine Lagarde, French election, IMF, Mnuchin, Trump, U.S. Dollar

This entry was posted on April 19, 2017 at 7:35 pm and is filed under Currency, France, Uncategorized, United States. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.