Silk Road 2.0: China’s Plan For Global Economic Dominance.

The Silk Road was one of the most important economic trade routes of antiquity. The road spanned from modern day Turkey to the Pacific side of China. Successfully  connecting various markets along the route. Not only did the road create immense wealth but indirectly lead to cultural exchange. In effect, Europeans were exposed to new spices. That created new pallets for various people, leading to the development of foods such as spaghetti & lasagna. The information passed through the silk road was also valuable. Technological advancements such as paper making, printing, gunpowder, and the compass gained traction across the world. Effectively leading to other advancements in society. However, despite all the positive effects the Silk Road had it would eventually decline due to political turmoil in the heart of the trade route. That lead to less security for traders, translating into a risky investment. Making it fall out of favor as a venture.

Fast forward to the 21st century. From relative obscurity & poverty, China has developed into an economic powerhouse. Climbing up the GVC (global value chain) and effectively becoming one of the world’s leaders in logistics. This only seems like the start. General Secretary Xi Jinping has announced a plan that has the potential to propel China into economic dominance. The project is called ‘The Silk Road Economic Belt’.

Silk Road 2.0

The new Silk Road project aims to unify large markets through a connected infrastructure. Creating one diversified market which trades products, talent, information, and culture. Sound familiar? It should because this is exactly what the old Silk Road did. However, a key difference is the route of the road. Instead of going through the Middle East it will go through central Asia. Rightly so, since the Middle East is experiencing a period of extreme instability. From central Asia the road is supposed to expand into eastern Europe. That would be a clear gateway into western European markets.

Now looking at the project through an optimistic lens this seem like a great opportunity to; develop Central Asian countries, reignite the stagnating economy of Eastern Europe, and take China deeper into a market Economy. Central Asian countries would gain the opportunity to develop their infrastructure, as well as become deeply integrated into the global economy. The idea China has is that new communities will sprout up on the road because of the economic benefits.

The same applies to Eastern European nations but to a lesser degree. How Eastern Europe would mainly benefit is as the direct gateway to Western European markets. An attractive venture for people trying to make money via Western Europe.Hypothetically, that should increase investment in the region which would stimulate the local economy. Allowing for growth. Thus reversing the stagnation.

China would be able to capitalize on this road by allowing their products to flow through the route. Increasing their market dominance as a producer. Additionally, products from Western Europe would come through as well. Allowing for consumption by the Chinese population. Specifically the middle class. Bam! Market economy.

The project aims to generate profit but in the process it enfranchises the disenfranchised. That’s always advantageous. Being able to make money while producing something by  helping those in need is beneficial for all parties.

Despite all it’s potential, it’d be naive to ignore the hurdles for this project.. Big projects need big money. The ambitious project is estimated to cost $5-8 trillion. In order for this to work a tremendous amount of cooperation & efficient execution. Only time will tell if this project gains traction.

 

 

While nations build walls, China plans to build roads. Times of economic growth (current growth is at 3.9% IMF) are the best times to plan for future. After all you want to fix the leaky roof while it’s sunny out.

 

 

Sources: IMF https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/01/11/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2018

 

http://www.ejinsight.com/20160412-getting-lost-one-belt-one-road/

 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/chinas-rise-as-a-regional-and-global-power-the-aiib-and-the-one-belt-one-road/

Trumps Climate Withdrawal: What It Means and International/Domestic Responses

Staying true to his campaign rhetoric, Trump has effectively decided to kill the Paris Climate Accord. Essentially ending government support for future innovation in the American economy. The move seems to be an attempt to bring back the dying American coal industry, despite the lack of evidence that pulling out will do just that. That’s because it’s hard to ignore that the cost of clean energy is plummeting in comparison to coal, making it more affordable to consumers.

Additionally, according to most “reputable” economists climate change will begin to have a net negative impact on the global economy (the median estimates say by 2025 is when the full effects will be felt). The economic sectors that would be most affected unsurprisingly include Agriculture (94% ) Fishing (74%) Tourism (72%) Insurance (66%) and Health Services (54%). And the United States could’ve used a overhaul of it’s current economic climate policy by further incentivizing corporations and individuals to innovate  by bolstering the American economy while at the same time curving pollution. Logically this is what will most likely help those disenfranchised by the economic collapse of the coal industry. A new industry equals new jobs for those effected by the coal decline. And a business oriented mind such as Trumps should easily recognize the economic benefits of going “green” namely: Incentivizing business by providing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which enables a head start in a new and emerging market, and the creation of more jobs through a “going green” infrastructural overhaul.

But instead Trump has decided to go a different route by pulling out of the Paris Accord. Was it to satisfy constituents by fulfilling his campaign promises? Or perhaps to distract from the scandals going on in the White House(?) Whatever the reason the fact remains that the Trump Administration has pulled out as the symbolic administrative leader of the global climate initiative. And in effect an unsuspecting “green alliance” has been forged to combat the looming global climate crisis.

The European Union and China have agreed to fill the vacuum left by the USA as the leaders of innovation amidst the climate crisis. A week after Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, China and the EU met in Brussels to talk about the future of their climate policies. The two parties (for the first time ever) are now  in agreement “to forge ahead” with measures to “lead the energy transition” towards a global low-carbon economy. Specifically by committing to cut back on fossil fuels, developing more green technology, and jointly working to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries cut their emissions. This “green alliance” seems to be calculated response to the Trump administrations protectionist economic framework. After all the EU and China’s agreement seem to be in the favor of free trade, economic growth and innovation, while at the same time combating the climate change epidemic.  A stark contrast to Trump’s crony and isolationist economic tactics. Furthermore, China has committed to a plan to develop 150 gigawatts of solar energy by the end of the decade, the EU is leading in wind power energy and recently France (via Macron) has additionally incentivized scientists and business leaders alike to come to France, in order to “work on concrete climate solutions”. As of now the EU is the leader for positive climate policy implementation and China is well on it’s way towards that path. And this new green alliance will only seek to economically and environmentally improve both regions.

However there is a silver lining. Despite the Trump Administration withdrawal from the Paris Agreement top American business leaders are still working towards the global climate initiative. CEO’s from Apple, ExxonMobil, Jp Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and most notable Elon Musk (who left the President advisory council after the decision)were ALL in dissent after Trumps withdrawal. Yes that’s right! natural gas companies and big financial firms AREN’T in favor of the decision and will continue to uphold the Paris Accord’s framework. Nick Atkins (CEO of American Electric Power, Coal company) had this to say “(T)his  gets a lot of questions from investors, we get a lot of questions from customers, that … want renewable energy solutions, clean energy solutions. And we at AEP want to be as benign to the environment as we can”.  However, these businesses could’ve used additional tax incentives by going with clean energy (allowing for further economic growth) and Trump had the power to help. He clearly chose not to.

The majority of the American population doesn’t agree with Trumps withdrawal either, according to a recent Washington Post- ABC news poll that says 59 percent oppose the move. Having said that several states have formed a bipartisan group committed to upholding the Paris Accord, called the United States Climate Alliance. Among the members are New York and California, huge economic influencers. If the USCA was a country it’d be 4th in terms of GDP. Providing hope for the future. After all the President’s decision doesn’t matter if the societal collective refuses to obey.

 

 

EDIT: While I wrote this the US Ambassador to China David Rank resigned because of Trumps Climate withdrawal

Sources: “Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change” by the Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law.

Click to access 20160527_1_a1_-_c_2016_2989_f1_annex_en_v1_p1_850173_en.pdf

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21722914-china-and-europe-plan-lead-climate-efforts-whither-world-after-americas-retreat

http://governor.wa.gov/news-media/united-states-climate-alliance-adds-10-new-members-coalition-committed-upholding-paris