Home » Posts tagged 'The Commonwealth' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: The Commonwealth
Free Trade or Protectionism for a Strong UK Economy?
by John Brian Shannon | January 17, 2017
Prime Minister Theresa May says that Britain must be a free trading nation to boost the UK economy and to better serve the aspirations of millions of Britons.
And Britain’s leader is correct, as history has proven that free trading nations outperform non-free-trading nations. From the seafaring Phoenicians of classical antiquity to the former British colony that became a superpower called the United States of America; Free trade and hard work have built our shared civilization, and any country that withdrew from free trade or liberalized trade agreements, consequently declined.
READ: Between Free Trade and Protectionism: Strategic Trade Policy and a Theory of Corporate Trade Demands by Helen V. Milner and David B. Yoffie | Published by MIT Press
That’s not to say that other economic practices don’t have merit, because they do. However, a group of non-free-trade nations will always be surpassed by a comparable group of free trade nations — due to the symbiotic nature of free trading relationships which produce small but measurable amounts of synergy that accumulate over time.
It’s the easier access to raw materials, the lower labour costs, and the ability to access larger export markets that make free trade work so well, but the ‘icing on the cake’ is the synergy produced by the symbiotic relationships which aggregate and thereby increase corporate profits and investor dividends that are often reinvested in the growing corporation. Over time, all this synergistic activity results in far greater outcomes than otherwise would’ve been the case.
The British Empire in all it’s glory was built on free trade with many partners, but in 2017 it’s even more important for Britain to be a free trading nation.
A perceived problem occurs when vast disparities are present, such as when one nation is blessed with abundant raw resources allowing it to basically dig money out of the ground which eventually accumulates into billions or even trillions of dollars, while another country in the same trading bloc may have few natural resources.
As long as all partners within the trading bloc have equal access to those raw resources, such problems are likely to be nothing more than minor jealousies.
Countries like the United States, Canada, Norway, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have vast petroleum reserves, and importantly, good economic stewardship — which allowed them both rapid growth for the economy and a high standard of living for their citizens. It’s telling to note they are free trading nations — while other countries blessed with large petroleum reserves but restrictive international trading arrangements, haven’t prospered. Venezuela (the country with the world’s largest proved oil reserves) along with Libya and Nigeria, have poorer development due to their historically somewhat less than free trade practices. For economists, those nations serve as a warning to politicians considering the adoption of less liberal trade policies or outright protectionism.
Such disparities between nations, unless handled carefully, can result in explosive economic and political consequences.
READ: What does Free Trade mean? | Investopedia
Globalization: Lower-priced goods, but fewer jobs
It’s easy for some to forget that free trade and globalization are two different things. Free trade relates to the removal of tariffs, or at least the standardization of low tariff rates between member nations of the same trading bloc, while globalization refers to a highly interconnected political and economic world of which trade of any kind, whether free or not, is merely part of a large picture.
Those who feel left behind by globalization (and there are millions) tend to blame free trade, when in fact it was free trade that created a booming global economy from 1982 through 2007 (and a somewhat less booming economy) from 2012 through 2016.
Led by global elites, the rush to create high growth and high GDP meant that quality of life fell steeply for millions of Westerners for the first time since WWII due to the offshoring of Western jobs to countries with lower labour costs and non-existent environmental regulations.
Britain must ensure that globalization and free trade work for every Commonwealth citizen.
READ: You Can’t Feed a Family With G.D.P. | New York Times
It’s Not All Bad
Westerners have enjoyed unprecedented low-cost, quality goods manufactured in other countries.
Two examples of this are; 1) the Apple iPhone, which, if manufactured in the United States would have cost $2800. each, instead of the typical $650.-$950. price range. The iPhone wouldn’t have ever seen production if it hadn’t been manufactured in Asia. Over one billion have been sold since the first iPhone hit the market. And; 2) almost every computer chip in the world was manufactured in Taiwan, an industrious country with a very diligent workforce, but few natural resources. Computer chips have cost an average of $40. since Taiwan’s entry into the semi-conductor business, but if manufactured in the United States those chips would’ve cost hundreds of dollars each.
While low-cost goods are welcome in the West, people in the bottom quintiles now wish for a return to high paying employment and would gladly forego low-priced goods.
Which is exactly what the election of Donald Trump is all about. ‘Cheap goods are great, but we’d rather have jobs!’ — seems to be the main message there.
It’s difficult to blame those who harbour such resentments when 3/5ths of the population are doing less well, while only 2/5ths feel they have progressed in recent years.
Yet to blame the very free trade agreements that brought wealth to Western nations displays a lack of understanding of how globalization works vs. how free trade agreements work.
Free trade creates additional economic activity (with many virtuous cycles, which are always a good thing) while unrestricted globalization (under existing personal tax laws) rewards the top-two quintiles at the expense of the bottom-three quintiles. And it’s this fundamental misunderstanding which have people in an anti-free-trade mood — when instead, they should be protesting against global elites, unfettered globalization, and crass-and-uncaring politicians.
Had the global elites applied as much effort to ensuring that globalization worked for every economic quintile instead of the top-two quintiles exclusively, movements such as Occupy Wall Street along with the general disenchantment voiced by the public against politicians and economists wouldn’t have materialized. Ever.
When it works for everyone, there’s no complaining.
READ: In Defense of Globalization | Project Syndicate
Free Trade with a Standardized and Reciprocal Tariff Regime – Instead of Unfettered Globalization
PM Theresa May and Chancellor Philip Hammond should work to obtain a mutually-beneficial free trade agreement between all Commonwealth countries as part of a Tier 1 trade accord.
Such an agreement should ensure there are no tariffs, levies, nor other trade impediments — save for a highly standardized and reciprocal 5% tariff on all goods — except books (in any form) or those medicines that actually save lives, because principles do matter. A more educated and healthier Commonwealth are desirable outcomes. No VAT taxes or tariffs should be levied on books or life-saving medicines, ever. Anywhere on the planet, IMHO.
Why the 5% Tariff?
What the 5% tariff would do for all signatory countries is to pay for upgraded port facilities and enhanced security at ports, railways, and for cargo ships at sea.
Why the 10% Tariff?
A Tier 2 trade accord should be negotiated with nations that aren’t Commonwealth members with a standardized and reciprocal tariff of 10% — except for books and life-saving medicines which should be tariff-free and VAT-free in every case. As long as the trade partners agree to standardized and reciprocal tariffs, such tariffs won’t break WTO tariff rules. And such revenue could enhance port security, of course, but could also be used to pay for additional infrastructure programmes to put millions of workers back on the job.
Why the 25% Tariff?
Finally, a Tier 3 trading scheme could be created for those nations that won’t agree to a standardized list of tariffable items at a standardized and reciprocal rate, and won’t agree to not tariff books and life-saving medicines, and that tariff could be 25% on all imported items until the day arrives that country begins to abide by the Tier 2 trading rules.
In all three scenarios it puts the UK government firmly in the drivers’ seat in regards to imported goods and guides UK trading partners towards Tier 2, or even Tier 1 status.
The goal is to arrive at a situation whereby every nation willingly decides to join The Commonwealth in order to gain free trading status with the Commonwealth and agrees to a nominal, standardized, and reciprocal 5% tariff regime on every good except books and life-saving medicines.
It is still free trade, but with a nominal, built-in tariff designed to enhance port facilities and streamline security in all partner nations.
What to do with the revenue generated by such tariffs?
The main point is to upgrade existing port facilities, to increase security at Britain’s ports, and at reciprocal trade partner ports to ensure the security of ships at sea and the thousands of kilometres of rail lines that carry freight.
Any remaining tariff revenue could be used to soften the economic blows to those in the bottom-two quintiles who have suffered quite enough over the past 16 years.
Whether used to boost social welfare rates (good) or to boost national infrastructure spending (better) or both (best) it will be money well spent, and it would be revenue that arrived in the government hand via imported goods.
Which seems fitting, doesn’t it?
READ: Interview with Theresa May, Prime Minister of the UK, from the World Economic Forum 2017 | CNBC
China to UK rail link to revolutionize trade
by John Brian Shannon | January 4, 2017
The biggest boon to UK trade in this century has just arrived in London with astonishingly little fanfare.
China, the largest exporter on the planet, has just linked its rail system to the UK as part of its One Belt, One Road initiative to promote global trade.
“China launched its first freight service to the United Kingdom on New Year’s day, according to the China Railway Corporation.
The service runs from the Chinese city of Yiwu, in the country’s eastern Zhejiang province, to Barking in London. The journey lasts for an average of 18 days and more than 12,000 kilometers, according to a Chinese government website.
The route will “revolutionize the way freight is moved from China,” Mike White, director of its U.K.-based arm, Brunel Shipping, told CNBC via telephone.
He explained that freight transport by sea from China to the U.K. can take twice the time of the new rail link. Also, it offers the potential for “huge savings” on existing air routes.” — Justina Crabtree MSNBC
For China, the One Belt, One Road initiative will eventually surpass even Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward where 600 million people were lifted out of abject poverty in a herculean effort that lasted 40 years. China’s trade with Europe and the rest of Asia is about to leap forward by one order of magnitude, and every economy the rail line passes through will advance accordingly because of it.
UK – China trade will be revolutionized by China’s One Belt and One Road initiative first unveiled by Chinese leader Xi Jinping in 2013.
For the UK, there’s no excuse good enough (no, not even Brexit!) to miss the opportunity to become a major player in this global rail link. The Prime Minister should drop everything and phone President Xi Jinping to congratulate him on this vision that is EurAsia’s newest and most hope-filled reality.
UK government should purchase advertising rights TODAY on 20% of those rolling billboards
Theresa May should very politely but assertively ask for the rights to purchase advertising on at least 20% of the railcars that travel that rail line in the interests of promoting British tourism, British universities, British products, and to advertise the great development work that The Commonwealth does around the globe.
Let’s get the website URL’s painted on those railcars this month!
We can worry about adding fancy graphics, later.
And when people visit those sites let’s ensure that every language is available on the website, especially the languages that are spoken in the countries those railcars pass through. (Otherwise, what’s the point of advertising?)
Getting the UK Brand out there
Such railcars can be travelling billboards for the UK, with the message painted directly on the sides of rail tankers, boxcars, and other types of railcars. These travelling billboards will be seen by many millions of people every day of the year as they pass through cities, towns, and rural countrysides in 8 countries.
Instead of letting government departments and UK businesses approach China’s Yiwu Timex Industrial Investment Co. (the owner-operators of the rail service) in a piecemeal approach, this is the time for LEADERSHIP by a great Prime Minister!
“President Xi, I’ll take 20% of the boxcar advertising that travel along that route. Alright with you? Wonderful, here’s the money. I have the graphics specs for you now. We’d also like an option for a further 20% of your China-to-UK railcar advert space for our Commonwealth partners. Back to you in a week on that.”
THAT’S how you get things done! THAT’S how you Build a Better Britain!
China – UK trade. Instead of “Exporting is Great” it could just as easily read “Aston Martin cars are Great” or “UK Tourism is Great” or “British Universities are Great” along with the relevant website URL.
Here’s another example of a splashy graphic that could be painted on the sides of China-bound railcars that depart from the UK. Of course, the text on the railcars should be written in every language spoken along the rail route.
UK Tourism – Heritage is Great! And so is advertising on the side of China-bound railcars.
Even the railcar advertising from earlier generations was effective. The following photo shows a railcar that hauled wheat and legumes with 1970’s-era Canadian government advertising painted onto the side of the railcar.
Britain could purchase advertising space to promote British industry and tourism on the side of China to UK railcars. — Image courtesy of Bill Grandin
It’s great to be diplomatic, and it’s great to have G20 meetings — but it’s opportunities like this that can result in virtuous cycles (economic multipliers) that drive an economy forward.
It’s the sort of thing that’s so important you must push yourself into the lineup, instead of being a wallflower and letting every other country get the prime advertising space, first. And we know that’s not the way politicians usually proceed, but as Winston Churchill used to say, “If you can’t get something done yourself, hire the best to get it done for you.”
With the greatest respect Ms. Prime Minister, you don’t need permission from the EU, you don’t need permission from America, you don’t need permission from British MP’s, and you don’t need permission from British business; This must be your top priority everyday until January 20, 2017 when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.
A Development Bank for The Commonwealth
by John Brian Shannon | October 27, 2016
The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Kuwait Fund, the African Development Bank Group, the Grameen Bank, and more recently, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank are all highly respected development banking institutions — but not one of them are dedicated to the improvement and well-being of the nation states that make up The Commonwealth of Nations.
And that’s a shame. The Commonwealth of Nations spans the globe, it encompasses nation states with tiny populations measured in thousands, to India with 2.2 billion citizens (consumers) by 2025, and nations that range from the 5th-largest economy in the world (Britain) to the tiniest economies in the world — and everything in between. Huge resource wealth, almost boundless agricultural opportunity, ocean access, tourism, and many other benefits await for development banks, corporate financial institutions, and private investors.
Wealthy Commonwealth nations can find much to like about investing in other nations that lie within the Commonwealth organization, in resources, in agriculture, in reasonable labour costs, in tourism, and more.
Such an institution could pool funds, create a bank, get some immediate projects rolling, and quickly generate some bank profits — profits that will simply be re-invested in the next project somewhere within the Commonwealth.
For a relatively small investment relative to the total Commonwealth GDP, come outsized gains in involvement by other members of that organization, a greater level of economic success among and between member nations, and much gain to offer banks, infrastructure construction companies and their supplier corporations.
Each development loan between Commonwealth nations further strengthens the Commonwealth and thereby, all of the nations in the group are strengthened.
If ever there were a textbook case upon which to base a successful development bank, The Commonwealth nations are it.
Hydro-electric dams in developing nations are highly valued by government, corporations, and citizens alike — and represent low risk and steady income for development banks and private investors. Image courtesy of pluginindia.com
Whether in the energy sector, agriculture, tourism, and in other segments of the developing economy, having a Commonwealth-only development bank distinctly geared towards financing and providing design and engineering expertise will benefit investor nations, commercial banks, and private investors — and provide a double benefit for those developing nations growing their economies while trying to provide better services for citizens.
How can Britain Afford This?
Britain is one of the most generous donor nations in the world, paying out some .71% of GDP in foreign aid annually. Few countries surpass this (Norway pays out 1% of GDP to foreign aid) but most fall well-short of Britain’s foreign aid commitment.
Canada, for instance pays .20% of GDP (and its total GDP is much smaller than the UK) and EU foreign aid spending averages .45% of GDP.
Instead of directing .71% of it’s GDP to non-Commonwealth nations, Britain should continue to pay .71% of GDP towards development aid, but spend it within the Commonwealth bloc exclusively.
In that way, billions of pounds sterling can immediately begin to strengthen Commonwealth economies, with two-way trade becoming dramatically enhanced between Britain and member nations.
Building a new hydro-electric dam, a major bridge, or a superhighway system in a Commonwealth nation?
Please source as much steel, hardware, and expertise, etc. as you can from the UK. And for developing nations without major construction firms large enough to take on megaprojects, please allow British firms to bid on your construction project.
Seems reasonable, doesn’t it?
Summary
By redirecting all of Britain’s foreign aid to Commonwealth of Nations countries exclusively, the UK will strengthen ties between Britain and all of those nations.
It will also serve to increase GDP of those nations, while British construction firms and their infrastructure hardware suppliers would get a welcome boost. As GDP growth leaps forward in member nations, demand for goods, skilled labour, and interim project financing from Britain will increase at a linear pace.
For developing nations within the Commonwealth, it’s the fast-track to developed nation status, higher GDP growth, better and sooner services for citizens, and (typically) a more stable economic and political situation.
And that’s better for everyone in this world, Commonwealth citizen, or not.
Letter to Britain 