Clear and Candid

By Vincent J. Truglia

I predict, despite what some Canadian polls say, that the Conservatives under Pollievre will win a large majority. I listened to one of his recent speeches where he detailed overall Conservative policies if they win. He seemed just like a softer version of Trump.

He intends to get rid of most environmental laws which will produce a Canadian equivalent of Drill Baby Drill. Mining regulations will be drastically reduced so that it will be much easier to open new mines. He intends on ending cashless bail laws. He will reopen an Arctic military base closed since the end of the cold war. Canada will increase military spending especially in the Arctic. He will increase Canadian supervision of its borders by increasing spending on manpower and technology. He intends on dramatically reducing immigration, including ending visitor or student visas for anyone who is violent or who does not support Canadian values.

He also indicated that Canada will come to an agreement with the US understanding that both nations must benefit.

Under Canada’s Constitution, which created a powerful Supreme Court, there is an option for Parliament to override SC decisions for 5 years. As a result, he intends to overturn a number of recent SC decisions, especially related to crime, all of which seem eminently sensible to me.

If the Liberals win, then I expect  Alberta and possibly Saskatchewan to begin independence referendums, which have specific rules under Canadian law.

There has been massive, unprecedented early voting.

I hope I’m right.

As always, Clear and Candid.

By Vincent J. Truglia

There is little doubt that the Trump tariff war is aimed directly at China. Yes, the US plans on significantly reducing its trade deficit with the rest of the world. However, it would still make sense for the US to aim its trade policy towards China, a country which basically survives on exporting to the US.

As past observers of my comments know, I believe Trump is a master at multidimensional chess. Policies often have twists and turns which belie their true intent. I believe cutting off Chinese exports from the US market may turn out to be a brilliant geopolitical policy.

It is quite obvious that the Xi regime intends on taking Taiwan by force in the near future. What cutting off China from the US market does is prepare the US for a cut-off of Chinese exports, which such a military adventure would imply before any military adventure takes place. Americans are quickly learning what such a cutoff looks like. In other words, we are preparing ourselves for a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Covid showed us how dependent the US has been on Chinese imports of even the most basic items. What better way to prepare the economy for such potential trade actions by the Chinese than by stopping US-China trade before any military events occur.

It is not surprising that semiconductors are being placed in a special category by the US. This allows for at least a little extra time for the US to prepare for export controls on semiconductors from Taiwan when the PLO invades Taiwan.

Preparations by the US to aid Taiwan to maintain its internet connections as China targets Taiwan’s undersea cable connections with the rest of the world is telling.

Are all these developments part of Trump’s grand plan? I don’t know. However, even if this wasn’t his intention, preparing us for an invasion of Taiwan by China certainly is the result.

The fact that the Chinese economy is imploding as unemployment rises at record rates, with the housing sector collapse affecting provincial finances through the loss of revenue from land sales for new construction puts Xi, who is already under enormous domestic political pressure, at a greater risk of a military coup.

I interpret the decline in long-term US treasuries to be nothing more than an attempt by China to destabilize the US. However, for anyone who understands finance will know, when push comes to shove, the Fed can always take on the burden of Chinese attempts at financial sabotage aimed at the Treasury market.

As always, Clear and Candid.

By Vincent J. Truglia

We all know China and the US are in the early stages of a trade war. China’s overreaction to US tariffs has only made matters worse. Given China’s over-reliance on the massive US domestic market, this tariff war will end far worse for China than for the US.

Trump doesn’t just play the art of international statecraft as a game of 2-D chess, but rather his style is closer to what I would categorize as 3-D or even 4-D chess. The Chinese economy has already been suffering from anemic growth. The decline in exports to the US will likely cause a major recession in China. It’s near-term future would be bad enough if not for what may soon happen which could further cripple China’s economy.

Iran

Trump has planned meetings in Oman this coming weekend with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program. Unless Iran capitulates quickly, I expect Israel and the US will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, if the talks in Oman do not result in an agreement, the most likely outcome of a full-scale attack will be a surge in energy prices around the world. Since China imports the vast bulk of its energy needs, a sharp rise in energy prices will further cripple the already tariff-drained Chinese economy.

If the US and Israel attack Iran, the Chinese economy will go into an unprecedented crisis. The threat posed by the tariffs, along with potentially higher energy prices, will represent the worst threats to the CCP regime since the Korean War.

Trump’s Endgame?

The combination of strangling tariffs, when combined with higher energy prices, would put China’s economy and especially its military ambitions on hold. Could this be Trump’s endgame? Even if this isn’t his explicit goal, it might turn out to be the result.

As always, Clear and Candid.

US Needs to Cancel Article 5 Commitment or Leave NATO:

By

Vincent J. Truglia

I have been following, with trepidation, the growing call for NATO countries to host nuclear weapons. Poland and the Baltic countries are looking forward to coming under a nuclear umbrella supplied by France. All four countries fear potential Russia aggression.

If Poland or the Baltic countries target Russia, even inadvertently, and France’s response is to threaten or use its nuclear arsenal to defend those countries, Russia almost certainly would respond to the French threat. If and when that occurs, the US should remain on the sidelines. The US should not respond to an Article 5 event caused by the machinations of the Polish and/or Baltic governments.

If France is targeted, the US is supposed to come to the aid of France. However, in this scenario, the underlying source of the crisis might be the Baltic countries and Poland trying to antagonize the Russian bear, something the US should not support.

Defending Poland and/or the Baltics is not worth risking a world war, which might easily result in Armageddon. All four of those countries have a long history of mutual animosity when it comes to Russia.

As always: Clear and Candid

By Vincent J. Truglia

In 1956, Richard Lipsky and Kelvin Lancaster introduced the Theory of the Second Best. What they were aiming for was to explore what would happen if all the required conditions for economic models were not met. They concluded that if even only one of the so-called necessary conditions were not met, then a policy of moving closer to the required theoretical conditions is not necessarily the best approach. The policy implications are profound.

Free trade has been the model espoused by most economists since the days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. However, today many economists do not like to discuss the theory of the second best because when doing so it becomes clear the argument for unfettered free trade is a hollow one. Once we are in the world of the second best all bets are off as to what the best policy approach is.

We are in the midst of a significant policy debate about the re-introduction of tariffs in the US. It seems most commentators continue to base their analysis of the imposition of tariffs on trade models based on a world of pure competition, perfect information, markets that will always clear themselves, etc. It is obvious we do not live in such a world. Therefore, believing that moving ever closer to free trade is always the best policy falls flat.  Deciding the impact of tariffs or other trade restrictions requires a robust exploration.

By Vincent J. Truglia

April 13, 2013

I fear we are slowly seeing a slide into civil war in the/Ukraine.  I see little room for compromise on either side, especially since both the present “interim” government and Russian speaking Ukrainians view their country so differently.  The geopolitics is such that without both sides giving in to the other in a way acceptable to both, the likely outcome is an escalation of violence.  I cannot see such a rapprochement happening.

As violence escalates in the Eastern Ukraine, it will grow increasingly likely that the Russian Federation will be forced by circumstances to move into the Eastern Ukraine to avoid a Syria-like situation there. 

My own personal view, as I have said/written on numerous occasions is that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation would move not only into the eastern and southern parts of the Ukraine, but go beyond Odessa and fixing another problem, that of Russian-speaking Trans-Dniester, which could then join the Russian Federation, or at least become a member state of the Eurasian Economic Community.

There is little the US, the EU or NATO can do to prevent this.  If sanctions are hardened against Russia, given its history of strong resistance to outside pressure, the likely outcome of more sanctions will be a toughening of the Russian position.  In addition, besides the fact that NATO and the EU did the exact same thing when they invaded Serbia, and separated Kosovo, Serbia’s traditional heartland into, an Albanian state, without the acquienscence of Serbia, it is the height of hypocrisy for the West to argue that Russia is breaking international law.  Using the West’s present logic, then Kosovo should immediately be given back to Serbia.

We must remember, President Putin warned NATO and the EU that by creating a separate state in Kosovo, the West was changing international law.  He is even quoted as stating that such an action “would come back and slap them in the face.”  That’s what’s happening now.

If events in the Ukraine grow worse, and I expect they will, then I expect that the next provocative move the Russians may make is to put nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, a perfectly legitimate action for them to take. They threatened this in 2008.  After all, Kaliningrad, despite being between Poland and Lithuania is an integral part of the Russian Federation.  Russia is free to move its nuclear weapons wherever it wants within its own territory.

Also, claims of the high ground by the so-called interim government in Kiev are laughable.  The government came to power as a result of an overthrow of the legally elected President of the Ukraine.  It was a coup, simple as that. They had perfectly legal means of removing him, and yet still follow the Ukrainian constitution.  They could have impeached him.

Ukraine is scheduled for national elections in May.  Under present conditions, it will be impossible for the Ukrainian government to guarantee free and fair elections, especially since it is not viewed as legitimate by a large swathe of the country.

The US is powerless to resolve this problem. More sanctions will make matters worse.  The reality is that a modern version of the Soviet Union is practically complete.  Since there are no real policy differences between the West and the Eurasian Economic Community, as there was when the Soviet Union tried to overthrow capitalism, the risk and national interests are quite different.  Today, if anything, the Russian Federation suffers from an extreme form of capitalism.

Let’s hope that the Ukrainians either make peace – not likely – or separate into two separate countries.  Then the last thing NATO should do is to move into the Eastern Ukraine.  That would make tensions throughout the region, especially in the Baltics, which are now not center-stage, much worse.

As always, Clear and Candid.