Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. 2019 From A Fourth Turning Perspective - James_Quinn
2.Beware the Young Stocks Bear Market! - Zeal_LLC
3.Safe Havens are Surging. What this Means for Stocks 2019 - Troy_Bombardia
4.Most Popular Financial Markets Analysis of 2018 - Trump and BrExit Chaos Dominate - Nadeem_Walayat
5.January 2019 Financial Markets Analysis and Forecasts - Nadeem_Walayat
6.Silver Price Trend Analysis 2019 - Nadeem_Walayat
7.Why 90% of Traders Lose - Nadeem_Walayat
8.What to do With Your Money in a Stocks Bear Market - Stephen_McBride
9.Stock Market What to Expect in the First 3~5 Months of 2019 - Chris_Vermeulen
10.China, Global Economy has Tipped over: The Surging Dollar and the Rallying Yen - FXCOT
Last 7 days
S&P 500 at Resistance Level, Downward Correction Ahead? - 17th Jan 19
Mauldin: My 2019 Economic Outlook - 17th Jan 19
Macro Could Weaken After US Government Shutdown. What This Means for Stocks - 17th Jan 19
US Stock Market Indexes Reaches Fibonacci Target Zone – Where to Next? - 17th Jan 19
How 2018 Was For The UK Casino Industry - 17th Jan 19
Gold Price – US$700 Or US$7000? - 16th Jan 19
Commodities Are the Right Story for 2019 - 16th Jan 19
Bitcoin Price Wavers - 15th Jan 19
History Shows That “Disruptor Stocks” Will Make You the Most Money in a Bear Market - 15th Jan 19
What Will the Stock Market Do Around Earnings Season - 15th Jan 19
2018-2019 Pop Goes The Debt Bubble - 15th Jan 19
Are Global Stock Markets About To Rally 10 Percent? - 15th Jan 19
Here's something to make you money in 2019 - 15th Jan 19
Theresa May to Lose by Over 200 Votes as Remain MP's Plot Subverting Brexit - 15th Jan 19
Europe is Burning - 14th Jan 19
S&P 500 Bounces Off 2,600, Downward Reversal? - 14th Jan 19
Gold A Rally or a Bull Market? - 14th Jan 19
Gold Stocks, Dollar and Oil Cycle Moves to Profit from in 2019 - 14th Jan 19
How To Profit From The Death Of Las Vegas - 14th Jan 19
Real Reason for Land Rover Crisis is Poor Quality of Build - 14th Jan 19
Stock Market Looking Toppy! - 13th Jan 19
Liquidity, Money Supply, and Insolvency - 13th Jan 19
Top Ten Trends Lead to Gold Price - 13th Jan 19
Silver: A Long Term Perspective - 13th Jan 19
Trump's Impeachment? Watch the Stock Market - 12th Jan 19
Big Silver Move Foreshadowed as Industrial Panic Looms - 12th Jan 19
Gold GDXJ Upside Bests GDX - 12th Jan 19
Devastating Investment Losses Are Coming: What Is Your Advisor Doing About It? - 12th Jan 19
Things to do Before Choosing the Right Credit Card - 12th Jan 19
Japanese Yen Outlook In 2019 - 11th Jan 19
Yield curve suggests that US Recession is near: Trading Setups - 11th Jan 19
How Unrealistic Return Assumptions Are Ruining Your Stocks Portfolio - 10th Jan 19
What’s Next for the US Dollar, Gold, Stocks & Bonds? - 10th Jan 19
America's New Africa Strategy - 10th Jan 19
Gold Mine Production by Country - 10th Jan 19
Gold, Stocks and the Flattening Yield Curve - 10th Jan 19
Silver Price Trend Forecast Target for 2019 - 10th Jan 19

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

Bitcoin Analysis and Trend Forecast 2019

How US Indo-Pacific Vision Forgot Asian Development

Economics / Asian Economies Aug 16, 2018 - 07:20 AM GMT

By: Dan_Steinbock

Economics The Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific Vision is not an alternative to Chinese and other development initiatives in the Asia Pacific. It is a geopolitical play that is likely to benefit mainly advanced economies. What the Asia Pacific needs is a sustainable, long-term plan for accelerated economic development – not new geopolitical divisions.

On July 30, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a highly-anticipated speech on “America’s Indo-Pacific Economic Vision”:

The Indo-Pacific, which stretches from the United States west coast to the west coast of India, is a subject of great importance to American foreign policy. This region is one of the greatest engines … of the future global economy, and it already is today. And the American people and the whole world have a stake in the Indo-Pacific’s peace and prosperity. It’s why the Indo-Pacific must be free and open.


In his speech, Pompeo announced $113 million in new U.S. initiatives to “support foundational areas of the future: digital economy, energy, and infrastructure.” As he put it, the funds represent a “down payment on a new era in U.S. economic commitment to peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.”

While bypassing the specifics of where the money would come from, these remarks were designed to inspire comparisons with the postwar Marshall Plan and China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. However, the scale of the U.S.’ Indo-Pacific Economic Vision pales in comparison with the OBOR, which involves far greater cumulative investments. There are also valid concerns about U.S. financing capacity in the foreseeable future – not just in Asia, but at home.

Financing Challenges

All Trump initiatives are overshadowed by America’s massive twin deficit. The federal budget deficit for fiscal 2019 is almost $1 trillion. Despite Trump’s trade wars, the trade deficit increased by more than 12% in 2017 to $570 billion, the largest deficit since 2008.

Earlier this year, President Trump announced his highly-anticipated domestic infrastructure plan, the $1.5 trillion infrastructure initiative. The goal is to provide $200 billion over the next 10 years for infrastructure replacement and modernization projects across the U.S., which would be paid for by unspecified cuts in the federal budget.

In his 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to set America on a more financially sound and responsible course. Yet, instead of contributing to a credible, bipartisan and medium- to long-term debt-cutting program, the administration is taking on historical levels of new debt. Today, U.S. debt exceeds $21.3 trillion, which amounts to 105% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP.)

The Three Plans Compared

Both the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the OBOR have been compared with the postwar Marshall Plan. There are parallels, but the differences matter more.

While there is no consensus on exact historical amounts, the Marshall Plan’s cumulative aid may have totaled over $12 billion (more than $100 billion in today's dollar value.) Consequently, Trump’s much-touted Indo-Pacific Strategy represents less than 10% of the value of the Marshall Plan. Most importantly, both of these efforts pale in comparison with the OBOR, which involves far greater cumulative investments, which are currently anticipated to be in the range of $4 trillion to $8 trillion, depending on timelines and scenario estimates (Figure).

Figure          Indo-Pacific Vision, Marshall Plan, and China’s OBOR:

Economic Investment Estimates*

 Untitled.png

* Estimates expressed in trillions of contemporary U.S. dollars. China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative features both maximum (OBOR, max) and minimum (OBOR, min) estimates, based on relevant literature.

The three initiatives can be differentiated according to the value of their estimated investment, but also strategic objectives, underlying military frameworks and anticipated duration (Table).

Beginning in 1948, the Marshall Plan was created to help rebuild the war-torn economies of postwar Western Europe. It was not philanthropy. After 1945, the United States was the world’s largest exporter and dominated much of the global economy – but it could not trade without customers. While Europe’s largest economies had a desperate need for American goods and services, these countries did not have the dollars to purchase them. The Marshall Plan served as a seed fund that allowed Europe to get back on its feet, while sustaining U.S. economic strength in the immediate postwar era.

Table           Indo-Pacific Vision, Marshall Plan, and China’s OBOR:

Key Characteristics

 

Marshall Plan

Indo-Pacific Vision

One Belt One Road

Economic investment

$100 billion (in today’s dollars)

Stated to be $113 million

Estimated $4 to $8 trillion, depending on scenarios

Strategic objectives

Economic support in Europe, Cold War containment

U.S. presence in Asia, peace and prosperity in Asia

Economic development across the world, a modern-day Silk Road

Military framework

North American Treaty Organization (NATO)

NATO, U.S. alliance system in Asia Pacific

No explicit military frameworks

Timeline

About three years

Unspecified

Multi-decade

 

Accordingly, the Marshall Plan’s timeline was limited, lasting roughly three years. In contrast, the timeline of the OBOR is likely to be one to three decades. The former sought to fuel European reconstruction using U.S. dollars. The latter seeks to promote industrialization and economic development, predicated on a far longer time-frame. Indirectly, it will contribute to renminbi internationalization, while reducing Chinese excess capacity in multiple sectors, such as steel, cement, coal and shipbuilding.

Ultimately, the Marshall Plan was designed not just to support European recovery, but to contain the Soviet Union in the Cold War, which was vital to the Pentagon. In light of the Obama pivot to Asia (predicated on the shift of 60% of U.S. warship capacity to the Asia Pacific by 2020) and the Trump administration’s 2017 National Security Strategy, the strategic objective of the Indo-Pacific Vision is somewhat similar. From Washington’s perspective, it is not just a competitive alternative to China’s OBOR initiative, but a geopolitical tool that, if needed, can be used to contain China economically and strategically.

In contrast, the OBOR is mainly economic by nature. It offers massive seed funding and infrastructure assistance to accelerate industrialization in economies that were once colonized by the major European powers, the United States and Japan – mainly emerging and developing economies which thus far have been unable to fully modernize.

Third, the Marshall Plan did speed up European postwar recovery but it was predicated on participation in the U.S.-led North American Treaty Organization (NATO). Some 75 percent of the total aid went to just five countries: the UK, France, West Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, which also became the NATO’s core members. Unlike the Marshall Plan, the OBOR does not predicate participation in or tacit support of military alliances; it is not necessary for countries to join, say, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The OBOR is focused on 21st century economic development, not on the 20th century Cold War.

It is this aspect – the hope for a better future – of the OBOR that remains most underestimated by the White House.

The Need for Inclusive Economic Development

For all practical purposes, the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy is a rehash of several ideas that former Secretary of State John Kerry introduced in 2013 when the idea of the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor was conceptualized.

As for the potential future impact of the Indo-Pacific Vision, in the most benign scenario, the initiative will shed its geopolitical pretensions and focus instead on economic development, led by three key partners: the United States, Australia and Japan. In a less benign scenario, the interests, values and strategic objectives of the initiative’s leading major advanced economies will, once again, overshadow the values and interests of the emerging Asia Pacific economies. Moreover, geopolitics rather than best-practice development principles will determine the allocation of investment and project timelines.

According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), infrastructure needs in the developing Asia Pacific will exceed $22.6 trillion through 2030, or $1.5 trillion per year. With costs related to climate change mitigation and adaptation factored in, this is more likely to come to over $26 trillion, or $1.7 trillion per year.

What the Asia Pacific needs is a sustainable, long-term plan for accelerated economic development – not new geopolitical divisions.

Dr Steinbock is the founder of the Difference Group and has served as the research director at the India, China, and America Institute (USA) and a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more information, see http://www.differencegroup.net/

© 2018 Copyright Dan Steinbock - All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2018 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules