Originally outlined over two years ago. Reposted by request, because we are watching it play out in real time: Believe me, at the heart of the professional/political opposition the issue is the money; there are trillions at stake.
President Trump’s MAGAnomic trade and foreign policy agenda is jaw-dropping in scale, scope and consequence. There are multiple simultaneous aspects to each policy objective; they have been outlined for a long time, even before the election victory in November ’16.
If you get too far into the weeds the larger picture can be lost. CTH objective is to continue pointing focus toward the larger horizon, and then at specific inflection points to dive into the topic and explain how each moment is connected to the larger strategy.
Today we repost an earlier dive into how MAGAnomic policy interacts with multinational Wall Street, the stock market, the U.S. financial system and perhaps your personal financial value. Again, reference and source material is included at the end of the outline.
If you understand the basic elements behind the new dimension in American economics, you already understand how three decades of DC legislative and regulatory policy was structured to benefit Wall Street and not Main Street. The intentional shift in monetary policy is what created the distance between two entirely divergent economic engines.
REMEMBER […] there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed the value of the first economy (Main Street).
Investments, and the bets therein, expanded outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing…. investing in foreign manufacturing; multinational corporations moved manufacturing outside the U.S. and into Asia (China).
However, a second more consequential aspect happened simultaneously. The politicians became more valuable to the Wall Street team than the Main Street team; and Wall Street had deeper pockets because their economy was now larger.
As a consequence Wall Street started funding political candidates and asking for legislation and trade policies that benefited their, now international, interests.
When Main Street was purchasing the legislative influence the outcomes were -generally speaking- beneficial to Main Street, and by direct attachment those outcomes also benefited the average American inside the real economy.
When Wall Street began purchasing the legislative influence, the outcomes therein became beneficial to Wall Street. Those benefits are detached from improving the livelihoods of main street Americans because the benefits are “global”.
Global financial interests, multinational investment interests -and corporations therein- became the primary filter through which the DC legislative outcomes were considered.
There is a natural disconnect. (more)
As an outcome of national monetary policy allowing the blending of commercial banking with institutional investments (Glass-Stegal repeal), something happened on Wall Street that few understand. If we take the time to understand what happened we can understand why the Stock Market grew and what risks exist today as U.S. policy is reversed to benefit Main Street.
President Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin have already begun assembling and delivering a new banking system.
Instead of attempting to put Glass-Stegal regulations back into massive banking systems, the Trump administration began supporting a parallel, smaller financial system, of less-regulated small commercial banks, credit unions and traditional lenders who can operate to the benefit of Main Street without the burdensome regulation of the mega-banks and multinationals. This really is one of the more brilliant solutions to work around a uniquely American economic problem.
♦ When U.S. banks were allowed to merge their investment divisions with their commercial banking operations (the removal of Glass Stegal) something changed on Wall Street.
Companies who are evaluated based on their financial results, profits and losses, remained in their traditional role as traded stocks on the U.S. Stock Market and were evaluated accordingly. However, over time investment instruments -which are secondary to actual company results- created a sub-set within Wall Street that detached from actual bottom line company results.
The resulting secondary financial market system was essentially ‘investment markets’. Both ordinary company stocks and the investment market stocks operate on the same stock exchanges. But the underlying valuation is tied to entirely different metrics.
Financial products were developed (as investment instruments) that are essentially wagers or bets on the outcomes of actual companies traded on Wall Street. Those bets/wagers form the hedge markets and are [essentially] people trading on expectations of performance. The “derivatives market” is the ‘betting system’.
♦Ford Motor Company (only chosen as a commonly known entity) has a stock valuation based on their actual company performance in the market of manufacturing and consumer purchasing of their product. However, there can be thousands of financial instruments wagering on the actual outcome of their performance, both domestically and internationally.
There are two initial bets on these outcomes that form the basis for Hedge-fund activity. Bet ‘A’ that Ford hits a profit number, or bet ‘B’ that they don’t. There are financial instruments created to place each wager. [The wagers form the derivatives.] But it doesn’t stop there.
Additionally, more financial products are created that bet on the outcomes of the A/B bets. A secondary financial product might find two sides betting on both A outcome and B outcome.
Party C bets the “A” bet is accurate, and party D bets against the A bet. Party E bets the “B” bet is accurate, and party F bets against the B. If it stopped there we would only have six total participants. But it doesn’t stop there, it goes on and on and on…
The outcome of the bets forms the basis for the tenuous investment markets. The important part to understand is that the investment funds are not necessarily attached to the original company stock, they are now attached to the outcome of bet(s). Hence an inherent disconnect is created.
Subsequently, if the actual stock doesn’t meet it’s expected P-n-L outcome (if the company actually doesn’t do well), and if the financial investment was betting against the outcome, the value of the investment actually goes up. The company performance and the investment bets on the outcome of that performance are two entirely different aspects of the stock market. [Hence two metrics.]
♦Understanding the disconnect between an actual company on the stock market, and the bets for and against that company stock, helps to understand what can happen when monetary policy and trade policy is geared toward helping the underlying company (Main Street MAGAnomics), and not toward the bets therein (Wall St – Investment).
The U.S. stock markets’ overall value can increase with Main Street policy, and yet the investment class can simultaneously decrease in value even though the company(ies) in the stock market is/are doing better. This detachment is critical to understand because the ‘real economy’ is based on the company, the ‘paper economy’ is based on the financial investment instruments betting on the company.
Trillions can be lost in investment instruments, and yet the overall stock market -as valued by company operations/profits- can increase.
Conversely, there are now classes of companies on the U.S. stock exchange that never make a dime in profit, yet the value of the company increases. This dynamic is possible because the financial investment bets are not connected to the bottom line profit. (Examples include Tesla Motors, Uber and Amazon, and a host of internet stocks.) It is this investment group of companies that stands to lose the most if/when the underlying system of betting on them stops or slows.
Specifically due to most recent U.S. monetary policy, modern multinational banks, including all of the investment products therein, are more closely attached to this investment system on Wall Street. It stands to reason they are at greater risk of financial losses overall with a shift in policy.
That financial and economic risk is the basic reason behind Trump and Mnuchin putting a protective, secondary and parallel, banking system in place for Main Street.
Big multinational banks can suffer big losses from their overseas investments; and yet the Main Street economy can continue growing, and have access to capital, uninterrupted.
U.S. companies who have actual connection to a growing internal U.S. economy can succeed; based on the advantages of the new economic environment and MAGA trade policy, specifically in the areas of manufacturing, domestic supply chain and the ancillary benefactors.
Meanwhile U.S. investment assets (multinational investment portfolios) that are disconnected from the actual results of those benefiting U.S. companies, and as a consequence also disconnected from the U.S. economic expansion, can simultaneously drop in value even though the U.S. economy is thriving. Those assets are heavily dependent on prior overseas investments in China.
♦China and the EU have devalued their currency, and continue to devalue their currency, in an effort to block the impacts from President Trump and the ‘America First’ trade policy. In essence they are trying to maintain their part of a global economic system of manufacturing and export.
However, because those currencies are pegged against the dollar, the resulting effect is a rising dollar value. In essence, the globalist IMF is now blaming President Trump for having a strong economy that forces international competition to devalue their currency.
That’s the stupid hypocrisy of global banking outlooks. They make a decision to devalue their currency, which causes the dollar value to rise, and then turn around and blame the U.S. dollar for being overvalued.
The root cause of the devaluation is unaddressed in the Wall Street/Globalist argument. The EU and China are trying to retain their global manufacturing position and offset the impact of President Trump’s tariffs by lowering the end value of their exports.
President Trump is now engaged in a massive and multidimensional effort to re-balance the entire global trade and wealth dynamic. By putting tariffs on foreign imports he has counterbalanced the never-ending Marshall Plan trade program and demanded renegotiation(s).
Trump’s trade goal is reciprocity; free and fair trade. However, the EU and Asia, specifically China, don’t want to give up a decades-long multi-generational advantage. This is part of the fight.
Because so many shifts -policy nudges- have taken place in the past several decades few academics and even fewer MSM observers are able to understand or explain how Trump planned to get off the service-driven economic path and chart a better course.
President Trump began a process for less dependence on foreign companies for cheap goods, (the cornerstone of a service economy), and began a return to a more balanced U.S. larger economic model where the manufacturing and a production base can be re-established and competitive based on American entrepreneurship and innovation.
No other economy in the world innovates like the U.S.A, Trump sees this as a key advantage across all industry – including manufacturing. The benefit of cheap overseas labor, which is considered a global market disadvantage for the U.S, is offset by utilizing innovation and energy independence. Additionally, the wage rates in the Asian manufacturing economies have risen as their national wealth has increased.
The third highest variable cost of goods beyond raw materials first, labor second, is energy. By unleashing the energy sector -fully developed- the manufacturing price of any given product will allow for global trade competition even with higher U.S. wage prices.
In 2019 the Total Cost of Production (TCP) is now entirely different than it was in 2016.
The U.S. has a key strategic advantage with raw manufacturing materials such as: iron ore, coal, steel, precious metals and vast mineral assets which are needed in most new modern era manufacturing. Trump’s policies stopped selling those valuable national assets to countries we compete against – they belong to the American people, they should be used for the benefit of American citizens. Period.
As the U.S. economy expands; and as blue-collar manufacturing returns; the demand for labor increases, and as a consequence so too does the U.S. wage rate (currently +3.4%) which was stagnant (or non-existent) for the past three decades. Total compensation for U.S. workers is now growing at a +5.5 percent rate.
As the wage rate increases, and as the economy expands, the governmental dependency model is reshaped and simultaneously receipts to the U.S. treasury improve. More money into the U.S Treasury and less dependence on welfare programs have a combined exponential impact. You gain a dollar, and have no need to spend a dollar.
As the GDP of the U.S. expands, we stop thinking about how to best divide a limited economic pie, and begin thinking about how many more economic pies we can create.
So yeah, there’s going to be pain – for them: massive economic pain as the process of reestablishing a fair trading system is rebuilt; and also for U.S. interests that are dependent on returns from prior investments in China.
The dynamic of reciprocal and balanced trade is the essential policy that benefits Main Street USA. Unfortunately, in the initial phase where putting ‘America First’ is the priority, the policy is against the interests of the multinationals on Wall Street connected to Chinese manufacturing.
As a result, President Trump has to fight adverse economic opponents on multiple fronts…. and their purchased mercenary army we know as DC politicians….
♦The Modern Third Dimension in American Economics – HERE
♦How Multinationals have Exported U.S. Wealth – HERE
♦The “Fed” Can’t Figure out the New Economics – HERE
♦The FED Begins to Question the Economic Assumptions – HERE
♦Treasury Secretary Mnuchin begins creating a Parallel Banking System – HERE
♦Proof “America-First” has disconnected Main Street from Wall Street – HERE