If even Amber Rudd knows it
June 12, 2019

Blain's Morning Porridge

"The nature of Monkey was… irrepressible!" 

I don't think I've ever started the Morning Porridge with a quote from a politician, but if even Amber Rudd knows it, then why don't the rest of the Tories get it?

"It is not enough to be told to shut your eyes, cross your fingers, pick up some magic beans and believe in Britain. We need a skill negotiator and dealmaker, not an instruction for more optimism."

She was supporting… who was she supporting? Not a clue nor any interest really.. And we still haven't heard Boris Johnson speak.

Lord protect us, and pass me a couple of grams of Columbia's finest export product to make sure I never end up in Parliament…  Enough said about Brexit and the UK Government…

Where is Donald Trump when we need him…? Actually, you probably don't. There is a great in-depth story in Forbes analyzing Trump's business dealings in Moscow. No one will be surprised at the gist of the story: a future US president jumping into bed with developers linked to Putin, apparent bribery and corruption, and a whole bunch of Moscow shadies, but the fact that Trump Inc (yep, future presidential Barbie doll Ivanka was in on it), was chasing deals that would have brought in literally pennies is the curious thing. Why?

Back in the real world…After a dose of Donald pimp-slapping the US Federal Reserve for rates being too high, and telling China's President Xi he has to turn up for G20 trade talks, global markets feel increasingly jaded after the last week of trade non-talk and rate noise. Markets are up, down and twirl it all around…Difficult to see where it goes from here. I suspect that means we are heading for a very thin summer, the market to start loading up on new fears and non-solutions, and face the next crisis point in the third quarter. Joy.

There are, of course, a number of threat points. I really need to get on the phone to some of my Italian experts and get the word from Milan on what's going on in terms of Italy picking a fight with Europe while Mario Draghi is packing his bag to leave the European Central Bank, Wiedemann is getting briefed on how to be nice to other Europeans, and the Italians are dreaming up nightmares like mini-BOTs. Please make it happen so we can have another sovereign debt crisis meaning I don't have to write about Brexit!

Bloomberg is talking up Raghuram Rajan, ex-Bank of India, as the next Governor of the Bank of England. Lots of people are not going to like it, but it's a good call. I could say something like the domestic talent for the role isn't up to much, but I better not as one of them will probably get the job… 

Interesting the stories about Foxconn telling investors how it has capacity to build all the iPhones it currently assembles in China in the US. That's an important message about how quickly global supply chains will change as the trade spat with China is increasingly characterized as a trade war and shutters come down. 

Which lead us neatly into an interesting moment yesterday as I was interviewed by Chinese Television about China threat theory, Huawei (which I just can't pronounce properly), and why the West does not trust Chinese intellectual property laws. The Chinese questions – they didn't send a reporter, just a list of questions for the cameraman to ask - were kind of loaded: Why doesn't the West accept Chinese IP laws? Are we even aware of the laws passed by China to ensure compliance? Why is the West trying to destroy Chinese IP in the form of Huawei? And why does the west keep pushing the China threat theory? 

It was very interesting – and I tried not to over-rant. In fact, I'd even claim to have been sane and sensible (though regular readers might well disagree). On the basis the programme probably won't like my answers and won't air them, I thought I might share them here.

The West is distrustful of China IP litigation for a number of reasons including the easy availability - even on official websites - of counterfeit goods, the difficulty in securing convictions due to the inability to collect critical evidence from defendants, and the low importance we feel is ascribed to the crime.

There is a suspicion many Chinese businesses regard the possibly of being fined for IP theft as an inconvenience rather than an owner's right to be respected. We do accept Chinese laws have been introduced and enforcement is improving to protect IP over the past 30 years, but the consensus remains the needs of the state are primary to the rights of foreign IP owners. And, in any historical context, it's hardly unknown for growing nations to avail themselves of foreign tech on the cheap.  Do we need stronger laws and stricter enforcement? It's an angle many western IP owners would welcome.

Huawei is an interesting case. The danger is the world splits into two tech regimes. Huawei has been a leader setting standards for 5G – it's going to take time and prove costly if the West now goes a different direction. Huawei may well be a pawn in the current power play between Washington and Beijing, but it's also at the crisis line between the surveillance capitalism Beijing has enthusiastically embraced, and the personal freedom and privacy espoused across the West. These two approaches to tech may be mutually exclusive, thus confirming a split tech world. 

Not being an expert in Huawei's tech, then I have to listen to those who are, and when the experts in our military and tech community say Huawei tech is not complementary to our own, then I have to respect that. If they say it's spyware – who am I to argue?

China threat theory is an interesting one. I suspect it's a label dreamt up in some cadre propaganda office in Shanghai to paint China as the victim to the aggressive West. I'm a great admirer of China's history and culture – especially Chinese landscape painting - but I can understand the fears and frustrations of the West.

This is particularly true economically where initiatives such as the Belt and Road are leading to charges of predatory debt diplomacy, and deliberately loading debt into future client states of the new China. History shows that expansionary mercantile will always brush up against incumbents causing pressures and often conflict. These can be addressed through good governance, intermediation and the mechanisms and institutions of global trade and international law. Or nations can choose to be aggressive in their own regions and attempt to bludgeon their way into international markets through financial aid. At the moment, that is how China is being perceived.   

I was then asked how does America trying to force China into a trade war affect the global economy? I tried to answer quite honestly – the US is the current incumbent, China the growing nation. The US is signalling very simple choices, play by our rules (at this point I didn't mention the treatment of minorities, the environment or democracy) or we shall isolate you.

There is no wish to trigger conflict, but it's in the US interest to have a completely open China market, or to close it off by drawing lines between the US and its allies versus China. Some have said there is nothing like the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism to underline the new China US divide, but there is a massive gulf between surveillance capitalism under the eye of the state, and the personal liberties and freedoms the West supports.  Though, as at the end of Eric Blair's Animal Farm, it is increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the one and the other.

I'm going to be very intrigued to see how the Chinese use the interview. I'll post it on my website if it's ever shown... 

Out of time and back to the day job…  

Bill Blain

Shard Capital





This site, like many others, uses small files called cookies to customize your experience. Cookies appear to be blocked on this browser. Please consider allowing cookies so that you can enjoy more content across fundservices.net.

How do I enable cookies in my browser?

Internet Explorer
1. Click the Tools button (or press ALT and T on the keyboard), and then click Internet Options.
2. Click the Privacy tab
3. Move the slider away from 'Block all cookies' to a setting you're comfortable with.

Firefox
1. At the top of the Firefox window, click on the Tools menu and select Options...
2. Select the Privacy panel.
3. Set Firefox will: to Use custom settings for history.
4. Make sure Accept cookies from sites is selected.

Safari Browser
1. Click Safari icon in Menu Bar
2. Click Preferences (gear icon)
3. Click Security icon
4. Accept cookies: select Radio button "only from sites I visit"

Chrome
1. Click the menu icon to the right of the address bar (looks like 3 lines)
2. Click Settings
3. Click the "Show advanced settings" tab at the bottom
4. Click the "Content settings..." button in the Privacy section
5. At the top under Cookies make sure it is set to "Allow local data to be set (recommended)"

Opera
1. Click the red O button in the upper left hand corner
2. Select Settings -> Preferences
3. Select the Advanced Tab
4. Select Cookies in the list on the left side
5. Set it to "Accept cookies" or "Accept cookies only from the sites I visit"
6. Click OK

Blain's Morning Porridge

"The nature of Monkey was… irrepressible!" 

I don't think I've ever started the Morning Porridge with a quote from a politician, but if even Amber Rudd knows it, then why don't the rest of the Tories get it?

"It is not enough to be told to shut your eyes, cross your fingers, pick up some magic beans and believe in Britain. We need a skill negotiator and dealmaker, not an instruction for more optimism."

She was supporting… who was she supporting? Not a clue nor any interest really.. And we still haven't heard Boris Johnson speak.

Lord protect us, and pass me a couple of grams of Columbia's finest export product to make sure I never end up in Parliament…  Enough said about Brexit and the UK Government…

Where is Donald Trump when we need him…? Actually, you probably don't. There is a great in-depth story in Forbes analyzing Trump's business dealings in Moscow. No one will be surprised at the gist of the story: a future US president jumping into bed with developers linked to Putin, apparent bribery and corruption, and a whole bunch of Moscow shadies, but the fact that Trump Inc (yep, future presidential Barbie doll Ivanka was in on it), was chasing deals that would have brought in literally pennies is the curious thing. Why?

Back in the real world…After a dose of Donald pimp-slapping the US Federal Reserve for rates being too high, and telling China's President Xi he has to turn up for G20 trade talks, global markets feel increasingly jaded after the last week of trade non-talk and rate noise. Markets are up, down and twirl it all around…Difficult to see where it goes from here. I suspect that means we are heading for a very thin summer, the market to start loading up on new fears and non-solutions, and face the next crisis point in the third quarter. Joy.

There are, of course, a number of threat points. I really need to get on the phone to some of my Italian experts and get the word from Milan on what's going on in terms of Italy picking a fight with Europe while Mario Draghi is packing his bag to leave the European Central Bank, Wiedemann is getting briefed on how to be nice to other Europeans, and the Italians are dreaming up nightmares like mini-BOTs. Please make it happen so we can have another sovereign debt crisis meaning I don't have to write about Brexit!

Bloomberg is talking up Raghuram Rajan, ex-Bank of India, as the next Governor of the Bank of England. Lots of people are not going to like it, but it's a good call. I could say something like the domestic talent for the role isn't up to much, but I better not as one of them will probably get the job… 

Interesting the stories about Foxconn telling investors how it has capacity to build all the iPhones it currently assembles in China in the US. That's an important message about how quickly global supply chains will change as the trade spat with China is increasingly characterized as a trade war and shutters come down. 

Which lead us neatly into an interesting moment yesterday as I was interviewed by Chinese Television about China threat theory, Huawei (which I just can't pronounce properly), and why the West does not trust Chinese intellectual property laws. The Chinese questions – they didn't send a reporter, just a list of questions for the cameraman to ask - were kind of loaded: Why doesn't the West accept Chinese IP laws? Are we even aware of the laws passed by China to ensure compliance? Why is the West trying to destroy Chinese IP in the form of Huawei? And why does the west keep pushing the China threat theory? 

It was very interesting – and I tried not to over-rant. In fact, I'd even claim to have been sane and sensible (though regular readers might well disagree). On the basis the programme probably won't like my answers and won't air them, I thought I might share them here.

The West is distrustful of China IP litigation for a number of reasons including the easy availability - even on official websites - of counterfeit goods, the difficulty in securing convictions due to the inability to collect critical evidence from defendants, and the low importance we feel is ascribed to the crime.

There is a suspicion many Chinese businesses regard the possibly of being fined for IP theft as an inconvenience rather than an owner's right to be respected. We do accept Chinese laws have been introduced and enforcement is improving to protect IP over the past 30 years, but the consensus remains the needs of the state are primary to the rights of foreign IP owners. And, in any historical context, it's hardly unknown for growing nations to avail themselves of foreign tech on the cheap.  Do we need stronger laws and stricter enforcement? It's an angle many western IP owners would welcome.

Huawei is an interesting case. The danger is the world splits into two tech regimes. Huawei has been a leader setting standards for 5G – it's going to take time and prove costly if the West now goes a different direction. Huawei may well be a pawn in the current power play between Washington and Beijing, but it's also at the crisis line between the surveillance capitalism Beijing has enthusiastically embraced, and the personal freedom and privacy espoused across the West. These two approaches to tech may be mutually exclusive, thus confirming a split tech world. 

Not being an expert in Huawei's tech, then I have to listen to those who are, and when the experts in our military and tech community say Huawei tech is not complementary to our own, then I have to respect that. If they say it's spyware – who am I to argue?

China threat theory is an interesting one. I suspect it's a label dreamt up in some cadre propaganda office in Shanghai to paint China as the victim to the aggressive West. I'm a great admirer of China's history and culture – especially Chinese landscape painting - but I can understand the fears and frustrations of the West.

This is particularly true economically where initiatives such as the Belt and Road are leading to charges of predatory debt diplomacy, and deliberately loading debt into future client states of the new China. History shows that expansionary mercantile will always brush up against incumbents causing pressures and often conflict. These can be addressed through good governance, intermediation and the mechanisms and institutions of global trade and international law. Or nations can choose to be aggressive in their own regions and attempt to bludgeon their way into international markets through financial aid. At the moment, that is how China is being perceived.   

I was then asked how does America trying to force China into a trade war affect the global economy? I tried to answer quite honestly – the US is the current incumbent, China the growing nation. The US is signalling very simple choices, play by our rules (at this point I didn't mention the treatment of minorities, the environment or democracy) or we shall isolate you.

There is no wish to trigger conflict, but it's in the US interest to have a completely open China market, or to close it off by drawing lines between the US and its allies versus China. Some have said there is nothing like the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism to underline the new China US divide, but there is a massive gulf between surveillance capitalism under the eye of the state, and the personal liberties and freedoms the West supports.  Though, as at the end of Eric Blair's Animal Farm, it is increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the one and the other.

I'm going to be very intrigued to see how the Chinese use the interview. I'll post it on my website if it's ever shown... 

Out of time and back to the day job…  

Bill Blain

Shard Capital



Free subscription - selected news and optional newsletter
Premium subscription
  • All latest news
  • Latest special reports
  • Your choice of newsletter timing and topics
Full-access magazine subscription
  • 7-year archive of news
  • All past special reports
  • Newsletter with your choice of timing and topics
  • Access to more content across the site

More on:  Market commentary