Comment added by Centinel2012: There are two sides to the Bannon story I agree with Martin on the economic side but I do not agree on the political side. However, both sides need to be be shown so this is the economics side.
Steve Bannon has been fired from the Trump team, and many are saying good reddens. It was Bannon who has been the one with the most confrontational approach and has really been clashing behind the curtail. Bannon said in the interview that the main front was China: “We are in a trade war with China” and if the US were not to win this war, they would fall back as a world power permanently into insignificance. Bannon’s statement is really absurd for he has clearly no real understanding of the world economy. His focus of China and trade is the same stupid reason James Baker created the G5 back in 1985. We are plagued by people who pontificate on the world economy with zero experience.
Bannon is an American media executive, formerly a film producer, who served in the Navy for 7 years and then worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker mergers and acquisition but never rose very high. In the 1990s, he became an executive producer in the Hollywood film and media industry; he produced 18 films between 1991 and 2016. He may understand media, but I believe he is clueless with regard to how the world economy functions.
Bannon is being very vindictive. He has come out and said: “The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over.” He added: “We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”
When we look at trade as a percent of net investment outflows from the United States as it has invested around the world (excluding FX trading and derivatives), we can see that going into 2007, trade fell to just 31% of net investment capital outflows. Post-2007, net investment flows out of the United States have been greatly diminished as capital contracted and began to hoard and thus trade has risen sharply as American have invested less overseas. If we really look at trade as a percentage of total capital flows globally, we are looking at less than 15%.
CAPITAL flows to developing countries between 1990 and 1997 was hailed as the way to bring them into the global markets. However, after a series of international financial crises that culminated in the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis, what emerged was an increase in the doubts about the benefits of such flows. They did not distinguish between n”hot” money trading currencies rather than direct investment. This shallow analysis has led to great misunderstandings of international capital flows.
Underlining this new skepticism emerged from academic studies that implied only a weak relationship between capital flow liberalization and long-run economic growth. They did not understand the true distinction between “hot” money and actual investment in the private sector which is distinct from trading currency and government bonds.
Those concerns tempered the enthusiasm for capital inflows and have led to a reassessment of the policy approaches to attracting and managing them. Recently, this has manifested in laws that have attacked foreign investment in real estate, which is not the “hot” money that blew up the world in 1997. Nevertheless, this prejudice against capital inflows is systemic without comprehending what is really at stake.
Bannon is part of the problem for he focuses only upon trade and assumes, as did James Baker, that lowering the dollar will somehow create jobs by increasing exports. This is just a very narrow view of the world economy and is part of the crisis we face because those in power are clueless.