Geopolitics

Highlights The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan is symbolic – the US is conducting a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific to confront China. US-Iran negotiations are the linchpin of this pivot. If they fail, war risk will revive in the Middle East and the US will remain entangled in the region. At the moment, there is no deal, so investors should brace for a geopolitical risk premium in oil prices. That is, as long as global demand holds up despite COVID-19, and as long as the OPEC 2.0 cartel remains disciplined. We think they will in the short run. The US and Iran still have fundamental reasons to agree to a deal. If they do, the US will regain global room for maneuver while China’s and Russia’s window of opportunity will close. The implication is that markets face near-term oil supply risks – and long-term geopolitical risks due to Great Power rivalry in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Feature Events in Afghanistan have little macroeconomic significance but the geopolitical changes underway are profound and should be viewed through the lens of our second key view for 2021: the US strategic pivot to Asia. Chart 1The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan As we go to press the Taliban is reconquering swathes of Afghanistan while US armed forces evacuate embassy staff and civilians. The chaotic scenes are reminiscent of the US’s humiliating flight from Saigon, Vietnam in 1975. As with Vietnam, the immediate image is one of American weakness but the reality over the long run is likely to be different. Over the past decade we have chronicled the US’s efforts to disentangle itself from wars of choice in the Middle East and South Asia. In accordance with US grand strategy, Washington is refocusing its attention on its rivalries with Russia and especially China, the only power capable of supplanting the US as a global leader (Chart 1). The US has struggled to conduct this “pivot to Asia” over the past decade but the underlying trajectory is clear: while trying to manage its strategic interests in the Middle East through naval power, the US will need to devote greater resources and attention to shoring up its economic and military ties in Asia Pacific (Map 1). The Middle East still plays a critical role – notably through China’s energy import needs – but primarily via the Persian Gulf. Map 1The US Seeks Balance In Middle East In Order To Pivot To Asia And Confront China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Thus the critical geopolitical risks today stem from Iran and the Middle East on one hand, and China on the other. They do not stem from the US’s belated and messy exit from Afghanistan, which has limited market relevance outside of South Asia. First, however, we will address the political impact in the United States. US Political Implications Chart 2Americans Agree With Biden And Trump On Exit From Afghanistan Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China American popular opinion has long turned against the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cumulatively have cost $6.4 trillion and about 7,000 American troops dead1 (Chart 2). Three presidents, from two political parties, campaigned and won election on the basis of winding down these wars. The only presidential candidate since Republicans George W. Bush and John McCain who took a hawkish stance for persistent military engagement, Hillary Clinton, nearly lost the Democratic nomination and did lose the general election to a Republican, President Trump, who had reversed his party’s stance to advocate strategic withdrawal. War hawks have been sidelined in both parties. This is notable even if it were not the case that the current President Biden, whose son Beau fought in Afghanistan, had opposed the troop surge there under Obama. True, Biden will use drones, surgical strikes, and limited troop rotations to manage the aftermath in Afghanistan, both militarily and politically. Americans are still concerned about terrorism in general and any sign of a resurgent terrorist threat to the US homeland will be politically potent (Chart 3). But neither Biden nor the US can roll back the Taliban’s latest gains or achieve anything in Afghanistan that has not been achieved over the past twenty years.   Chart 3American Public Cares About Terrorism, Not Afghanistan Per Se Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China True, Biden will suffer a political black eye from Afghanistan. His approval rating has already fallen to 49.6%, slipping beneath 50% for the first time, in the face of the Delta variant of COVID-19 and the Afghan debacle. In both cases his early optimistic statements have now become liabilities. Biden is also 79 years old, which will make the 2024 campaign questionable, and he faces mounting problems in other areas, from lax border security and immigration enforcement to rising domestic crime. Nevertheless, Biden still has sufficient political capital to push through one or both of his major domestic legislative proposals by the end of the year, despite thin majorities in both the House and Senate. Afghanistan will not affect that, for three reasons: 1. The US economy is likely to continue to recover despite hiccups due to the lingering pandemic, since the vaccines so far are effective. The labor market is recovering and business capex and government support are robust. Setbacks, such as volatile consumer confidence, will help Biden pass bills designed to shore up the economy. 2. The public fundamentally agrees with Biden (and Trump) on military withdrawal, as mentioned. Voters will only turn against him if a major attack reinforces an image of weakness on terrorism. A major attack based in Afghanistan is not nearly as likely to succeed as it was prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. But Biden also faces an imminent increase in tensions in the Middle East that could result in attacks on the US or its allies, or other events that reinforce any image of foreign policy failure. 3. Biden has broad popular support for his infrastructure deal, which also has bipartisan buy-in, with 19 Republican Senators already having voted for it. Further, the Democratic Party has a special fast-track mechanism for passing his social spending agenda, though conviction levels must be modest on this $3.5 trillion bill, which is controversial and will have to be winnowed to pass on a partisan vote in the Senate. If we are correct that Afghanistan will not derail Biden’s legislative efforts then it will not fundamentally affect US fiscal policy or the global macro outlook. Note, however, that a failure of Biden’s bills would be significant for both domestic and global economy and financial markets as it would suggest that US fiscal policy is dysfunctional even under single party rule and would thus help to usher back in a disinflationary context. Might Afghanistan affect the midterm elections and hence the US policy setup post-2022? Not decisively. Republicans are more likely than not to retake at least the House of Representatives regardless. This is a cyclical aspect of US politics driven by voter turnout and other factors. Democrats are partly shielded in public opinion due to the Trump administration’s attempts to pull out of foreign wars. But surely a black eye on terrorism or foreign policy would not help. Similarly, a major failure to manage the Middle East, South Asia, and the pivot to Asia Pacific would marginally hurt the Democrats in 2024, but that is a long way off. Geopolitical Implications The Taliban’s reconquest of Afghanistan has very little if any direct significance for global financial markets. Pakistan and India are the two major markets most likely to be directly affected – and their own geopolitical tensions will escalate as a result – yet both equity markets have been outperforming over the course of the Taliban’s military gains (Chart 4). Afghanistan’s impacts are indirect at best. However, the US withdrawal connects with major geopolitical currents, with both macro and market significance. Afghanistan often marks the tendency of empires to overreach. Russia’s failure in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, though Russia’s command economy was unsustainable anyway. British failures in Afghanistan in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did not lead to the British empire’s decline – that was due to the world wars – but Afghanistan did accentuate its limitations. Since 9/11 and the US’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public’s economic malaise, political polarization, and loss of faith in public institutions have gotten worse. In turn, political divisions have impeded the government’s ability to respond cogently to financial and economic crisis, the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China, nuclear proliferation, constitutional controversies, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Once again Afghanistan marked imperial overreach. It is natural for investors to be concerned about the stability of the United States. And yet the US’s global power has recently stabilized (Chart 5). The US survived the 2020 stress test and innovated new vaccines for the pandemic. It is passing laws to upgrade its domestic technological, manufacturing, and infrastructural base and confronting its global rivals. Chart 4If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You Chart 5US Geopolitical Power Is Stabilizing Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Chart 6US Not Shrinking From Global Role US Not Shrinking From Global Role US Not Shrinking From Global Role The US is not retreating from its global role, judging by defense spending or trade balances (Chart 6). While the desire to phase out wars could theoretically open the way to defense cuts, the reality is that the great power confrontation with China and Russia will demand continued large defense spending. The US also continues to run large trade deficits, due to its shortage of domestic savings, which gives it influence as a consumer and provider of dollar liquidity across the world. The critical geopolitical problem is Iran, where events have reached a critical juncture: To create a semblance of a balance of power in the Middle East, the US needs an understanding with Iran, which is locked in a struggle with Saudi Arabia over the vulnerable buffer state of Iraq. President Biden was not able to rejoin the 2015 détente with Iran prior to the inauguration of the new president, Ebrahim Raisi, who is a hawk and whose confrontational policies will lead to an escalation of Middle Eastern geopolitical risk in the short term – and, if no US-Iran deal is reached, over the long term. Iran recognizes the US’s war-weariness, as demonstrated by withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. It was also exposed to economic sanctions after the US’s 2018-19 abrogation of the 2015 nuclear deal – it cannot trust the US to hold to a deal across administrations. Still, both the US and Iran face substantial strategic forces pressuring them to conclude a deal. The US needs to pivot to Asia while Iran needs to improve its economy and reduce social unrest prior to its looming leadership succession. But the time frame for negotiation is uncertain. Any failure to agree would revive the risk of a major war that would keep the US entangled in the region. Thus the pivot to Asia could be disrupted again, with major consequences for global politics, not because of Afghanistan but because of a failure to cut a deal with Iran. If the US succeeds in reducing its commitments to the Middle East and South Asia, the window of opportunity that China and Russia have enjoyed since 2001 will close. They will face a United States that has greater room for maneuver on a global scale. This is a threat to their own spheres of influence. But neither Beijing nor Moscow has an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, so a US-Iran deal is still possible. Unless and until the US and Iran normalize relations, the Middle East is exposed to heightened geopolitical risk and hence oil supply risk. Global oil spare capacity is sufficient to swallow small disturbances but not major risks to stability, such as in Iraq or the Strait of Hormuz. Investment Takeaways Chart 7Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Back in 2001, the combination of American war spending, and conflict in the Middle East, combined with China’s massive economic opening after joining the WTO, led to a falling US dollar and an oil bull market. Today the US’s massive budget deficits and current account deficits present a structural headwind to the US dollar. Yet the greenback has remained resilient this year. While the pandemic will fade as long as vaccines continue to be effective, China’s potential growth is slowing even as it faces an unprecedented confrontation with the US and its allies. Until the US and Iran normalize relations, geopolitics will tend to threaten Middle Eastern oil supply and put upward pressure on oil prices. However, if the US manages the pivot to Asia, China will face more resolute opposition in its sphere of influence, which will tend to strengthen the dollar. The dollar and oil still tend to move in opposite directions. These geopolitical trends will be influential in determining which direction prevails (Chart 7). Thus geopolitics poses an upward risk to oil prices for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Crawford, Neta, "United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post 9/11 Wars Through FY 2020: $6.4 trillion", Watson Institute, Brown University.

Highlights A critical aspect of the diffusion of global geopolitical power – “multipolarity” – is the structural rise of India. India will gain influence in the coming five years as a growing importer of goods, services, oil, and capital. Trade with China is a positive factor in Sino-Indian relations but it will not be enough to offset the build-up of strategic tensions. Indo-Russian relations will also wane. India’s slow transition to green energy will give it greater sway in the Middle East but will not remove its vulnerability if the region destabilizes anew over Iran. Sino-Indian tensions have already affected capital flows, with the US building on its position as a major foreign investor. Feature Chart 1Sino-Pak Alliance’s Geopolitical Power Is Thrice That Of India The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil India’s geopolitical power pales in comparison to that of the China-Pakistan alliance (Chart 1). India is traditionally an independent and “non-aligned” power that has managed conflicts with its neighbors by influencing either Russia or America to display a pro-India tilt. This strategy has held India in good stead as it helps create the illusion of a “balance of power” in the South Asian region. Structural changes are now afoot: Sino-Pakistani assertiveness toward India continues. But in a break from the past India’s Modi-led Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been constrained to adopt a far more assertive stance itself. Russo-Indian relations face new headwinds. Russia has been a close historical partner of India. But Russia under President Vladimir Putin has courted closer ties with China, while the US has tried to warm up with India since President Bush. Under Presidents Trump and Biden, the US is taking a more confrontational approach to Russia and China and will continue to court India. Against this backdrop the key question is this: In a multipolar world, how will India’s relations with the Great Powers evolve over the next five years? Will the alliances of the early 2000s stay the same or will they change? And if they change, what will it mean for global investors? In this special report we provide a helicopter view of India’s relations with key countries. We do so by examining India’s trade and capital flows with the world. A country’s power to a large extent is a function not only of its population and military strength but also of the business interests it represents. India today is the second largest arms importer globally (guns), fifth largest recipient of global FDI flows (capital) and third largest importer of energy (oil). Looking at the trajectory of these business relations, we quantify the magnitude and sources of India’s geopolitical power over the next five years and its investment implications. Trade: India’s Imports Not Enough To Offset China Tensions “The 11th Law of Power - Learn to Keep People Dependent on You. To maintain your independence, you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have.” – Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power1 A small and closed economy in the 1980s, India today is large and open. Since India lacked industrial capabilities, and was energy-deficient to start with, its import needs grew manifold over this period. India’s current account deficit has increased by nine times from 1980 to 2019. The magnitude of India’s appetite for imports is such that its current account deficit is the fifth largest in the world today (Chart 2). Chart 2India Is The Fifth Largest Importer Of Goods And Services The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Given its lack of domestic energy and industrial capabilities, India’s role as a client of the world will only become more pronounced as it grows. In fact, India appears all set to become the third largest importer of goods and services globally over the next five years (Chart 3). Chart 3India Will Become The Third Largest Net Importer, After US And UK, By 2026 The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Global history suggests that the client is king. The rise and fall of empires have been driven by the strength of their economies and militaries. Great powers import lots of goods and resources – and tend to export arms. The UK’s geopolitical decline over the nineteenth century, and America’s rise over the twentieth, were linked to their respective status as importers within the global economy. India’s rise as a large global importer will prove to be a key source of diplomatic leverage over the next five years. For example, India’s high appetite for imports from China will give India much-needed leverage in bilateral relations. Also, India’s slow transition to green energy continued reliance on oil will strengthen its bargaining power vis-à-vis oil producers. But these trends also bring challenges. Structurally, Sino-Indian tensions are rising and trade will not be enough to prevent them. Meanwhile dependency on the volatile Middle East is a geopolitical vulnerability. China: India’s Growing Might As A Consumer Increases Leverage Vis-à-Vis China China’s rising assertiveness in South Asia and India’s own inclination to adopt an assertive foreign policy stance will lead to structurally higher geopolitical tensions in the region. So, is a full-blooded confrontation between the two nigh? No. First, Sino-Indian wars have always been constrained by geography: they are separated by the Himalayas, which help to keep their territorial disputes contained, driving them toward proxy battles rather than direct and total war. Second, India, Pakistan, and China are nuclear-armed powers which means that war is constrained by the principle of mutually assured destruction. This principle is not absolute – world history is filled with tragedy. There are huge structural tensions lurking in the combination of China’s Eurasian strategy and growing Sino-Indian naval competition that will keep Sino-Indian geopolitical risks elevated. Nevertheless, the bar to a large-scale war remains high. In the meantime, India’s growing might as a consumer could act as a much-needed deterrent to conflict. The last two decades saw America’s share in Chinese exports decline from a peak of 21% to 17% today. With US-China relations expected to remain fraught under Biden and with the US looking to revive its strategic anchor in the Pacific and shore up its domestic manufacturing strength, China’s trade relations with America will continue to deteriorate regardless of which party holds the White House. Against such a backdrop, China will try to build stronger trading ties with countries like India whose share in China’s exports has been growing (Chart 4). After excluding Hong Kong, India today is the eighth-largest exporting destination for China. While it only accounts for 3% of China’s exports, this ratio is comparable to that of larger exporting partners like Vietnam (4% share in China’s exports), South Korea (4%), Germany (3%), Netherlands (3%), and the UK (3%). In other words, China’s need for India is underrated and growing. There are two problems with Sino-Indian trade going forward. First, the strategic tensions mentioned above could prevent trade ties from improving. Over the past decade, Sino-Indian maritime and territorial disputes have escalated while Sino-Indian trade has merely grown in line with that of other emerging markets (Chart 5). China’s rising import dependency has led it to develop both a navy and an overland Eurasian strategy. The Eurasian strategy threatens India’s security in border areas of South Asia, while India’s own naval rise and alliances heighten China’s maritime supply insecurity. These trends may or may not prevent trade from living up to its potential, but they could result in strategic conflict regardless. Chart 4Amongst Top Chinese Export Clients, India’s Importance Has Increased The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 5India’s Imports From China Have Broadly Grown In Line With Peers India's Imports From China Have Broadly Grown In Line With Peers India's Imports From China Have Broadly Grown In Line With Peers Second, the trade relationship itself is imbalanced. India imports heavily from China but sells little into China. China is responsible for more than a third of India’s trade deficit. At the same time, India increasingly shares the western world’s concern about network security in a world where cheap Chinese hardware could become integral to the digital economy. If Sino-Indian diplomacy cannot redress trade imbalances, then trade will generate new geopolitical tensions rather than resolve other ones. One should expect China to court India in the context of rising American and western strategic pressure. Yet China has failed to do so. Why? Because China’s economic transition – falling export orientation and declining potential GDP – is motivating a rise in nationalism and an assertive foreign policy. Meanwhile India’s own economic difficulties – the need to create jobs for a growing population – are generating an opposing wave of nationalism. Thus, while Sino-Indian trade will discourage conflict on the margin, it may not be enough to prevent it over the long run. Oil: As India Lags On Green Transition, Its Significance As An Oil Consumer Will Rise Whilst renewable energy’s share of India’s energy mix is expected to grow, the pace will be slow. Moreover, India’s increased reliance on green energy sources over the next decade will come at the expense of coal and not oil (Chart 6). Consequently, India’s reliance on oil for its energy needs is expected to stay meaningful. Chart 6India’s Reliance On Oil Will Persist For The Next Decade And Beyond The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 7India’s Importance As An Oil Client Has Been Rising The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that India’s net dependence on imported oil for its overall oil needs will increase from 75% today to above 90% by 2040. But India’s relative importance as an oil client will also grow as most large oil consumers will be able to transition to green energy faster than India. In fact, data pertaining to the last decade confirms that this trend is already underway. India’s share of the global oil trade has been rising (Chart 7). In particular, India has taken advantage of Iraq’s rise as a producer after the second Gulf War and has marginally increased imports from Saudi Arabia (Chart 8). Chart 8India’s Importance As A Client Has Been Rising For Top Oil Exporters The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Iran is the country most likely to gain from this dynamic in the coming years – if the US and Iran strike a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the US lifting economic sanctions. India has maintained stable imports from the Middle East over the past decade despite nominally eliminating imports of oil from Iran (Chart 9). Chart 9India Has Maintained Stable Imports From The Middle East The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil However, while India will have greater bargaining power between OPEC and non-OPEC suppliers, dependency on the unstable Middle East is always a geopolitical liability. If the US and Iran fail to arrive at a deal, a regional conflict is likely, in which case India’s slow green transition and vulnerability to supply disruptions will become a costly liability. Bottom Line: India’s growing importance to both Chinese manufacturers and global oil producers will give it leverage in trade negotiations. However, ultimately, national security will trump economics when it comes to China, while India will remain extremely vulnerable to instability in the Middle East. Guns: Indo-Russian Relations Weaken “When the war broke out [between India & Pakistan in 1971], the Soviet Union cast aside all pretentions of neutrality and non-partisanship… the Russians were in no hurry to terminate the fighting since their interest was better served by the continuation of hostilities leading to an India victory … The factors that decisively determined the outcome of the war were: first, Soviet military assistance to India; secondly the USSR’s role in the UN Security council; and thirdly, Russia strategy to prevent a direct Chinese intervention in the war.” – Zubeida Mustafa, "The USSR and the Indo-Pakistan War"2 The true origins of Russia’s pro-India tilt can be traced back to 1971. The former Soviet Union’s support for India played a critical role in helping India win the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Half a century later the Indo-Russia relationship persists, but its intensity has declined and will continue declining over the next few years. We see three reasons: America’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will allow the US to focus more intently on its rivalry with China and Russia – a dynamic that is reinforcing China’s and Russia’s move closer together. Meanwhile India’s relationship with the US continues to improve. The China-Pakistan alliance continues to strengthen. Beyond cooperation on China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, Pakistan shares a deep relationship with China based on defense and trade (Chart 10). Hence India is distrustful of closer Russo-Chinese relations. In light of this strategic re-alignment, Russia may see value in developing a closer defense relationship with China. Trading relations between Russia and India are minimal even today. Hence unlike in the case of China, there exists no backstop on weakening of Russo-Indian relations. Less than 1.5% of India’s merchandise imports come from Russia and less than 1% of India’s exports go to Russia. Russia’s share of Indian oil imports has grown in recent years but only to 1.4% of total. Meanwhile the US share of India’s imports has catapulted to 5.7% since the US became an exporter. Any removal of Iran sanctions will come at the cost of other Middle Eastern exporters, not these two alternatives to the risky Persian Gulf, but Russia’s share is still small. Now the backbone of Indo-Russia relations has been their arms trade. However, India’s reliance on Russia for arms could decline over the next five years. India today is Russia’s largest arms client accounting for 23% of its arms sales (Chart 10). However, second in line is China which accounts for 18% of Russia’s arms sales. Given that Russia’s share in global arms exports has been declining (Chart 11), Russia will be keen to reverse or at least halt this trend. Russia can do so most easily by selling more arms to India or to China. Even as China appears to be increasingly focused on developing indigenous arms production capabilities, for reasons of strategy, China appears like a better client for Russia to bank on for the next decade. After all, in 1989, when western countries imposed an arms embargo against China in response to events at Tiananmen Square, Russia became the prime supplier of arms to China. Chart 10India Is A Key Client For Russia, As Is China The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil By contrast, for reasons of strategy India appears like a less promising client to bank on for Russia. India’s import demand for arms has been declining while China’s demand is increasing (Chart 12). India under the Modi-led Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been reducing its reliance on imported arms. Last month, for example, the Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD) said that it has set aside 64% of the defense capital budget for acquisitions from domestic companies.3 This is an increase of 6% over last year, which was the first time such a distinction between domestic and foreign defense expenditure was made. Whilst it will take years for India to develop its domestic arms production capabilities, India’s inward tilt is worrying for traditional suppliers like Russia. Chart 11Among Top Arms Exporters, Russia Is Losing Market Share The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 12India’s Appetite For Arms Imports Is Falling The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Moreover, Russia is aware that the situation is rife for US-India arms trade to strengthen given that India is starting to display a pro-US tilt. Groundwork for a sound defense relationship with India has already been laid out by the US as evinced by: Foundational agreements: India and the US signed the Communications, Compatibility, and Security Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018 and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) in 2020. Sanction exemptions: The US had applied sanctions on Turkey under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for Ankara’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defense system in 2020. The US has threatened India with CAATSA sanctions for buying S-400 missile defense systems from Russia but has not applied these sanctions to India (at least not yet). Not applying CAATSA sanctions to India allows the US to strengthen its strategic relations with India that can help further the American goal of creating a counter to China in Asia. Bottom Line: India-Russia relations will remain amicable, but this relationship is bound to fade over the next five years as the US counters China and Russia. Limited backstops exist for Indo-Russia ties. Economic ties between India and Russia are minimal, as India is cutting back on arms imports and only marginally increasing oil imports. Capital: China Investment Down, US Investment Up “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” – Henry Kissinger, Former US Secretary of State India’s economic growth rates could be higher if it did not have to deal with the paradox of plentiful savings alongside capital scarcity. Even as Indian households are known to be thrifty, only a limited portion of their savings is available for being borrowed by small firms. Almost a quarter of bank deposits are blocked in government securities. More than a third of adjusted net bank credit must be made available for government-directed lending. With what is left, banks prefer lending the residual funds to large top-rated corporates. It is against this backdrop that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows provide much needed succor to Indian corporates, particularly capital-guzzling start-ups. FDI inflows into India have become a key source of funding for Indian corporates over the last decade with annual FDI flows often exceeding new bank credit. Correspondingly, for FDI investors, India provides the promise of high returns on investment in an emerging market that offers political stability. India emerged as the fifth largest FDI destination globally in 2020. Amongst suppliers of FDI into India (excluding tax havens like Cayman Islands), the US and China have been top contributors. Whilst China has been a leading investor into the Indian start-up space, geopolitical tensions have translated into regulatory barriers that prevent Chinese funds from investing in India. Separately, as Indo-US relations improve, the symbiotic relationship between capital-rich US funds and capital-hungry Indian start-ups should strengthen. In fact, in 2020 itself, Chinese private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC) investments into India shrank whilst American investments into India doubled, according to Venture Intelligence (Chart 13). Distinct from Chinese funds’ restrained ability to invest in Indian firms, Indian tech start-ups could potentially benefit from reduced global investor appetite in Chinese tech stocks owing to China’s regulatory crackdown and breakup with the United States. China’s foreign policy assertiveness and domestic policy uncertainty may lead to a reallocation of FDI flows away from China and into India. China (including Hong Kong) has been a top host country for FDI, attracting 4x times more funds than India (Chart 14). However, India’s ability to absorb these reallocated funds over the next five years will be a function of sectoral competencies. For instance, India’s information and communications technology (ICT) sector appears best positioned to benefit from this trend. But the same may not be the case for sectors like manufacturing that traditionally attract large FDI flows in China yet are relatively underdeveloped in India. On the goods’ front, given that India’s comparative advantage lies in the production of capital-light, labor-light and medium-tech intensive products, pharmaceuticals and chemicals could be two other industries that attract FDI flows in India. Chart 13Chinese PE/VC Investments Into India In 2020 Slowed Significantly The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 14China Has Been A Top Host Country For FDI, Attracting 4x More Flows Than India The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Bottom Line: Whilst trade between India and China has not been affected much by geopolitical tensions, capital flows have been. Given that the US historically has been a top FDI contributor in India, and given improving Indo-US relations, FDI investment into India from the US appears set to rise steadily over the next five years, particularly into the ICT sector. Investment Conclusions China-India geopolitical tensions are here to stay and will be a recurring feature of South Asia’s geopolitical landscape. However, a growing trade relationship could discourage conflict, especially if it becomes more balanced. It may not be enough to prevent conflict forever but it is an important constraint to acknowledge. India’s current account deficit will remain vulnerable to swings in oil prices, but it may be able to manage its energy bill better as its bargaining power relative to oil suppliers improves. The problem then will become energy insecurity, particularly if the US and Iran fail to normalize relations. As India and Russia explore new alignments with USA and China respectively, the historic Indo-Russia relationship will weaken. It will not collapse entirely because Russia provides a small but growing alternative to Mideast oil. US-India business interests may deepen as India considers joint ventures with American arms manufacturers and American funds court India’s capital-hungry information and communications technology sector. Against this backdrop we reiterate our constructive strategic view on India. However, for the next 12 months, we remain worried about near-term geopolitical and macro headwinds that India must confront.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 (Viking Press, 1998). 2 Mustafa, Zubeida. "The USSR and the Indo-Pakistan War, 1971" Pakistan Horizon 25, No. 1 (1972): 45-52. 3 Ajai Shukla, "Local procurement for defence to see 6% hike this year: Govt to Parliament" Business Standard, July 2021.

Highlights The greatest legislative battle of the Biden presidency will unfold between now and the end of the year.   Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure deal is likely to pass the Senate soon but will have to cross several hurdles before passage in the House of Representatives. We maintain our 80% subjective odds that it will pass one way or another. Assuming the infrastructure bill does not fall apart, we will upgrade the odds that Biden’s budget reconciliation bill will pass this fall from 50% to 65%. The latter comprises a nominal $3.5 trillion in social spending and tax hikes that will be watered down and revised heavily by the time it passes, which may take until Christmas. Uncertainty about passage will cause volatility to rise in financial markets. Democrats left the debt ceiling out of their fiscal 2022 budget resolution, which ostensibly means they cannot raise the debt limit via a simple majority but will need 10 Republican senators to join. A bruising standoff will ensue that will add to volatility. Ultimately Republicans will comply as they cannot afford to be held responsible for a default on the national debt. The party is currently unpopular and tarred with accusations of insurrection. If Biden succeeds in passing both bills, US fiscal policy will be frozen in place through at least 2025, though endogenous disinflationary fears will largely be dispelled. Feature The biggest domestic political battle of the Joe Biden presidency is likely to occur between now and Christmas. With a one-seat de facto majority in the Senate, and a four-seat majority in the House, Biden is barely capable of passing his two outstanding legislative proposals. The first of these is the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure deal, which we have given an 80% subjective chance of passing and which passed the Senate on a 69-30 vote margin as we went to press. The second is the $3.5 trillion partisan reconciliation package, based on the remainder of Biden’s American Jobs and Families Plan, which we have given a 50% chance of passage. We will upgrade these odds to 65% if bipartisan infrastructure does not fall through in the House. Next year will be consumed by campaigning for the 2022 midterms so it will be hard to pass any major legislation with such thin majorities (though bipartisan anti-trust legislation could pass and poses a risk to the equity market). The midterms are likely – though not guaranteed – to result in Republicans taking at least the House. The result will be gridlock in which only the rare bipartisan bill can pass. In other words, after Christmas, Biden’s domestic legislative capability and hence US fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place through 2025. In this report we provide a road map for the budget battle that will define the Biden presidency. Buy The Dip … Unless New Variants Change The Game First, a brief word regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delta variant is ramping up, particularly in states where vaccination rates have lagged and social restrictions are minimal (Chart 1). The new lambda variant is also causing concerns that vaccines may be inadequate. Equity markets could easily suffer more downside in the near term but US-dedicated investors should consider the following: Scientists have created one vaccine for COVID-19 and can create others. There has been a concrete reduction in uncertainty since November 2020. Vaccination rates will never be perfect – many people smoke cigarettes and refuse to wear seat belts! – but greater infection rates and hospitalizations are leading to improvements in vaccination coverage. While new lockdowns are not impossible, the public will only support them as a last resort. Not only is the White House still officially opposed to new lockdowns but also the authority to impose lockdowns rests with governors. If hospital systems are crashing then even Republican governors will endorse new social restrictions. Otherwise, restrictions will not be draconian unless a much more virulent variant emerges (one that is more deadly or that has a worse impact on children). Monetary and fiscal stimulus will ramp up if a new variant is more deadly or the economy otherwise starts to slide back. In the US, additional fiscal stimulus will come faster than in other countries because new short-term measures can easily be tacked onto major bills that are already coming down the pike. Chart 1Stay Constructive Amid Delta Jitters The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Might the White House leverage a renewed sense of crisis to get its main fiscal bills passed? We can see that. The last thing Biden needs is a sluggish recovery to translate into congressional gridlock in the 2022 midterms – the bane of the Obama administration. Rather, the goal is to harness the sense of crisis to pass stimulus. Biden’s approval rating is falling, as is the norm with modern presidents. However, it is still “above water” (net positive) and still sufficient to get his legislative initiatives across the line. Biden’s forthcoming bills will reinforce economic recovery and sentiment (Chart 2) Chart 2Biden’s Approval Comes Down To Earth The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency What if a variant evades vaccination? Especially if it is more deadly and/or more harmful to children? That would be a game changer and would cause at least a market correction. Still, investors would want to buy the dip given what they know today relative to what they knew in early 2020 (and given that they bought the dip in March 2020 even not knowing what they know today). Bipartisan Structural Reform Our second key view for 2021 – “bipartisan structural reform” – is coming to fruition with the Senate’s 69-30 vote passage of the American Infrastructure and Jobs Act as we go to press. Major bipartisan deals are rare in highly polarized America but we have given an 80% subjective chance of passage to this bill. Passage in the Senate reinforces that view, though the odds of final passage remain the same as there will be hurdles in the House. We include infrastructure as a “structural reform” because of its ability to increase the productivity of an economy. The bill contains funding for traditional infrastructure, like roads, bridges, and ports, as well as non-traditional infrastructure such as subsidies for electric vehicles and high-speed internet (Table 1). Table 1What’s In The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal? The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table 2 shows the 19 Republican senators who voted in favor of this bipartisan deal, along with their ideological ranking and state support rates. This tally provides a nine-seat buffer in case the House version of the bill requires another Senate vote. It also provides a measure of the support that might be brought to bear for bipartisan causes later, such as funding the government, suspending the debt ceiling, or passing bills on popular issues (such as regulating Big Tech) in 2022-24. All Democrats voted in unison for the bill. Table 2Republican Senators Who Voted For Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Our high confidence on infrastructure spending stems both from its popular support (Chart 3) and from the fact that even if bipartisanship fails, there remains a partisan option: budget reconciliation. This is still true today. The bipartisan infrastructure bill could still die in the House, given Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s determination to make its passage contingent on the success of the larger reconciliation bill, which is anathema to Republicans. But if it dies, Democrats would take up the key provisions in the reconciliation bill – and the odds of that bill passing would go up, not down, since Democrats would need to close ranks to clinch a legislative victory ahead of the midterms. Chart 3Popular Support For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Thus the real risk is not that infrastructure spending will fail but that its success will reduce the political capital needed to pass the more controversial reconciliation bill, which we discuss below. Over the short and medium term, this bipartisan infrastructure deal emblematizes the sea change in US fiscal policy – the shift against austerity – and thus serves to dispel fears of disinflation. At the same time, the deal epitomizes America’s long-term fiscal predicament. Democrats only want to increase spending while Republicans only want to decrease taxes. The former will not make budget cuts while the latter will not hike taxes. The result, inevitably, is higher budget deficits. This is precisely what occurred with the latest agreement: tax measures to pay for new infrastructure spending are mostly chimerical – the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that only $200 billion of the new spending will be offset with new revenue. The other $350 billion will add directly to deficits and debt. The difference is small but the political signal is notable. Chart 4 highlights the increase in the deficit likely to occur, with the CBO’s more realistic assessment delineated from the nominal bill. From a macro point of view, the takeaway is that the US economy faces a stark withdrawal of government support in 2022 but this bill slightly cushions the blow. Continued recovery will depend on consumers and businesses (which look to be in good shape). Beginning in 2025 deficits will start to rise again and hence the overall picture is one in which US government support for the economy has taken a step up for the decade. Chart 4Bipartisan Deal Not Paid For = Fiscal Stimulus The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Side note: Chart 4 is worrisome for President Biden if his reconciliation bill fails, as it points to fiscal drag through 2024, the election year. Bottom Line: We still see an 80% chance that Biden’s infrastructure proposals will pass, as the Democrats have a backup plan if the bipartisan deal somehow collapses in the House. Biden’s Greatest Legislative Battle Up till now we have assigned 50% odds of passage to the subsequent part of the Biden agenda, the American Families Plan, which covers social spending and tax hikes (corporate and individual). If bipartisan infrastructure passes promptly, we would upgrade the reconciliation bill’s odds of passing to 65%. The reason is twofold: first, reconciliation only requires a simple majority consisting of all 50 Senate Democrats plus the vice president; second, hesitant moderate senators ultimately will be forced to recognize that sinking the bill would render the Biden presidency defunct and fan the flames of populist rebellion on both sides of the political spectrum. And yet, since Biden cannot spare a single vote, conviction levels cannot be high. Therefore 65% seems appropriate. On August 9 Senate Democrats presented a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that will form the basis of the reconciliation bill this fall. The bill contains a wish list of spending priorities, as outlined in Table 3. Most of these are familiar from last month when the Senate Budget Committee first put forward its framework. The hang-up stems from House Speaker Pelosi. Knowing that infrastructure’s passage will suck away political capital from social spending, Pelosi is attempting to link the two bills. If the Senate fails to pass the reconciliation bill, the House will not pass the infrastructure bill. This gambit will create a big increase in uncertainty this fall as the legislative battle heats up. Republicans cannot support the infrastructure bill if it is directly tied to the Democrats’ “Nanny State” debt blowout, which will be the basis for their campaign against Democrats in future. They need plausible deniability. If Pelosi insists on linking the two bills, Republican support will evaporate. True, Democrats would then proceed to partisan reconciliation – but they would need to sacrifice other agenda items, such as subsidies for green tech, college, health care, and manufacturing (see Table 3 above). Table 3Senate Democratic FY22 Budget Resolution (July 2021) The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Biden and the Senate are now united on the infrastructure bill. Biden and Democrats in marginal seats need a legislative victory ahead of the midterms – and a bipartisan victory on a popular policy like infrastructure is critical. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, Pelosi will probably have to concede, after gaining assurances from moderate Senate Democrats that they will not sink reconciliation. Moderate Democrats, in turn, will need to see the reconciliation bill watered down, both on spending and taxes. Table 4 shows both bills together, as Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, with a baseline net deficit impact. Budget deficit scenarios are then updated in Chart 5. Once again what stands out is the large fiscal drag in 2022, the fiscal thrust for the remainder of the decade, and (in this case) minimal fiscal drag for 2024. Table 4Face Value Impact Of Biden’s Spending Proposals Before Congress (Baseline) The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Chart 5Deficit Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And Reconciliation Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency This is true even if tax hikes fail to make it into the final reconciliation bill. We still maintain that the corporate tax rate will rise above Senator Joe Manchin’s ideal 25% rate (if not all the way to Biden’s 28%) while individual tax rates will return to pre-Trump levels. It is not clear if capital gains tax hikes will make the final cut. Most likely some tax hikes will occur but they will fall short of Biden’s plan, producing, at most, a one percentage point increase in the budget deficit relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline estimate (Chart 6). Chart 6What Happens If Tax Hikes Fail To Pass Congress? The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency In Table 5 we update our various legislative scenarios, each consisting of different mixes of spending and tax hikes. We assume that the size of the bipartisan infrastructure deal will not be reduced in the House; that the revenue offsets of that deal will be $200 billion maximum; that moderate Senate Democrats will have greater success in watering down tax hikes than spending programs; and that the government overestimates its ability to collect revenue through tougher tax enforcement. Finally we assume that Senate Democrats’ spending proposals will not be cut – an extremely generous assumption that will not hold up in practice. Table 5Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Each legislative scenario’s impact on the deficit is shown in Table 6. The result is a wide range of deficit impacts, from the baseline of $588 billion to Scenario 6, with $2.59 trillion (zero tax offsets). The more realistic range is from $1 trillion to $2.3 trillion (i.e. all scenarios except the baseline and Scenario 5). Within this range the result depends on the moderate senators’ negotiation skills. Conservatively, the impact will range from $1-$1.5 trillion (Scenarios 1, 2, 4), with moderate senators preventing a $2 trillion price tag as politically impracticable (e.g. Scenario 3). Table 6Scoring Of Legislative Scenarios For Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal And FY22 Reconciliation Bill The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency There are two other aspects of Biden’s massive legislative battle this fall: regular government budget appropriations and the debt ceiling. Government appropriations are supposed to be passed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, but often run over and likely will this time. Republicans will not support regular spending increases given that Democrats will ram through a partisan spending blowout. Therefore Congress will have to settle for a continuing resolution (a stop-gap measure) that keeps spending levels the same. Otherwise a government shutdown will occur. A shutdown is possible but would weigh heavily on Republicans’ public image, which is already at a low point in recent memory following the scandals of the Trump presidency. That is not all – there is also the debt ceiling (limit on national debt). Democrats made a major gambit by not including a suspension or increase of the debt ceiling in their fiscal 2022 budget resolution. If they had included it, then they could have raised the debt ceiling on their own with a simple majority when they passed their reconciliation bill. Instead they are attempting to make Republicans share the blame. Republicans, however, will mount an aggressive resistance, as they do not want to be seen as authorizing the debt increase necessary to accommodate the Democrats’ “socialist” spending spree. The “X date,” when the Treasury Department runs out of the ability to use extraordinary measures to make payments due on US debt, is expected sometime in October or November, though Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns it could come sooner and will try to pressure lawmakers. After this date the US would technically default on national debt obligations, triggering financial turmoil and potentially a global crisis. A debt ceiling showdown is virtually inevitable and volatility will rise – but ultimately a default will be averted, as we outlined in a recent report. First, Democrats still have the ability to revise the budget resolution so as to include a debt ceiling suspension in their final reconciliation bill. While Republicans could arguably block this attempt via a filibuster in the Budget Committee, they would have no interest in doing so (they could abstain and thus keep their hands clean of any debt ceiling increase). Second, Republicans can be forced to agree to a suspension of the debt ceiling when they fund the government, since it is necessary to do so anyway to fund their own infrastructure deal. Suspending the debt ceiling is not the same as raising it. New battles would be set up for later, in 2022 and beyond. But Republicans do not have the political ability to force a default on the public debt of the United States in the same year that Democrats accuse them of raising an insurrection against its Congress. Bottom Line: This fall will see the great legislative battle of the Biden presidency. Infrastructure spending has an 80% chance of passing. Pelosi will not be able to withstand Biden and the Senate in passing this deal separately from the more partisan reconciliation bill. If it passes, then Biden’s reconciliation bill will rise from 50% to 65% odds of passage. The latter will be watered down to a net deficit impact of $1-$1.5 trillion to secure the votes of moderate Senate Democrats, who ultimately will not betray their party to neuter Biden’s presidency. Thin margins in the House and Senate do not permit higher odds of passage or a high level of confidence. Investment Takeaways Political polarization has fallen sharply (Chart 7). This is connected to our view that the Republican Party is split, while Biden’s key initiative (infrastructure) has bipartisan support. However, Biden’s bipartisanship has resulted in a larger loss of Democratic support than a gain of Republican support (Chart 7, bottom panel). And the upcoming reconciliation bill will reignite Republican opposition. Moreover, polarization will remain at historically elevated levels, even to the point of generating domestic terrorist attacks, as we have argued. Biden’s approval rating has fallen but not enough to sink his legislative proposals. The overall economy is strong judging by both consumer confidence (Chart 8) and capital spending (Chart 9). Any soft patch in the economy in the near term will assist Biden in his legislative battles. Passage of either or both major bills will boost his approval rating, potentially ameliorating the Democrats’ challenging situation in the 2022 midterms. Chart 7Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Bipartisan Biden Lowers Polarization As Dems Waver Chart 8US Consumer Confidence Soars US Consumer Confidence Soars US Consumer Confidence Soars Chart 9US Capital Spending At Peak Levels US Capital Spending At Peak Levels US Capital Spending At Peak Levels Still, we expect investors to “buy the rumor and sell the news” of Biden’s upcoming stimulus bills. After the Senate passes the reconciliation measure, investors will have to look forward to the combined impact of tax hikes, the Fed’s tapering of asset purchases and eventual rate hikes, and the various troubles with global growth and geopolitical risk. Until that time, investors must weigh the risks of the COVID-19 variants against actions by both American and Chinese policymakers to dispel deflationary tail risks. Thus for now we are sticking with our key trades of the year: value stocks, materials, and infrastructure plays (Chart 10). After Biden wins his big legislative battles, we will reassess.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 10Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan Buy Rumor, Sell News On Biden Plan   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A2Political Risk Matrix The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Chart A1Presidential Election Model The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Chart A2Senate Election Model The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A3Political Capital Index The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency The Defining Budget Battle Of The Biden Presidency Footnotes    

Highlights China’s July Politburo meeting signaled that policy is unlikely to be overtightened. The Biden administration is likely to pass a bipartisan infrastructure deal – as well as a large spending bill by Christmas. Geopolitical risk in the Middle East will rise as Iran’s new hawkish president stakes out an aggressive position. US-Iran talks just got longer and more complicated. Europe’s relatively low political risk is still a boon for regional assets. However, Russia could still deal negative surprises given its restive domestic politics. Japan will see a rise in political turmoil after the Olympic games but national policy is firmly set on the path that Shinzo Abe blazed. Stay long yen as a tactical hedge. Feature Chart 1Rising Hospitalizations Cause Near-Term Jitters, But UK Rolling Over? China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Our key view of 2021, that China would verge on overtightening policy but would retreat from such a mistake to preserve its economic recovery, looks to be confirmed after the Politburo’s July meeting opened the way for easier policy in the coming months. Meanwhile the Biden administration is likely to secure a bipartisan infrastructure package and push through a large expansion of the social safety net, further securing the American recovery. Growth and stimulus have peaked in both the US and China but these government actions should keep growth supported at a reasonable level and dispel disinflationary fears. This backdrop should support our pro-cyclical, reflationary trade recommendations in the second half of the year. Jitters continue over COVID-19 variants but new cases have tentatively peaked in the UK, US vaccinations are picking up, and death rates are a lot lower now than they were last year, that is, prior to widescale vaccination (Chart 1). This week we are taking a pause to address some of the very good client questions we have received in recent weeks, ranging from our key views of the year to our outstanding investment recommendations. We hope you find the answers insightful. Will Biden’s Infrastructure Bill Disappoint? Ten Republicans are now slated to join 50 Democrats in the Senate to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill that consists of $550 billion in new spending over a ten-year period (Table 1). The deal is not certain to pass and it is ostensibly smaller than Biden’s proposal. But Democrats still have the ability to pass a mammoth spending bill this fall. So the bipartisan bill should not be seen as a disappointment with regard to US fiscal policy or projections. The Republicans appear to have the votes for this bipartisan deal. Traditional infrastructure – including broadband internet – has large popular support, especially when not coupled with tax hikes, as is the case here. Both Biden and Trump ran on a ticket of big infra spending. However, political polarization is still at historic peaks so it is possible the deal could collapse despite the strong signs in the media that it will pass. Going forward, the sense of crisis will dissipate and Republicans will take a more oppositional stance. The Democratic Congress will pass President Joe Biden’s signature reconciliation bill this fall, another dollop of massive spending, without a single Republican vote (Chart 2). After that, fiscal policy will probably be frozen in place through at least 2025. Campaigning will begin for the 2022 midterm elections, which makes major new legislation unlikely in 2022, and congressional gridlock is the likely result of the midterm. Republicans will revert to belt tightening until they gain full control of government or a new global crisis erupts. Table 1Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Likely To Pass China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Chart 2Reconciliation Bill Also Likely To Pass China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Chart 3Biden Cannot Spare A Single Vote In Senate China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Hence the legislative battle over the reconciliation bill this fall will be the biggest domestic battle of the Biden presidency. The 2021 budget reconciliation bill, based on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution agreed by Democrats in July, will incorporate parts of the American Jobs Plan that did not pass via bipartisan vote (such as $436 billion in green energy subsidies), plus a large expansion of social welfare, the American Families Plan. This bill will likely pass by Christmas but Democrats have only a one-seat margin in the Senate, which means our conviction level must be medium, or subjectively about 65%. The process will be rocky and uncertain (Chart 3). Moderate Democratic senators will ultimately vote with their party because if they do not they will effectively sink the Biden presidency and fan the flames of populist rebellion. US budget deficit projections in Chart 4 show the current status quo, plus scenarios in which we add the bipartisan infra deal, the reconciliation bill, and the reconciliation bill sans tax hikes. The only significant surprise would be if the reconciliation bill passed shorn of tax hikes, which would reduce the fiscal drag by 1% of GDP next year and in coming years. Chart 4APassing Both A Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill And A Reconciliation Bill Cannot Avoid Fiscal Cliff In 2022 … China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Chart 4B… The Only Major Fiscal Surprise Would Come If Tax Hikes Were Excluded From This Fall’s Reconciliation Bill China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Chart 5Biden Stimulus Overshadowed By China Policy Tightening ... But China Is Now Marginally Easing Biden Stimulus Overshadowed By China Policy Tightening ... But China Is Now Marginally Easing Biden Stimulus Overshadowed By China Policy Tightening ... But China Is Now Marginally Easing There are two implications. First, government support for the economy has taken a significant step up as a result of the pandemic and election in 2020. There is no fiscal austerity, unlike in 2011-16. Second, a fiscal cliff looms in 2022 regardless of whether Biden’s reconciliation bill passes, although the private economy should continue to recover on the back of vaccines and strong consumer sentiment. This is a temporary problem given the first point. Monetary policy has a better chance of normalizing at some point if fiscal policy delivers as expected. But the Federal Reserve will still be exceedingly careful about resuming rate hikes. President Biden could well announce that he will replace Chairman Powell in the coming months, delivering a marginally dovish surprise (otherwise Biden runs the risk that Powell will be too hawkish in 2022-23). Inflation will abate in the short run but remain a risk over the long run. Essentially the outlook for US equities is still positive for H2 but clouds are forming on the horizon due to peak fiscal stimulus, tax hikes in the reconciliation bill, eventual Fed rate hikes (conceivably 2022, likely 2023), and the fact that US and Chinese growth has peaked while global growth is soon to peak as well. All of these factors point toward a transition phase in global financial markets until economies find stable growth in the post-pandemic, post-stimulus era. Investors will buy the rumor and sell the news of Biden’s multi-trillion reconciliation bill in H2. The bill is largely priced out at the moment due to China’s policy tightening (Chart 5). The next section of this report suggests that China’s policy will ease on the margin over the coming 12 months. Bottom Line: US fiscal policy is delivering, not disappointing. Congress is likely to pass a large reconciliation bill by Christmas, despite no buffer in the Senate, because Democratic Senators know that the Biden presidency hangs in the balance. China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? Many clients have asked whether China’s crackdown on private business, from tech to education, is the country’s “Khodorkovsky moment,” i.e. the point at which Beijing converts into a full, autocratic regime where private enterprise is permanently impaired because it is subject to arbitrary seizure and control of the state. The answer is yes, with caveats. Yes, China’s government is taking a more aggressive, nationalist, and illiberal stance that will permanently impair private business and investor sentiment. But no, this process did not begin overnight and will not proceed in a straight line. There is a cyclical aspect that different investors will have to approach differently. First a reminder of the original Khodorkovsky moment. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, extremely wealthy oligarchs emerged who benefited from the privatization of state assets. When President Putin began to reassert the primacy of the state, he arbitrarily imprisoned Khodorkovsky and dismantled his corporate energy empire, Yukos, giving the spoils to state-owned companies. Russia is a petro state so Putin’s control of the energy sector would be critical for government revenues and strategic resurgence, especially at the dawn of a commodity boom. Both the RUB-USD and Russian equity relative performance performed mostly in line with global crude oil prices, as befits Russia’s economy, even though there was a powerful (geo)political risk premium injected during these two decades due to Russia’s centralization of power and clash with the West (Chart 6). Investors could tactically play the rallies after Khodorkovsky but the general trend depended on the commodity cycle and the secular rise of geopolitical risk. Chart 6Russia's 'Khodorkovsky Moment' Was A Geopolitical Turning Point...But Russian Assets Benefited From Oil Bull Market For A While Longer Russia's 'Khodorkovsky Moment' Was A Geopolitical Turning Point...But Russian Assets Benefited From Oil Bull Market For A While Longer Russia's 'Khodorkovsky Moment' Was A Geopolitical Turning Point...But Russian Assets Benefited From Oil Bull Market For A While Longer President Xi Jinping is a strongman and hardliner, like Putin, but his mission is to prevent Communist China from collapsing like the Soviet Union, rather than to revive it from its ashes. To that end he must reassert the state while trying to sustain the country’s current high level of economic competitiveness. Since China is a complex economy, not a petro state, this requires the state-backed pursuit of science, technology, competitiveness, and productivity to avoid collapse. Therefore Beijing wants to control but not smother the tech companies. Hence there is a cyclical factor to China’s regulatory crackdown. A crackdown on President Xi Jinping’s potential rivals or powerful figures was always very likely to occur ahead of the Communist Party’s five-year personnel reshuffle in 2022, as we argued prior to tech exec Jack Ma’s disappearance. Sackings of high-level figures have happened around every five-year leadership rotation. Similarly a crackdown on the media was expected. True, the pre-party congress crackdowns are different this time around as they are targeted at the private sector, innovative businesses, tech, and social media. Nevertheless, as in the past, a policy easing phase will follow the tightening phase so as to preserve the economy and the mobilization of private capital for strategic purposes. The critical cyclical factor for global investors is China’s monetary and credit impulse. For example, the crackdown on the financial sector ahead of the national party congress in 2017 caused a global manufacturing slowdown because it tightened credit for the entire Chinese economy, reducing imports from abroad. One reason Chinese markets sold off so heavily this spring and summer, was that macroeconomic indicators began decelerating, leaving nothing for investors to sink their teeth into except communism. The latest Politburo meeting suggests that monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy is likely to get easier, or at least stay just as easy, going forward (Table 2). Once again, the month of July has proved an inflection point in central economic policy. Financial markets can now look forward to a cyclical easing in regulation combined with easing in monetary and fiscal policy over the next 12-24 months. Table 2China’s Politburo Prepares To Ease Policy, Secure Recovery China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Despite all of the above, for global investors with a lengthy time horizon, the government’s crackdown points to a secular rise of Communist and Big Government interventionism into the economy, with negative ramifications for China’s private sector, economic freedoms, and attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment. The arbitrary and absolutist nature of its advances will be anathema to long-term global capital. Also, social media, unlike other tech firms, pose potential sociopolitical risks and may not boost productivity much, whereas the government wants to promote new manufacturing, materials, energy, electric vehicles, medicine, and other tradable goods. So while Beijing cannot afford to crush the tech sector, it can afford to crush some social media firms. Chart 7China's Crackdown On Private Sector Reinforces Past Decade's Turn Away From Liberal Reform China's Crackdown On Private Sector Reinforces Past Decade's Turn Away From Liberal Reform China's Crackdown On Private Sector Reinforces Past Decade's Turn Away From Liberal Reform China’s equity market profile looks conspicuously like Russia’s at the time of Khodorkovsky’s arrest (Chart 7). Chinese renminbi has underperformed the dollar on a multi-year basis since Xi Jinping’s rise to power, in line with falling export prices and slowing economic growth, as a result of economic structural change and the administration’s rolling back Deng Xiaoping’s liberal reform era. We expect a cyclical rebound to occur but we do not recommend playing it. Instead we recommend other cyclical plays as China eases policy, particularly in European equities and US-linked emerging markets like Mexico. Bottom Line: The twentieth national party congress in 2022 is a critical political event that is motivating a cyclical crackdown on potential rivals to Communist Party power. Chinese equities will temporarily bounce back, especially with a better prospect for monetary and fiscal easing. But over the long run global investors should stay focused on the secular decline of China’s economic freedoms and hence productivity. What Happened To The US-Iran Deal? Our second key view for 2021 was the US strategic rotation from the Middle East and South Asia to Asia Pacific. This rotation is visible in the Biden administration’s attempt to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan while rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. However, Biden here faces challenges that will become very high profile in the coming months. The Biden administration failed to rejoin the 2015 deal under the outgoing leadership of the reformist President Hassan Rouhani. This means a new and much more difficult negotiation process will now begin that could last through Biden’s term or beyond. On August 5, President Ebrahim Raisi will take office with an aggressive flourish. The US is already blaming Iran for an act of sabotage in the Persian Gulf that killed one Romanian and one Briton. Raisi will need to establish that he is not a toady, will not cower before the West. The new Israeli government of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also needs to demonstrate that despite the fall of his hawkish predecessor Benjamin Netanyahu, Jerusalem is willing and able to uphold Israel’s red lines against Iranian nuclear weaponization and regional terrorism. Hence both Iran and its regional rivals, including Saudi Arabia, will rattle sabers and underscore their red lines. The Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz will be subject to threats and attacks in the coming months that could escalate dramatically, posing a risk of oil supply disruptions. Given that the Iranians ultimately do want a deal with the Americans, the pressure should be low-to-medium level and persistent, hence inflationary, as opposed to say a lengthy shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz that would cause a giant spike in prices that ultimately kills global demand. Short term, the US attempt to reduce its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan will invite US enemies to harass or embarrass the Biden administration. The Taliban is likely to retake control of Afghanistan. The US exit will resemble Saigon in 1975. This will be a black eye for the Biden administration. But public opinion and US grand strategy will urge Biden to be rid of the war. So any delays, or a decision to retain low-key sustained troop presence, will not change the big picture of US withdrawal. Long term, Biden needs to pivot to Asia, while President Raisi is ultimately subject to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who wants to secure Iran’s domestic stability and his own eventual leadership succession. Rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal leads to sanctions relief, without requiring total abandonment of a nuclear program that could someday be weaponized, so Iran will ultimately agree. The problem will then become the regional rise of Iranian power and the balancing act that the US will have to maintain with its allies to keep Iran contained. Bottom Line: The risk to oil prices lies to the upside until a US-Iran deal comes together. The US and Iran still have a shared interest in rejoining the 2015 deal but the time frame is now delayed for months if not years. We still expect a US-Iran deal eventually but previously we had anticipated a rapid deal that would put downward pressure on oil prices in the second half of the year. What Comes After Biden’s White Flag On Nord Stream II? Our third key view for 2021 highlighted Europe’s positive geopolitical and macro backdrop. This view is correct so far, especially given that China’s policymakers are now more likely to ease policy going forward. But Russia could still upset the view. Italy has been the weak link in European integration over the past decade (excluding the UK). So the national unity coalition that has taken shape under Prime Minister Mario Draghi exemplifies the way in which political risks were overrated. Italy is now the government that has benefited the most from the overall COVID crisis in public opinion (Chart 8). The same chart shows that the German government also improved its public standing, although mostly because outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel is exiting on a high note. Her Christian Democrat-led coalition has not seen a comparable increase in support. The Greens should outperform their opinion polling in the federal election on September 26. But the same polling suggests that the Greens will be constrained within a ruling coalition (Chart 9). The result will be larger spending without the ability to raise taxes substantially. Markets will cheer a fiscally dovish and pro-European ruling coalition. Chart 8European Political Risk Limited, But Rising, Post-COVID China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients The chief risk to this view of low EU political risk comes from Russia. Russia is a state in long-term decline due to the remorseless fall in fertility and productivity. The result has been foreign policy aggression as President Putin attempts to fortify the country’s strategic position and frontiers ahead of an even bleaker future. Chart 9German Election Polls Point To Gridlock? German Election Polls Point To Gridlock? German Election Polls Point To Gridlock? Now domestic political unrest has grown after a decade of policy austerity and the COVID-19 pandemic. Elections for the Duma will be held on September 19 and will serve as the proximate cause for Russia’s next round of unrest and police repression. Foreign aggressiveness may be used to distract the population from the pandemic and poor economy. We have argued that there would not be a diplomatic reset for the US and Russia on par with the reset of 2009-11. We stand by this view but so far it is facing challenges. Putin did not re-invade Ukraine this spring and Biden did not impose tough sanctions canceling the construction of the Nord Stream II gas pipeline to Germany. Russia is tentatively cooperating on the US’s talks with Iran and withdrawal from Afghanistan. The US gave Germany and Russia a free point by condoning the NordStream II. Now the US will expect Germany to take a tough diplomatic line on Russian and Chinese aggression, while expecting Russia to give the US some goodwill in return. They may not deliver. The makeup of the new German coalition will have some impact on its foreign policy trajectory in the coming years. But the last thing that any German government wants is to be thrust into a new cold war that divides the country down the middle. Exports make up 36% of German output, and exports to the Russian and Chinese spheres account for a substantial share of total exports (Chart 10). The US administration prioritizes multilateralism above transactional benefits so the Germans will not suffer any blowback from the Americans for remaining engaged with Russia and China, at least not anytime soon. Russia, on the other hand, may feel a need to seize the moment and make strategic gains in its region, despite Biden’s diplomatic overtures. If the US wraps up its forever wars, Russia’s window of opportunity closes. So Russia may be forced to act sooner rather than later, whether in suppressing domestic dissent, intimidating or attacking its neighbors, or hacking into US digital networks. In the aftermath of the German and Russian elections, we will reassess the risk from Russia. But our strong conviction is that neither Russian nor American strategy have changed and therefore new conflicts are looming. Therefore we prefer developed market European equities and we do not recommend investors take part in the Russian equity rally. Chart 10Germany Opposes New Cold War With Russia Or China China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Bottom Line: German and European equities should benefit from global vaccination, Biden’s fiscal and foreign policies, and China’s marginal policy easing (Chart 11). Eastern European emerging markets and Russian assets are riskier than they appear because of latent geopolitical tensions that could explode around the time of important elections in September. Chart 11Geopolitical Tailwinds To European Equities Geopolitical Tailwinds To European Equities Geopolitical Tailwinds To European Equities What Comes After The Olympics In Japan? Japan is returning to an era of “revolving door” prime ministers. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s sole purpose was to tie up the loose ends of the Shinzo Abe administration, namely by overseeing the Olympics. After the games end, he will struggle to retain leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party. He will be blamed for spread of Delta variant even if the Olympics were not a major factor. If he somehow retains the party’s helm, the October general election will still be an underwhelming performance by the Liberal Democrats, which will sow the seeds of his downfall within a short time (Chart 12). Suga will need to launch a new fiscal spending package, possibly as an election gimmick, and his party has the strength in the Diet to push it through quickly, which will be favorable for the economy. For the elections the problem is not the Liberal Democrats’ popularity, which is still leagues above the nearest competitor, but rather low enthusiasm and backlash over COVID. Abe’s retirement, and the eventual fall of Abe’s hand-picked deputy, does not entail the loss of Abenomics. The Bank of Japan will retain its ultra-dovish cast at least until Haruhiko Kuroda steps down in 2023. The changes that occurred in Japan from 2008-12 exemplified Japan’s existence as an “earthquake society” that undergoes drastic national changes suddenly and rapidly. The paradigm shift will not be reversed. The drivers were the Great Recession, the LDP’s brief stint in the political wilderness, the Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear crisis, and the rise of China. The BoJ became ultra-dovish and unorthodox, the LDP became more proactive both at home and abroad. The deflationary economic backdrop and Chinese nationalism are still a powerful impetus for these trends to continue – as highlighted by increasingly alarming rhetoric by Japanese officials, including now Shinzo Abe himself, regarding the Chinese military threat to Taiwan. In other words, Suga’s lack of leadership will not stand even if he somehow stays prime minister into 2022. The Liberal Democrats have several potential leaders waiting in the wings and one of these will emerge, whether Yuriko Koike, Shigeru Ishiba, or Shinjiro Koizumi, or someone else. The popular and geopolitical pressures will force the Liberal Democrats and various institutions to continue providing accommodation to the economy and bulking up the nation’s defenses. This will require the BoJ to stay easier for longer and possibly to roll out new unorthodox policies, as with yield curve control in the 2010s. Japan has some of the highest real rates in the G10 as a result of very low inflation expectations and a deeply negative output gap (Chart 13). Abenomics was bearing fruit, prior to COVID-19, so it will be justified to stay the course given that deflation has reemerged as a threat once again. Chart 12Japan: Back To Revolving Door Of Prime Ministers China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients China’s Khodorkovsky Moment? And Other Questions From Clients Chart 13Japan To Keep Fighting Deflation Post-Abe Japan To Keep Fighting Deflation Post-Abe Japan To Keep Fighting Deflation Post-Abe Bottom Line: The political and geopolitical backdrop for Japan is clear. The government and BoJ will have to do whatever it takes to stay the course on Abenomics even in the wake of Abe and Suga. Prime ministers will come and go in rapid succession, like in past eras of political turmoil, but the trajectory of national policy is set. We would favor JGBs relative to more high-beta government bonds like American and Canadian. Given deflation, looming Japanese political turmoil, and the secular rise in geopolitical risk, we continue to recommend holding the yen. These views conform with those of BCA’s fixed income and forex strategists. Investment Takeaways China’s policymakers are backing away from the risk of overtightening policy this year. Policy should ease on the margin going forward. Our number one key forecast for 2021 is tentatively confirmed. Base metals are still overextended but global reflation trades should be able to grind higher. The US fiscal spending orgy will continue through the end of the year via Biden’s reconciliation bill, which we expect to pass. Proactive DM fiscal policy will continue to dispel disinflationary fears. Sparks will fly in the Middle East. The US-Iran negotiations will now be long and drawn out with occasional shows of force that highlight the tail risk of war. We expect geopolitics to add a risk premium to oil prices at least until the two countries can rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. Germany’s Green Party will surprise to the upside in elections, highlighting Europe’s low level of geopolitical risk. China policy easing is positive for European assets. Russia’s outward aggressiveness is the key risk.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, I am sending you a special report written by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge, chief strategist of our flagship The Bank Credit Analyst service. Jonathan argues that investors should see social media as a technological innovation that harms productivity. While Jonathan concedes that social media was not the main driver of policy uncertainty and political risk over the past decade, he makes a good case that it plays an aggravating role. He warns that social media and political polarization still pose risks to the macroeconomic outlook in the coming years, while also highlighting idiosyncratic risks threatening social media stocks. We trust that you will find this report insightful. We will resume regular publication next week. All very best, Matt Gertken   Vice President Geopolitical Strategy US Political Strategy BCA Research Highlights Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Feature Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts 1 and 2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart 3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart 4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart 1Facebook: Monthly Active Users The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart 4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart 5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. Chart 5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart 6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table 1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart 6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table 1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.1 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart 7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart 7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart 7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart 8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. Chart 8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart 9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart 10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Chart 9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart 10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart 11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart 12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart 11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart 13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Chart 13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart 14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart 14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart 15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart 15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart 15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. But Chart 16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Chart 16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart 17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. Chart 17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Chart 18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart 18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,2 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart 19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart 20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart 19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.3 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart 21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart 22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart 21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart 23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart 22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart 22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth Chart 23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth The Social Media Magnification Effect: Austerity, Populism, And Slower Growth This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart 24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart 21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. Chart 24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,4 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.5 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart 25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart 25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart 25. Chart 25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1     Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 2     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3    “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?”,IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 4    Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 5    “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.

Highlights Globalization is recovering to its pre-pandemic trajectory. But it will fail to live up to potential, as the “hyper-globalization” trends of the 1990s are long gone. China was the biggest winner of hyper-globalization. It now faces unprecedented risks in the context of hypo-globalization. Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risks this year, which include arbitrary regulatory crackdowns on tech and private business. While Chinese officials will ease policy to soothe markets, the cyclical and structural outlook is still negative for this economy. Growth and stimulus have peaked. Political risk will stay high through the national party congress in fall 2022. US-China relations have not stabilized. India, the clearest EM alternative for global investors, is high-priced relative to China and faces troubles of its own. It is too soon to call a bottom for EM relative to DM. Feature Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risk over the past week, as Beijing extended its regulatory crackdown to private education companies. Our GeoRisk Indicator shows Chinese political risk reaching late 2017 levels while the broad Chinese stock market continued this year’s slide against emerging market peers (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Domestic Political Risk Takes Investors By Surprise Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) A technical bounce in Chinese tech stocks will very likely occur but we would not recommend playing it. The first of our three key views for 2021 is the confluence of internal and external headwinds for China. True, today’s regulatory blitz will pass over like previous ones and the fast money will snap up Chinese tech firms on the cheap. The Communist Party is making a show of force, not destroying its crown jewels in the tech sector. However, the negative factors weighing on China are both cyclical and structural. Until Chinese President Xi Jinping adjusts his strategy and US-China relations stabilize, investors do not have a solid foundation for putting more capital at risk in China. Globalization is in retreat and this is negative for China, the big winner of the past 40 years. Hypo-Globalization Globalization in the truest sense has expanded over millenia. It will only reverse amid civilizational disasters. But the post-Cold War era of “hyper-globalization” is long gone.1 The 2010s saw the emergence of de-globalization. In the wake of COVID-19, global trade is recovering to its post-2008 trend but it is nowhere near recovering the post-1990 trend (Chart 2). Trade exposure has even fallen within the major free trade blocs, like the EU and USMCA (Chart 3). Chart 2Hypo-Globalization Hypo-Globalization Hypo-Globalization Chart 3Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Of course, with vaccines and stimulus, global trade will recover in the coming decade. We coined the term “hypo-globalization” to capture this predicament, in which globalization is set to rebound but not to its previous trajectory.2 We now inhabit a world that is under-globalized and under-globalizing, i.e. not as open and free as it could be. A major factor is the US-China economic divorce, which is proceeding apace. China’s latest state actions – in diplomacy, finance, and business – underscore its ongoing disengagement from the US-led global architecture. The US, for its part, is now on its third presidency with protectionist leanings. American and European fiscal stimulus are increasingly protectionist in nature, including rising climate protectionism. Bottom Line: The stimulus-fueled recovery from the global pandemic is not leading to re-globalization so much as hypo-globalization. A cyclical reboot of cross-border trade and investment is occurring but will fall short of global potential due to a darkening geopolitical backdrop. Still No Stabilization In US-China Relations Chart 4Do Nations Prefer Growth? Or Security? Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) A giant window of opportunity is closing for China and Russia – they will look back fondly on the days when the US was bogged down in the Middle East. The US current withdrawal from “forever wars” incentivizes Beijing and Moscow to act aggressively now, whether at home or abroad. Investors tend to overrate the Chinese people’s desire for economic prosperity relative to their fear of insecurity and domination by foreign powers. China today is more desirous of strong national defense than faster economic growth (Chart 4). The rise of Chinese nationalism is pronounced since the Great Recession. President Xi Jinping confirmed this trend in his speech for the Communist Party’s first centenary on July 1, 2021. Xi was notably more concerned with foreign threats than his predecessors in 2001 and 2011 (Chart 5).3 China has arrived as a Great Power on the global stage and will resist being foisted into a subsidiary role by western nations. Chart 5Xi Jinping’s Centenary Speech Signaled Nationalist Turn Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Meanwhile US-China relations have not stabilized. The latest negotiations did not produce agreed upon terms for managing tensions in the relationship. A bilateral summit between Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping has not been agreed to or scheduled, though it could still come together by the end of October. Foreign Minister Wang Yi produced a set of three major demands: that the US not subvert “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” obstruct China’s development, or infringe on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (Table 1). The US’s opposition to China’s state-backed economic model, export controls on advanced technology, and attempts to negotiate a trade deal with the province of Taiwan all violate these demands.4 Table 1China’s Three Demands From The United States (July 2021) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) The removal of US support for China’s economic, development – recently confirmed by the Biden administration – will take a substantial toll on sentiment within China and among global investors. US President Joe Biden and four executive departments have explicitly warned investors not to invest in Hong Kong or in companies with ties to China’s military-industrial complex and human rights abuses. The US now formally accuses China of genocide in the Xinjiang region.5 Bottom Line: There is no stabilization in US-China relations yet. This will keep the risk premium in Chinese currency and equities elevated. The Sino-American divorce is a major driver of hypo-globalization. China’s Regulatory Crackdown President Xi Jinping’s strategy is consistent. He does not want last year’s stimulus splurge to create destabilizing asset bubbles and he wants to continue converting American antagonism into domestic power consolidation, particularly over the private economy. Now China’s sweeping “anti-trust” regulatory crackdown on tech, education, and other sectors is driving a major rethink among investors, ranging from Ark-founder Cathie Wood to perma-bulls like Stephen Roach. The driver of the latest regulatory crackdown is the administration’s reassertion of central party control. The Chinese economy’s potential growth is slowing, putting pressure on the legitimacy of single-party rule. The Communist Party is responding by trying to improve quality of life while promoting nationalism and “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” i.e. strong central government control and guidance over a market economy. Beijing is also using state power and industrial policy to attempt a great leap forward in science and technology in a bid to secure a place in the sun. Fintech, social media, and other innovative platforms have the potential to create networks of information, wealth, and power beyond the party’s control. Their rise can generate social upheaval at home and increase vulnerability to capital markets abroad. They may even divert resources from core technologies that would do more to increase China’s military-industrial capabilities. Beijing’s goal is to guide economic development, break up the concentration of power outside of the party, prevent systemic risks, and increase popular support in an era of falling income growth. Sociopolitical Risks: Social media has demonstrably exacerbated factionalism and social unrest in the United States, while silencing a sitting president. This extent of corporate power is intolerable for China. Economic And Financial Risks: Innovative fintech companies like Ant Group, via platforms like Alipay, were threatening to disrupt one of the Communist Party’s most important levers of power: the banking and financial system. The People’s Bank of China and other regulators insisted that Ant be treated more like a bank if it were to dabble in lending and wealth management. Hence the PBoC imposed capital adequacy and credit reporting requirements.6 Data Security Risks: Didi Chuxing, the ride-sharing company partly owned by Uber, whose business model it copied and elaborated on, defied authorities by attempting to conduct its initial public offering in the United States in June. The Communist Party cracked down on the company after the IPO to show who was in charge. Even more, Beijing wanted to protect its national data and prevent the US from gaining insights into its future technologies such as electric and autonomous vehicles. Foreign Policy Risks: Beijing is also preempting the American financial authorities, who will likely take action to kick Chinese companies that do not conform to common accounting and transparency standards off US stock exchanges. Better to inflict the first blow (and drive Chinese companies to Hong Kong and Shanghai for IPOs) than to allow free-wheeling capitalism to continue, giving Americans both data and leverage. Thus Beijing is continuing the “self-sufficiency” drive, divorcing itself from the US economy and capital markets, while curbing high-flying tech entrepreneurs and companies. The party’s muscle-flexing will culminate in Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power over the Politburo and Central Committee at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022, where he is expected to take the title of “Chairman” that only Mao Zedong has held before him. The implication is that the regulatory crackdown can easily last for another six-to-12 more months. True, investors will become desensitized to the tech crackdown. But health care and medical technology are said to be in the Chinese government’s sights. So are various mergers and acquisitions. Both regulatory and political risk premia in different sectors can persist. The current administration has waged several sweeping regulatory campaigns against monopolies, corruption, pollution, overcapacity, leverage, and non-governmental organizations. The time between the initial launch of one of these campaigns and their peak intensity ranges from two to five years (Chart 6). Often, but not always, central policy campaigns have an express, three-year plan associated with them. Chart 6ABeijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Beijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Beijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Chart 6B...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage ...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage ...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage Chart 7China Tech: Buyer Beware China Tech: Buyer Beware China Tech: Buyer Beware The first and second year mark the peak impact. The negative profile of Chinese tech stocks relative to their global peers suggests that the current crackdown is stretched, although there is little sign of bottom formation yet (Chart 7). The crackdown began with Alibaba founder Jack Ma, and Alibaba stocks have yet to arrest their fall either in absolute terms or relative to the Hang Seng tech index. Bottom Line: A technical bounce is highly likely for Chinese stocks, especially tech, but we would not recommend playing it because of the negative structural factors. For instance, we fully expect the US to delist Chinese companies that do not meet accounting standards. The Chinese Government’s Pain Threshold? The government is not all-powerful – it faces financial and economic constraints, even if political checks and balances are missing. Beijing does not have an interest in destroying its most innovative companies and sectors. Its goal is to maintain the regime’s survival and power. China’s crackdown on private companies goes against its strategic interest of promoting innovation and therefore it cannot continue indefinitely. The hurried meeting of the China Securities Regulatory Commission with top bankers on July 28 suggests policymakers are already feeling the heat.7 In the case of Ant Group, the company ultimately paid a roughly $3 billion fine (which is 18% of its annual revenues) and was forced to restructure. Ant learned that if it wants to behave more like a bank athen it will be regulated more like a bank. Yet investors will still have to wrestle with the long-term implications of China’s arbitrary use of state power to crack down on various companies and IPOs. This is negative for entrepreneurship and innovation, regardless of the government’s intentions. Chart 8China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector Ultimately the property sector is the critical bellwether: it is a prime target of the government’s measures against speculative asset bubbles. It is also an area where authorities hope to ease the cost of living for Chinese households, whose birth rates and fertility rates are collapsing. While there is no risk of China’s entire economy crumbling because of a crackdown on ride-hailing apps or tutoring services, there is a risk of the economy crumbling if over-zealous regulators crush animal spirits in the $52 trillion property sector, as estimated by Goldman Sachs in 2019. Property is the primary store of wealth for Chinese households and businesses and falling property prices could well lead to an unsustainable rise in debt burdens, a nationwide debt-deflation spiral, and a Japanese-style liquidity trap. Judging by residential floor space started, China is rapidly approaching its overall economic pain threshold, meaning that property sector restrictions should ease, while monetary and credit policy should get easier as necessary to preserve the economic recovery (Chart 8). The economy should improve just in time for the party congress in late 2022. Bottom Line: China will be forced to maintain relatively easy monetary and fiscal policy and avoid pricking the property bubble, which should lend some support to the global recovery and emerging markets economies over the cyclical (12-month) time frame. China’s Regulation And Demographic Pressures Is the Chinese government not acting in the public interest by tamping down financial excesses, discouraging anti-competitive corporate practices, and combating social ills? Yes, there is truth to this. But arbitrary administrative controls will not increase the birth rate, corporate productivity, or potential GDP growth. First, it is true that Chinese households cite high prices for education, housing, and medicine as reasons not to have children (Chart 9). However, price caps do not attack the root causes of these problems. The lack of financial security and investment options has long fueled high house prices. The rabid desire to get ahead in life and the exam-oriented education system have long fueled high education prices. Monetary and fiscal authorities are forced to maintain an accommodative environment to maintain minimum levels of economic growth amid high indebtedness – and yet easy money policies fuel asset price inflation. In Japan, fertility rates began falling with economic development, the entrance of women in the work force, and the rise of consumer society. The fertility rate kept falling even when the country slipped into deflation. It perked up when prices started rising again! But it relapsed after the Great Recession and Fukushima nuclear crisis (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 9China: Concerns About Having Children Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) China’s fertility rate bottomed in the 1990s and has gradually recovered despite the historic surge in property prices (Chart 10, second panel), though it is still well below the replacement rate needed to reverse China’s demographic decline in the absence of immigration. A lower cost of living and a higher quality of life will be positive for fertility but will require deeper reforms.8 Chart 10Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices At the same time, arbitrary regulatory crackdowns that punish entrepreneurs are not likely to boost productivity. Anti-trust actions could increase competition, which would be positive for productivity, but China’s anti-trust actions are not conducted according to rule of law, or due process, so they increase uncertainty rather than providing a more stable investment environment. China’s tech crackdown is also aimed at limiting vulnerability to foreign (American) authorities. Yet disengagement with the global economy will reduce competition, innovation, and productivity in China. Bottom Line: China’s demographic decline will require larger structural changes. It will not be reversed by an arbitrary game of whack-a-mole against the prices of housing, education, and health. India And South Asia Chart 11China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out Global investors have turned to Indian equities over the course of the year and they are now reaching a major technical top relative to Chinese stocks (Chart 11). Assuming that China pulls back on its policy tightening, this relationship should revert to mean. India faces tactical geopolitical and macroeconomic headwinds that will hit her sails and slow her down. In other words, there is no great option for emerging markets at the moment. Over the long run, India benefits if China falters. Following the peak of the second COVID-19 wave in May 2021, some high frequency indicators have showed an improvement in India’s economy. However, activity levels appear weaker than of other emerging markets (Chart 12). Given the stringency levels of India’s first lockdown last spring, year-on-year growth will look faster than it really is. As the base effect wanes, underlying weak demand will become evident. Moreover India is still vulnerable to COVID-19. Only 25% of the population has received one or more vaccine shots which is lower than the global level of 28%. The result will be a larger than expected budget deficit. India refrained from administering a large dose of government spending in 2020 (Chart 13). With key state elections due from early 2022 onwards, the government could opt for larger stimulus. This could assume the form of excise duty cuts on petroleum products or an increase in revenue expenditure. These kinds of measures will not enhance India’s productivity but will add to its fiscal deficit. Chart 12Weak Post-COVID Rebound In India – And Losing Steam Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Chart 13India Likely To Expand Fiscal Spending Soon Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Such an unexpected increase in India’s fiscal deficit could be viewed adversely by markets. India’s fiscal discipline tends to be poorer than that of peers (see Chart 13 above). Meanwhile India’s north views Pakistan unfavorably and key state elections are due in this region. Consequently, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China over August 2021. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan poses risks for India as it has revived the Taliban’s influence. India has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And its diplomatic footprint in Afghanistan has been diminishing. Earlier in July, India decided temporarily to close its consulate in Kandahar and evacuated about 50 diplomats and security personnel. As August marks the last month of formal US presence in Afghanistan, negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Bottom Line: Pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. Our Emerging Markets Strategy takes a more optimistic view but geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the short term. We urge clients to stay short Indian banks. Investment Takeaways US stimulus contrasts with China’s turmoil. The US Biden administration and congressional negotiators of both parties have tentatively agreed on a $1 trillion infrastructure deal over eight years. Even if this bipartisan deal falls through, Democrats alone can and will pass another $1.3-$2.5 trillion in net deficit spending by the end of the year. Stay short the renminbi. Prefer a balance of investments in the dollar and the euro, given the cross-currents of global recovery yet mounting risks to the reflation trade. A technical bounce in Chinese stocks and tech stocks is nigh. China’s policymakers are starting to respond to immediate financial pressures. However, growth has peaked and structural factors are still negative. The geopolitical outlook is still gloomy and China’s domestic political clock is a headwind for at least 12 more months. Prefer developed market equities over emerging markets (Chart 14). Emerging markets failed to outperform in the first half of the year, contrary to our expectation that the global reflation trade would lift them. China/EM will benefit when Beijing eases policy and growth rebounds. Chart 14Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Stay short Indian banks and strongman EM currencies, including the Turkish lira, the Brazilian real, and the Philippine peso. The biggest driver of EM underperformance this year is the divergence between the US and China. But until China’s policy corrects, the rest of EM faces downside risks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (New York: Norton, 2011). 2 See my "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," Investments & Wealth Monitor (Jan/Feb 2021), pp13-21, investmentsandwealth.org. 3 Our study of Xi’s speech is not limited to this quantitative, word-count analysis. A fuller comparison of his speech with that of his predecessors on the same occasion reveals that Xi was fundamentally more favorable toward Marx, less favorable toward Deng Xiaoping and the pro-market Third Plenum, utterly silent on notions of political reform or liberal reform, more harsh in his rhetoric toward the outside world, and hawkish about the mission of reunifying with Taiwan. 4 The Chinese side also insisted that the US stop revoking visas, punishing companies and institutes, treating the press as foreign agents, and detaining executives. It warned that cooperation – which the US seeks on the environment, Iran, North Korea, and other areas – cannot be achieved while the US imposes punitive measures. 5 See US Department of State, "Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory," July 13, 2021, and "Risks and Considerations for Businesses Operating in Hong Kong," July 16, 2021, state.gov. 6 Top business executives are also subject to these displays of state power. For example, Alibaba founder Jack Ma caricatured China’s traditional banks as “pawn shops” and criticized regulators for stifling innovation. He is now lying low and has taken to painting! 7 See Emily Tan and Evelyn Cheng, "China will still allow IPOs in the United States, securities regulator tells brokerages," CNBC, July 28, 2021, cnbc.com. Officials are sensitive to the market blowback but the fact remains that IPOs in the US have been discouraged and arbitrary regulatory crackdowns are possible at any time. 8 Increasing social spending also requires local governments to raise more revenue but the central government had been cracking down on the major source of revenues for local government: land sales and local government financing vehicles. With the threat of punishment for local excesses and lack of revenue source, local governments have no choice but to cut social services, pushing affluent residents towards private services, while leaving the less fortunate with fewer services. As with financial regulations, the central government may backpedal from too tough regulation of local governments, but more economic and financial pain will be required to make it happen. The Geopolitics Of The Olympics The 2020 Summer Olympics are currently underway in Tokyo, even though it is 2021. The arenas are mostly empty given the global pandemic and economic slowdown. Every four years the Summer Olympics create a golden opportunity for the host nation to showcase its achievements, infrastructure, culture, and beauty. But the Olympics also have a long history of geopolitical significance: terrorist acts, war protests, social demonstrations, and boycotts. In 1906 an Irish athlete climbed a flag pole to wave the Irish flag in protest of his selection to the British team instead of the Irish one. In 1968 two African American athletes raised their fists as an act of protest against racial discrimination in the US after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. In 1972, the Palestinian terrorist group Black September massacred eleven Israeli Olympians in Munich, Germany. In 1980 the US led the western bloc to boycott the Moscow Olympics while the Soviet Union and its allies retaliated by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. In 2008, Russia used the Olympics as a convenient distraction from its invasion of Georgia, a major step in its geopolitical resurgence. So far, thankfully, the Tokyo Olympics have gone without incident. However, looking forward, geopolitics is already looming over the upcoming 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update) How the world has changed. The 2008 Summer Olympics marked China’s global coming-of-age celebration. The breathtaking opening ceremony featured 15,000 performers and cost $100 million. The $350 million Bird’s Nest Stadium showcased to the world China’s long history, economic prowess, and various other triumphs. All of this took place while the western democratic capitalist economies grappled with what would become the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. In 2008, global elites spoke of China as a “responsible stakeholder” that was conducting a “peaceful rise” in international affairs. The world welcomed its roughly $600 billion stimulus. Now elites speak of China as primarily a threat and a competitor, a “revisionist” state challenging the liberal world order. China is blamed for a lack of transparency (if not virological malfeasance) in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. It is blamed for breaking governance promises and violating human rights in Hong Kong, for alleged genocide in Xinjiang, and for a list of other wrongdoings, including tough “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy, cyber-crime and cyber-sabotage, and revanchist maritime-territorial claims. Even aside from these accusations it is clear that China is suffering greater financial volatility as a result of its conflicting economic goals. Talk of a diplomatic or even full boycott of Beijing’s winter games is already brewing. Sponsors are also second-guessing their involvement. More than half of Canadians support boycotting the winter games. Germany is another bellwether to watch. In 2014, Germany’s president (not chancellor) boycotted the Sochi Olympics; in 2021, the EU and China are witnessing a major deterioration of relations. Parliamentarians in the UK, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway have asked their governments to outline their official stance on the winter games. In the age of “woke capitalism,” a sponsorship boycott of the games is a possibility. This is especially true given the recent Chinese backlash against European multinational corporations for violating China’s own rules of political correctness. A boycott which includes any members of the US, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Germany, or the Netherlands would be substantial as these are the top performers in the Winter Olympics. Even if there is no boycott, there is bound to be some political protests and social demonstrations, and China will not be able to censor anything said by Western broadcasters televising the events. Athletes usually suffer backlash at home if they make critical statements about their country, but they run very little risk of a backlash for criticizing China. If anything, protests against China’s handling of human rights will be tacitly encouraged. Beijing, for its part, will likely overreact, as these days it not only controls the message at home but also attempts more actively to export censorship. This is precisely what the western governments are now trying to counteract, for their own political purposes. The bottom line is that the 2008 Beijing Olympics reflected China’s strengths in stark contrast with the failures of democratic capitalism, while the 2022 Olympics are likely to highlight the opposite: China’s weaknesses, even as the liberal democracies attempt a revival of their global leadership.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Section II: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Feature Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts II-1 and II-2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Chart II-1Facebook: Monthly Active Users August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide August 2021 August 2021   Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart II-3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart II-4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart II-3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart II-4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News August 2021 August 2021 As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart II-5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart II-6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table II-1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart II-6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table II-1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media August 2021 August 2021   And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.1 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart II-7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart II-7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart II-7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake Chart II-8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart II-9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart II-9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart II-10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Chart II-10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart II-11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart II-12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart II-11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism August 2021 August 2021 Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart II-13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart II-14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart II-15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart II-13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart II-14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings   Chart II-15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart II-15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. Chart II-16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty But Chart II-16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Chart II-17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart II-17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Chart II-18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart II-18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,2 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart II-19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart II-20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart II-19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth August 2021 August 2021   This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.3 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart II-21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart II-22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart II-21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years August 2021 August 2021 The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart II-23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart II-22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart II-22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart II-24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart II-21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,4 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.5 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Chart II-25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart II-25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart II-25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart II-25. Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?” IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 4 Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 5 “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.