Alpha.Sources — Alpha Sources.CV

On Patriotism in Europe, in the U.K. and Brexit

I this video I discuss patriotism and nationalism in Europe and in the U.K., using the Brexit referendum as a case study. I open the video by reading an excerpt from a recent article in the Point magazine, in which editor Jon Baskin interviews Princeton professor George Kateb about his writings, ideas and thoughts on patriotism. The views expressed here are mine and mine alone, and as I say in the introduction, I am using Mr. Kateb’s arguments out of context, which is to say, I am using the very specific points he makes to Baskin as an amouche bouche for my discussion. I am not familiar with Mr. Kateb’s writings at large. Though I don’t mention him directly, I have also been inspired by recent comments by Douglas Murray, and conversations between him and other interviewers, relating to the oddness of being ashamed of one's history and heritage. I apologise for the cover of my notebook protruding annoyingly in the bottom of the frame.

Thanks, as always, for watching.

Off the fence

One of the enduring discourses of our time is the idea that something is terribly wrong, with political and cultural life, with the economy, and with nature itself. The message varies, but the main message is the same. The (liberal) world order—as we have come to know it since WW2, and latterly 1989—is coming to an end, a message usually delivered with a ‘good riddance’ attached at the end, for effect. The edifice, we are told, is imploding under the weight of the decadence and complacency of centrists, citizens of nowhere, and globalists, and other similarly-spirited foul. They have dominated for too long, and must now do one thing, and one thing only; repent, and pay, for their sins. The story looks different depending on the perspective from which it is being told, though I reckon it’s possible to identify two broad categories, which have, by now, become clichés in their own right. The left-wing critique tends to home in on two scourges of our time; inequality and climate change. These can be solved by expropriating the wealth of the haves, which will be distributed to the have-nots, and by halting damaging economic activity to protect the planet. The right-wing version is a nationalist protest, rallying in opposition to hitherto staples of global prosperity such as globalisation, international interdependence and multilateralism. The election of Trump and the Brexit referendum in the U.K. are most often trotted out as examples of this movement.

All change, but where to?

It has been clear for a while that Covid-19 would be a big shock to the global economy, but early predictions of a quick rebound, and a return to normal, now look fanciful. I am now inclined to believe that just about everything will change. My old colleague, and good friend, Jonathan Tepper is musing on a similar note in a recent piece on Unherd.com. I recommend that you go read it; it’s a great piece. For my part, I’ll split my arguments into two observations, not necessarily market-related, but both are key to understand the evolution of markets and the economy in the next few quarters, and I would suggest, beyond as well. We are not even through the first quarter yet, but it’s fair to say that the first chart on my next page already is the chart of the year. It portrays the “optimal” strategy to combat the virus relative to doing nothing, and a policy of loose mitigation. Leaving the Chinese and South Korean outbreaks aside—as well as the grim disaster unfolding in Iran—I think it’s fair to make two overall points. Firstly, there has been a significant debate about the correct strategy to combat the virus. The responses have been scattered on a spectrum ranging from (unconfirmed?) pictures of Chinese authorities welding doors shut to apartment blocks to halt the spread, over to “herd immunity”. Or, as former SAS soldier Ant Middleton’s suggests; “fuck Covid-19”, a statement that he, in fairness, has now retracted.

#Tradewars

Markets were mulling familiar themes last week. Will a wider U.S. twin deficit change the rules for the dollar and treasuries and is elevated volatility here to stay in equities? Judging by last week, the answer would be: probably and yes. The contemplation over these stories, though, were interrupted by politics. Mr. Trump announced his intention to apply tariffs on steel and aluminium—25% and 10% respectively—and Mrs. May attempted to give clarity on the U.K. government’s Brexit position.* I was unimpressed with both. Before I have a dig at Mr. Trump, I ought to provide an example of someone who supports it. I have great respect for Stephen Jen, but his argument here is like endorsing the idea of a diet by advising someone to eat nothing but kale and carrots for a decade. The analysis of Mr. Trump’s tariffs requires a distinction between the principle and the concrete measures. I concede that China is bending the rules of global trade, but Mr. Trump is stretching the fabrics of macroeconomic policy if he starts imposing tariffs on industrial goods. He is presiding over an economy close to full employment, a low domestic savings rate, and a medium-sized twin deficit. To boot, he is about to let fly with unprecedented fiscal stimulus.

02

Alpha Sources Blog