Investors of most types, from pension funds to even (the safety off-set strategy of) hedge funds, seek basic socio-economic stability.
It is the pre-requisite to monetary injection into commerce and business, and the obvious reason why time after time massive amounts of domestic and foreign capital has been seen to exit a promising turned tumultuous Emerging Markets country.
It is the pre-requisite to monetary injection into commerce and business, and the obvious reason why time after time massive amounts of domestic and foreign capital has been seen to exit a promising turned tumultuous Emerging Markets country.
That story replayed
over and over again, from the boom and busts of late 19th century Brazil, and
the initial signs of revolutionary Communism, to reasons given for
monetary flight from Argentina and latterly Turkey over the last few
years. All the while the failed New Socialism efforts of Venezuela, an effective 'buffer-stop' to the broader spread of overt idealism in the region.
South and Central America, Coastal Africa, the CIS countries and South East Asia all - on an individual country by country basis - temptingly offer new opportunities for informed heavyweight investors. Each seeking to re-enact their own version of Jim Rogers' 'Investment Biker' escapades and rewards, though often more so from the comfort of a City or St James's desk and their imaginings on their BMW commuter bike.
[NB Given his long-time Asian and Russian investment focus, Rogers decries Trump's tariff regime against China, and asks China to reform far quicker. Yet it seems that China's leaders will continue to take their time and will do so on sector by sector basis - as seen with the opening of the auto-sector. Yet after Chinese success in Africa and Latin America through creation of new infrastructure and majority purchase of energy companies, the CIS, Middle East and North Korea will continue to be the expansion strategy; so negating the impact of American tariffs, by creating its own new markets and investment goals
This is why the West must attend to fixing itself socially and socio-economically; and not so through forced liberalism and obviously socio-directed winners and losers].
To the West....
Beyond the usual rhetoric about aged demographics and over-indebtedness, little true in-depth societal attention is directed at the West. Why look inward when there is so much opportunity elsewhere, and why bother trying to fix what in actuality is too often a re-divided and part-broken society?
Let private equity cherry-pick the best yesteryear brand names for re-invention in export markets, and let government and institutions provide for high cost low return infrastructure projects like rail and social housing.
But of course, a revitalized economy requires far more than such simplistic answers.
South and Central America, Coastal Africa, the CIS countries and South East Asia all - on an individual country by country basis - temptingly offer new opportunities for informed heavyweight investors. Each seeking to re-enact their own version of Jim Rogers' 'Investment Biker' escapades and rewards, though often more so from the comfort of a City or St James's desk and their imaginings on their BMW commuter bike.
[NB Given his long-time Asian and Russian investment focus, Rogers decries Trump's tariff regime against China, and asks China to reform far quicker. Yet it seems that China's leaders will continue to take their time and will do so on sector by sector basis - as seen with the opening of the auto-sector. Yet after Chinese success in Africa and Latin America through creation of new infrastructure and majority purchase of energy companies, the CIS, Middle East and North Korea will continue to be the expansion strategy; so negating the impact of American tariffs, by creating its own new markets and investment goals
This is why the West must attend to fixing itself socially and socio-economically; and not so through forced liberalism and obviously socio-directed winners and losers].
To the West....
Beyond the usual rhetoric about aged demographics and over-indebtedness, little true in-depth societal attention is directed at the West. Why look inward when there is so much opportunity elsewhere, and why bother trying to fix what in actuality is too often a re-divided and part-broken society?
Let private equity cherry-pick the best yesteryear brand names for re-invention in export markets, and let government and institutions provide for high cost low return infrastructure projects like rail and social housing.
But of course, a revitalized economy requires far more than such simplistic answers.
Over the
last decade savvy western investors have suckled from Central Banks'
teet of 'QE' (itself a perverse anomaly to the edicts of good
investment theory). Only recently has near full capacity utilisation been filled in plant and people, without the drag of substantive new investment in new equipment and escalating labour costs , so creating ideal conditions for boosted EPS and so incentive for corporate share buybacks.
(NB one of the few investment hungry sectors being Autos, with the switch to Hybrids, PHEVs and EVs requiring measured yet heavy costs per research/ development , plant transformations, high value component sourcing, and dealer-service centre updates).
Yet western societies are still obviously socially fragile, as compared to ideal macro-fundamentals (as derived from PESTEL analysis) of a unified functioning stable society, ideally 'young' and with increasingly positive socio-economic feed-back loop.
(NB one of the few investment hungry sectors being Autos, with the switch to Hybrids, PHEVs and EVs requiring measured yet heavy costs per research/ development , plant transformations, high value component sourcing, and dealer-service centre updates).
Yet western societies are still obviously socially fragile, as compared to ideal macro-fundamentals (as derived from PESTEL analysis) of a unified functioning stable society, ideally 'young' and with increasingly positive socio-economic feed-back loop.
This is central to
investment confidence, hence the ideal of the perfect EM nation –
best exemplified by the rapid rise of China since the mid 1990s,
wherein an essentially unified population was well directed by
Beijing in a prescriptive manner to direct and leverage human
resources through good orchestration of the country's 4-tier
industrial capabilities: across 'primary', 'secondary', 'tertiary'
and 'information' based activities.
That golden period
centred around China appears very unlikely to repeat elsewhere ever again, with even its slow-down still well managed in the face of U.S. tariff wars.
Economics books galore
have been written about their 'economic miracle', and digested for
learning by many, from students to western governments; much as we saw
the myriad of management books centred on Japan in the 1970s and
1980s, to assist western global competitiveness.
But what has perhaps
been (possibly deliberately) over-looked was the topic of national
identity, unity and so social cohesiveness.
China both yesteryear
and today is in practice the very opposite of the 'mosaic' West,
consisting of multi-various backgrounds from previous colonial days
and elsewhere, and upon which much of the previous economic uplift
was dependent.
Here in the UK, that
being everything from 1950s Afro-Caribbean nurses and bus-conductors,
1960s Indians, Italians, Turks and Greeks as much from waiters to
shop-keepers to property entrepreneurs, 1970s exiled African-Indians
into restaurants, pharmacy and doctors – thereafter an economic
re-rise, followed by in the late 1990s and throughout the 2000s an
influx of Eastern Europeans in services and agriculture.
Like Germany, The
Netherlands, France and Scandinavia, the UK has (arguably more than
the American idiom) welcomed others; this as a two-way economic deal,
to necessarily suppress the national wage-base to maintain
state-owned enterprise costs (the public realm) and to support
business competitiveness and to inject new dynamism into the economy
(in the private realm)
Each wave of
immigration has been both economic boost and burden upon the state,
the former ultimately out-stripping the latter, as people's become
settled, integrated and their second-generation children become
better educated and theoretically move-up the social ladder away from
the instability of wages and into the supposed stability of salaried
positions reflective of their discipline(s), capabilities and sector
experience.
Likewise, the roles of
women in the workforce, as importantly commerce shifted away from the
last gasps of the 'primary' and 'secondary' industries in the 1980s
and shifted toward 'tertiary', from the boom in retail (shopping
malls and the high street), call centres, the expansion of the NHS
under the then new Trusts model, and of course female
entrepreneurship, whereby the greater sociability of women as
typically 'people orientated' rather than 'task orientation' of men,
saw 'female networking' become the buzz-word of the 2000s.
This all assisted by
the expansion of liberal education, rise of gender-related and
socio-related educational topics, rise of the liberal arts such as
publicly funded arts, the good work of inclusiveness
art and stage groups (that demonstrate that all people are just 'people'), the art
and dance therapies that assist greater self-confidence in those with 'downes' etc, and of course the inevitable certification models
that formalised, and bureaucratised an ever sprawling liberal
politico-commercial agenda.
And though it is
unpopular to mention, eventually with the increased influence of
immigration and liberalism came not only socio-economic upsides, but
down-sides aswell.
From the immigration
standpoint......
Given typically
different and often far tougher backgrounds, immigrants retained
(very necessarily at first) a mono-cultural, almost tribalistic,
mindset, which defended themselves against inevitable oppression and
ridicule when entering their new land by many members of its
indigenous populace.
The theory was that
would change over the years to come as the mixed backgrounds
normalised and 'integration' took place. This often so, with
broken-down barriers what used to be called 'mixed marriages' in the
1960s/70s, most often prescribed to white and black couplings, both
then from the lowest echelons of society. This altered over the years, to the point now where even royalty marry into others of different ethnic origin.
But things were
different even back then, and different groups mixed and
inter-married at different rates, from encouraged to totally shunned;
the latter typically when the families in the group/community had
either experienced the negative effects of integration or had build
up wealth they sought to keep in the community.
If that were so then
simply understandable, but there is another story, whereby 'the
group' is used not simply to defend economic power, but to attack
others to grow it.
Thus under the surface
of old-country national pride – itself with historical context of
the old-country 's experiences – that inter-group cohesion used to become
deliberately oppressive to others.
Especially so when seeking to take-over specific urban areas, and especially so when money was/is to be made from property. The most marginalised, typically older and widowed, targeted as easy prey into forced separation from their homes. So an 'agenda animosity' hidden behind 'happy-faced hypocrisy'
Especially so when seeking to take-over specific urban areas, and especially so when money was/is to be made from property. The most marginalised, typically older and widowed, targeted as easy prey into forced separation from their homes. So an 'agenda animosity' hidden behind 'happy-faced hypocrisy'
Or we see, a cross
cultural dynamic of another kind.
This ironically when
one ethnic group seeks to take advantage of another 'frenemy' group.
[NB this a horribly
disingenuous term, that Hollywood should be ashamed of, seeking to
normalize endemic hypocrisy; ie one person/group to take advantage of
another to greater gain, and then seek to re-befriend the marginalised
group on the basis of a far smaller social or economic return –
truly repugnant behaviour].
This seen by the now
often long-forgotten stories of the newly arrived 'Windrush'
Afro-Carribeans suffering in slum-like conditions in Notting Hill and
West London, or in Brixton, South London., after the previous 'White Flight' there.
Unscrupulous landlords pushing out the older generation (harassment),
buying properties and demanding high rents from the 'coloureds','blacks',
'negroes' and 'schwarzers'; whilst pretending to be their friends
since they were the only ones who would rent to them.
The insightful film 'An Education' provides a glimpse of insights into how one apparent 'ethnic minority' takes advantage of another supposedly similarly socio-marginalised group, the pretense of a helping hand and friendship, but only seeking inflated monetary returns on their rental properties.
The insightful film 'An Education' provides a glimpse of insights into how one apparent 'ethnic minority' takes advantage of another supposedly similarly socio-marginalised group, the pretense of a helping hand and friendship, but only seeking inflated monetary returns on their rental properties.
These then the basis to
tribalistic mindsets that are retained one generation after another,
and sit beneath the surface of everyday consciousness, especially
after any experience of being deliberately taken advantage on the
pretext of socio-separation whether because of colour, religion, or
whatever.
From the gender perspective...
Likewise, there will be
a societal stress with a broader socio-economic fundamental shift,
and especially so when that shifted power-base sees a fundamental
shift in the general social harmony and change in the ideal 'economic
reciprocation model' (ie the earner assisting the non-earner).
Indisputably, for good
and bad, Western society has shifted enormously over the last three
decades with the rise of not only the service sector - whereby
administrative process and intelligence replaced much of the previous raw physical-power (now only really seen on construction sites, or specific delivery trucks like pub barrel wagons), or the long hours of taxi drivers - but the massive rise of the 'liberal economy' that was so endemically
female orientated.
Thus maleseconomiesinarguably been comparatively diminished, since not only did the expanding service sector and liberal economies primarily assist women, even the previous male-dominated areas (such as construction, security, pharmaceutical and civil engineering ) also saw an influx of new females with the idiom of rebalancing what appeared male dominated areas.
Thus the majority of economic expansion for two decades has been pro-female and largely in 'cushier' jobs undertaken from an office or 'workshop' meeting place; though of course areas such as postal or warehousing demanded much of those who took such jobs.
And whilst this apparent utopian existence does exist for many, more than men, obviously there are positions of responsibility and power held by women - from Prime Minister to Directorships in public and private companies posts - that require highly capable individuals, and whose own lives have been dedicated to purposeften in male dominated environments.
(NB the best 'boss's the author ever had was female...an executive at Land Rover's Business and Product Strategy Dept. in the mid to late 1990s. Someone who demonstrated the best of female and male characteristics, gave space to capable subordinates an led by quiet example. Who as a WI member served others before herself, such as her role in the pensions committee).
So we have seen the inevitable rise of equalising female economic power....except that many men who were just responsible 'worker-bees' and 'family-men' have experienced a very different outcome.
Thus maleseconomiesinarguably been comparatively diminished, since not only did the expanding service sector and liberal economies primarily assist women, even the previous male-dominated areas (such as construction, security, pharmaceutical and civil engineering ) also saw an influx of new females with the idiom of rebalancing what appeared male dominated areas.
Thus the majority of economic expansion for two decades has been pro-female and largely in 'cushier' jobs undertaken from an office or 'workshop' meeting place; though of course areas such as postal or warehousing demanded much of those who took such jobs.
And whilst this apparent utopian existence does exist for many, more than men, obviously there are positions of responsibility and power held by women - from Prime Minister to Directorships in public and private companies posts - that require highly capable individuals, and whose own lives have been dedicated to purposeften in male dominated environments.
(NB the best 'boss's the author ever had was female...an executive at Land Rover's Business and Product Strategy Dept. in the mid to late 1990s. Someone who demonstrated the best of female and male characteristics, gave space to capable subordinates an led by quiet example. Who as a WI member served others before herself, such as her role in the pensions committee).
So we have seen the inevitable rise of equalising female economic power....except that many men who were just responsible 'worker-bees' and 'family-men' have experienced a very different outcome.
Yet, even well before
the 2008 Financial Crisis, it became apparent that this new
socio-economic paradigm model was adding enormous stress-fractures to
society at large, especially with regards to the social unit that is
the family.
And arguably, (as the
MRA and MGTOW groups believe), specifically to the middle-aged white
men – who had never had any of that supposed 'white privilege' –
who themselves had been moulded by the idiom of self-sacrifice to
support their nuclear family. Instead, redundant skills attuned to
old, dwindling industries, or when in management roles, seen as too
costly compared to the available talent pool of the younger and
increasingly female.
Now this appears just
'how the socio-economic cookie crumbles', couples now made-up of two
working adults, the format continued when children came along.
Except that there was a
clash between the social norms and expectations between the sexes,
that had existed for millenia based on the patriarchal society, and the economic new norms that had arisen.
And this generated shifted and mixed understandings and expectations; a changed landscape creating difficult to navigate terrain for both sexes, dependent on personal values. Spanning from who pays for a first date (the man or 'going Dutch') to domestic chores in coupled relationships, to at work, the often very different mindsets of women and men regards getting the work done for a company to stay afloat and prosper.
And this generated shifted and mixed understandings and expectations; a changed landscape creating difficult to navigate terrain for both sexes, dependent on personal values. Spanning from who pays for a first date (the man or 'going Dutch') to domestic chores in coupled relationships, to at work, the often very different mindsets of women and men regards getting the work done for a company to stay afloat and prosper.
There are now various
youtube commentators who cite academic and informal studies which
illustrates that the sociological data regards marriages, divorces,
single (ie single-motherhood typically) illustrate that the old
family inter-relationship of societal 'reciprocity' (inevitably of that
between man and wife) had broken-down; perhaps beyond repair.
Women were not willing
to directly replace the previous role of the husband as the sole
bread-winner as and when circumstances dictated, such as the man's
loss of his work. With her own money made from work, and any divorce
and sale of the family home providing for a nice 'restart financial
package', why bother carrying the baggage that was a useless partner
or husband?
Men had never thought in such a way, until now, seeing and experiencing the 'rough end of the stick'.
Men had never thought in such a way, until now, seeing and experiencing the 'rough end of the stick'.
MRAs and MGTOWs
typically believe that the empowerment of women's rights was
theoretically a good thing, but the social outcome of nuclear family
fragmentation, division of the sexes and inevitable social bitterness
was highly socially destructive. They believe – and it is a growing
trend amongst old and even younger males – that the consequences of
3rd and media hyper-fuelled 4th wave feminism,
led to the damaging 'brain-washing' of two generations of
increasingly self-centric actions of 'overly-entitled' and socially
unaccountable, 'me, me, me' women.
That empowerment
shifting from true equality toward feminist tyranny; whereby the
worst of the female character becomes a norm for society; and hence
the rise of sociological and pyschological mind-games that have
become so common in both the workplace and upon the street,
between co-workers and against target (supposedly anti-left)
strangers, who stand in the way of the feminist drive to feminist
power.
That drive to power
being obviously directed toward wealth appropriation – note not
necessarily wealth creation – why build it when you can try to take
it – and typically involves property; and is plied for via nothing
less than a very surreptitious but powerful psycho-sociological war
against those men who see what's going on and oppose it because of
its negative effect on themselves and society at large.
'NAWALT'.....'Not all
women are like that' of course, and thankfully so, but the male
targets of such obviously agenda-laden power-based ploys in an
increasingly transparent western socio-ideological civil war, are
very dubious of the women in the modern western world; and its being seen in their
own self-defensive beha
om the rise of new men's think-groups, to the rise of the so called 'INCELS' (young men who retract from sexual activity) to the increasingly widespread fear of false accusations, the deliberate misinterpretation of their actions or word by a woman, or at worst the belief that so many woman have become so brainwashed toward female advantage (ie their gain over true equality) in nearly all circumstances, that they intentionally stay clear of women as much as possible, given the negative outcome.
om the rise of new men's think-groups, to the rise of the so called 'INCELS' (young men who retract from sexual activity) to the increasingly widespread fear of false accusations, the deliberate misinterpretation of their actions or word by a woman, or at worst the belief that so many woman have become so brainwashed toward female advantage (ie their gain over true equality) in nearly all circumstances, that they intentionally stay clear of women as much as possible, given the negative outcome.
Hence, beneath the
surface of a supposedly diverse yet integrated western society, the
objective men and women of the everyday well recognise the fractures
that have occurred and exist, and try to work around them in their
everyday just by being decent human beings.
But those fractures -
whether real and deliberately hidden (such as tribal and gender
conflict), or falsely exaggerated (such as immigration numbers and
effects) - have also been simplistically unified under the risen
banner of 'New Popularism', (which itself is a propaganda device to
keep the common people ill-informed and angryangry).
The fact is that as
long as social instability permeates the west, because of the mixed
selfish actions of many, from those who seek to keep tribes and
genders as foes against each-other, to the willingness of such tribes
(singularly or as cooperatives) to socio-economically marginalise
another tribe or person(s), the longer the west will suffer from social conflict, instability and chronically low investment.
We live in a world in
which the West, after the last positive effects of QE have been
subsumed, will become ever more reliant from the rest of the world
for investment – that is the central idiom of BREXIT.
Those supposedly named
EMs – which often display greater standards of living than that
lived by much of the west - though previously contracted by the
global recession are themselves on fast-track economic escapes toward
slowed but stronger regrowth.
And before investing
heavily, the BRICs and CIVET countries will want to see true social
stability in the west, and not just a pretence of happy diversity in
company mission statements, whilst office politics and a
lackadaisical mentality continues to sweep the west because of ethnic
and gender differences.
Its time the West to
woke-up from its ideological and very damaging sleep-walk of utopian
pretence, re-taught not just children but critically adults about the
basic values of mutual respect, to negate what is now an endemic
'passive-aggressive' society with at extremes it 'gas-lighting'
traits, and got real about what makes a truly strong economy,
prosperous people and thus a content and happy and so productive
populace.
The legendary “Welcome
to Britain” sign which has stood for 70 years at Heathrow Airport, may also need some simple directives about the basics of expected decent
social behaviour.
(NB since 'gas-lighting' was replaced by electric lights over a century ago and we now live in a supposedly more enlightened age, whilst 'flying monkeys' don't have landing rights at airports or anywhere else; since such actions are criminal offences).
(NB since 'gas-lighting' was replaced by electric lights over a century ago and we now live in a supposedly more enlightened age, whilst 'flying monkeys' don't have landing rights at airports or anywhere else; since such actions are criminal offences).
Only then, it would be a
Britain of true social stability and integrity, upon an upward trajectory, that offers far more than just financial RoI, but a social one aswell.