Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Sunday, December 15, 2024

Heralding the Golden Age of Cryptocurrency

■ Presidentelect Donald Trump’s embrace of cryptocurrencies marks a pivotal moment

■ Analysts projecting Bitcoin to reach US$200,000 by end-2025

■ The outlook for Bitcoin and the broader crypto market is overwhelmingly positive, but risks remain

THE cryptocurrency world is buzzing with speculation that bitcoin could reach an unprecedented US$200,000 by 2025. While bitcoin has yet to stabilise around the US$100,000 mark, its meteoric rise in 2024 has emboldened investors and analysts to project a bullish future for the world’s leading digital asset.

Bitwise Asset Management, a prominent voice in the crypto sphere, has described the upcoming year as the Golden Age of Crypto.

According to the firm, the regulatory landscape in the United States has significantly improved following the 2024 US elections. President-elect Donald Trump’s embrace of cryptocurrencies marks a pivotal moment.

“We believe we are entering the Golden Age of Crypto,” Bitwise analysts, led by chief investment officer Matt Hougan and head of research Ryan Rasmussen, state in the group’s report.

Bitwise expects Crypto’s magnificent three – Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solanato – to hit new all-time highs in 2025, with bitcoin leading the rise to trade above US$200,000.

In addition to Bitwise, other analysts projecting bitcoin to reach US$200,000 include Geoff Kendrick, head of crypto research at Standard Chartered, and analysts at Bernstein, led by Gautam Chhugani.

Kendrick forecasts that bitcoin could hit this milestone by the end of 2025, driven by institutional investments in bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFS).

In a recent note, he stated that Standard Chartered’s target of US$200,000 by 2025 is “achievable”, adding: “We would become even more bullish if bitcoin experienced accelerated adoption by US retirement funds, global sovereign wealth funds, or the establishment of a potential US strategic reserve fund.

“We anticipate institutional flows to continue at or exceed the pace set in 2024. Microstrategy, for instance, is ahead of its Us$42bil threeyear plan, suggesting its purchases in 2025 will likely match or surpass those of 2024.”

Meanwhile, Bernstein’s analysts attribute their bitcoin price target of US$200,000 by end-2025 to unprecedented demand stemming from spot bitcoin ETFS managed by leading asset managers, according to media reports.

Trump effect

Essentially, crypto has emerged as a clear winner in the 2024 US elections, giving it a brighter regulatory outlook in the United States, Bitwise notes.

For one thing, Trump has announced plans to create a strategic bitcoin reserve and nominated Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary. Bessent’s earlier comment that “crypto is about freedom and the crypto economy is here to stay” reflects the administration’s pro-crypto stance. The reshuffling of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has historically taken a sceptical view of digital assets, adds another layer of optimism.

Similarly, Bernstein analysts attribute bitcoin’s rise to Trump’s support for cryptocurrencies. They point out that his plan to position the United States as a global leader in the crypto space and his choice of Paul Atkins, a known crypto advocate, to lead the SEC have bolstered market confidence.

Record highs

Bitcoin has since cooled to below US$95,000 at the time of writing, after reaching an alltime high of US$103,992 earlier this month.

This marks a 141.72% increase year-to-date as of Dec 6, 2024. According to Bitwise, the surge was largely driven by the US launch of spot bitcoin ETFS, which set records with Us$33.6bil in inflows within their first year.

Other crypto assets, including Ethereum and Solana, also posted substantial year-to-date gains of 75.77% and 127.71%, respectively. This performance highlights how cryptocurrencies, led by bitcoin, ethereum and solana, have outpaced all major asset classes in 2024.

Crypto equities mirrored this bullish trend. Companies like Microstrategy and Coinbase saw their shares skyrocket by 525.39% and 97.57%, respectively. In comparison, traditional assets such as the S&P 500 and gold returned 28.07% and 27.65% over the same period, highlighting crypto’s dominance.

Catalysts for next milestone

The factors driving bitcoin’s trajectory towards US$200,000 are multifaceted, Bitwise highlights. The launch of bitcoin

ETFS in 2024 shattered expectations, and Bitwise believes 2025 will see even greater inflows.

“When US spot bitcoin ETFS launched in January 2024, ETF experts forecast the group to see Us$5bil to Us$15bil of inflows in their first year. They passed the higher end of that range within the first six months.

“Since launching, the record-setting ETFS have gathered Us$33.6bil in inflows. We expect 2025’s inflows to top that,” Bitwise says.

Drawing a parallel with gold ETFS launched in 2004, Bitwise notes that ETF inflows typically accelerate in subsequent years.

“The best historical analogy we have for the bitcoin ETF launch is the launch of gold ETFS in 2004. Flows petering out would be unusual,” it explains.

At present, major financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and Bank of America have yet to fully embrace bitcoin ETFS.

Bitwise anticipates this to change in 2025, unlocking a wave of institutional investments. “The trillions of dollars these firms manage will start flowing into bitcoin ETFS,” Bitwise predicts.

Risk tolerance

While bitcoin remains the focal point, other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum and Solana are also poised for substantial gains in 2025. Bitwise’s price targets for Ethereum and Solana are US$7,000 and US$750, respectively.

Ethereum, despite its impressive 2024 performance, has faced competition from fastergrowing programmable blockchains.

However, Bitwise anticipates a “narrative shift” as activity on

Layer 2 blockchains and spot Ethereum ETFS gain traction.

Solana’s resurgence, driven by memecoin mania in 2024, is also expected to continue as serious projects migrate to its network, it says.

Meanwhile, JP Morgan points out that the role of crypto in portfolio construction is mostly a function of risk tolerance.

“Cryptocurrencies are inherently unpredictable: there is little visibility into future price movements and blockchain technology, while exciting, also has few barriers to entry, meaning tokens can become obsolete (and therefore worthless) as new ones enter the market with improved functionality,” the US asset management company cautions.

“As a result, for most investors, any allocation to crypto in a portfolio should be kept both small enough to ensure that even in the event of a significant sell-off it does not derail overall portfolio objectives and well diversified,” it adds.

While the outlook for bitcoin and the broader crypto market is overwhelmingly positive, risks remain.

Regulatory clarity, though improving, is still a work in progress.

The global economic environment, including interest-rate policies and geopolitical tensions, could also impact investor sentiment.

However, the convergence of favourable regulatory developments, institutional adoption and technological advancements positions bitcoin as a strong contender to achieve new heights, potentially reshaping the global financial landscape.

By CECILIA kok cecilia_kok@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

Bitcoin must not in your retirement financial planning portfolio

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

STILL AMRICA FIRST IN TRADE

Domestic drive: The US has endorsed ‘Buy American’ policies, which would favour domestic producers but would be blatantly illegal under WTO rules.

https://youtu.be/vcn5Lxshw20

US multilateralism is coming back in many areas but in trade, many retrograde policies of the past are continuing.

AFTER the end of the Trump presidency in January, multilateralists around the world heaved a collective sigh of relief.

Gone would be the wrecking ball aimed at international institutions.

Gone would be the go-it-alone approach to dealing with global problems. Gone would be policies towards the rest of the world premised on “America First”.

Gone, hopefully, would be the capricious trade wars, some of them directed at American allies.

To a large extent, these high hopes have proved justified.

Within its first 40 days, the Biden administration has reversed many of its predecessor’s disengagements from multilateral institutions and processes.

It has rejoined the Paris Agreement on climate change, which the United States had abandoned in 2017.

It walked back to former president Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO), which was due to take effect from July 6.

It has pledged US$4bil (RM16bil) for the WHO-sponsored Covax initiative which aims to distribute Covid-19 vaccines to the developing world, which the Trump administration refused to join.

It has agreed to endorse an allocation of special drawing rights – the International Monetary Fund’s hard currency – which would provide additional resources to poor countries without adding to their debt, and which former Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin had declined to support.

Given that the World Bank is the world’s biggest financier of climate change-related investments, its president David Malpass reasonably expects that the Biden administration, for which battling climate change is a priority, will be supportive of its mission.

The administration has also vowed the US’ “unshakeable” commitment to Nato, which Trump had derided as an outdated organisation that imposes excessive burdens on the US.

But there is one critical area where the Biden administration is hesitant to support multilateralism, and that is trade.

Here, multilateralists can be grateful for some small mercies.

At least the administration has affirmed its commitment to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – the custodian and enforcer of world trade rules – which the Trump administration all but ignored during the last four years and even threatened to leave.

It has also broken the impasse over WTO’s leadership, by endorsing the candidacy of Nigerian-American economist Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala for the post of directorgeneral, which was supported by the majority of the WTO’s 164 members, but which the Trump administration had blocked.

So, after being leaderless for almost six months, the WTO now at least has someone in charge.

Modest ambitions

But beyond that, and judging by actions rather than words, the multilateralist ambitions of the Biden administration on trade appear modest.

It has made clear that it will not pursue any trade agreements until it restores America’s competitiveness by investing trillions of dollars in areas such as energy, education and infrastructure.

It has endorsed “Buy American” policies, which would favour domestic producers and would be blatantly illegal under WTO rules.

Citing “systemic problems”, it has continued the Trump administration’s policy of blocking appointments of new judges to the WTO’s appellate body, which functions as a “supreme court” that adjudicates trade disputes.

The body has been unable to issue any judgments since Dec 11, 2019, because it did not have the minimum of three members required to issue a ruling.

Currently, with all judges having completed their terms, there is not a single judge on the body. This means that any appeal against a judgment by a lower panel at the WTO disappears into legal limbo, and the judgment is not binding.

In September last year, a lower panel ruled in favour of China, which made the case that the 25% tariffs levied by the US in June and September 2018 violated the WTO’s cardinal principle of non-discrimination.

The US is appealing that judgment, but the appeal cannot be heard, as the US would know, so the tariffs will remain in place.

Indeed, the Biden administration appears in no hurry to lift the Trump administration’s tariffs on China, all of which are likely to be WTO-illegal, according to trade experts.

It wants to use these tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from Beijing, including its compliance with the phase one trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration under which China was supposed to buy US$ 200 bil worth of US goods and services split over last year and this year, but is falling short of the target.

It has also continued the Trump administration’s policy of designating Hong Kong’s exports as “Made in China”, citing “national security” concerns – which means that in the US view, that issue, too, cannot be adjudicated by the WTO.

In short, a return to multilateralism on trade does not seem to be a priority for the Biden administration.

‘Elephant in the room’

The rise of China is one of the main sources of this reticence.

Like the Republicans, Democrats believe that the WTO is not fit for purpose in dealing with all of China’s alleged trade malpractices.

The case for this is well articulated in a 2016 paper by Harvard Law School Prof Mark Wu, now a senior adviser to the US Trade Representative’s office.

He argues that the main problem is that WTO rules – which were crafted before China joined the organisation – were not made with China’s distinctive economic system in mind.

WTO rules can address only those among China’s trade malpractices which are shared by other countries – such as requiring foreign investors to partner with local firms and buy from local suppliers, or granting exclusive rights to local firms to import or sell goods in the local market – which are practices that are not unique to China, and for which case law already exists.

But problems arise in cases where the boundaries between state and private enterprises are blurred, as is often the case in China. It is then not easy to judge whether a preferential transaction is of a private commercial nature – which falls outside the WTO rules – or amounts to a state subsidy.

At the heart of the problem is what constitutes a “public body”, which in China is not as clear as in other countries.

It is widely accepted, including by WTO itself, that WTO rules need to be updated, not only relating to China but also to issues such as digital trade, competition, services, labour and the environment.

But China, which is involved in the majority of trade disputes involving major economic powers, is the “elephant in the room”.

However, updating the rules should not mean sidelining the WTO in the meantime, which is what seems to be happening.

In a departure from the unilateral approach taken by the Trump administration, the Biden administration says it plans to deal with China’s trade practices in concert with other countries.

But there is no better way to do this than in a multilateral forum like the WTO, which applies a core set of principles to trade disputes such as non-discrimination, has mechanisms to monitor and enforce its rules and which would accommodate the concerns of multiple countries, which is how multilateralism should work.

Besides, China has a good record of complying with WTO rulings that go against it, and not such a good record of caving in to bilateral pressures.

Judicial paralysis

Shutting down the WTO’s judicial function by effectively neutralising its appellate body is especially ill advised.

Some concerns about the way the body functions and its alleged “judicial overreach” may be legitimate, but even if so, this applies only to a minority of cases that the body has adjudicated.

Disabling the WTO’s appellate body prevents the majority of cases, including those unrelated to China, from being resolved.

Besides, for all the criticisms levelled against it, the appellate body has a proud record.

In its 25 years of operation, it has resolved 195 disputes compared with around 160 cases completed in 74 years by the International Court of Justice, with 15 standing judges. Moreover, it has disposed of cases within a few months on average, compared with a few years in the case of other international adjudicating bodies.

Recounting these achievements in her farewell speech on Nov 30 last year, the last appellate judge to finish her term, Dr Zhao Hong, pointed out: “Though there was room to improve, the appellate body distinguishes itself for its outstanding performance among all international adjudicating bodies.”

By continuing to paralyse its functioning, the Biden administration undermines multilateralism and perpetuates the law of the jungle on trade issues, where might is right.

So while the administration has made a good start by re-embracing multilateralism in many areas, its trade policies still leave much to be desired.

-By VIKRAM KHANNA— The Straits Times/ANN

Diplomatic realpolitik

AS double-think runs wild in the White House, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) of Saudi Arabia must be enjoying a quiet chuckle. Diplomatic realpolitik has been accorded precedence over the severe action that was expected of President Joe Biden in the context of the US intelligence report that the Crown Prince was complicit in the ghastly killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

The Washington Post columnist was allegedly drugged and his body dismembered. Every tenet of human rights was thus violated.

By advancing what they call a “free pass” to MBS, America’s President has proffered a feeble excuse to justify his defence of the de facto leader of the desert kingdom. Biden, who had referred to Saudi Arabia as a “pariah kingdom with no redeeming social value” in course of his election campaign, has now softened his stance to a dramatic degree.

It thus comes about that in the somewhat surprising reckoning of the US President, the price of directly penalising Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is “too high”.

He may be right when viewed through the prism of certitudes of foreign policy.

The US President was reportedly convinced by his newly formed national security team that there was no way to formally bar the Saudi crown prince from entering the United States or to take a call on the criminal charges against him.

Altogether, it was feared by the current US administration that a drastic reprisal would have breached the equation with one of America’s key Arab allies, not to discount the flutter within the Arab region generally.

There is said to have been a consensus in the White House that the price of that breach was quite “simply too high” in terms of Saudi cooperation in the fight against terrorism and in confronting Iran.

Biden had been urged by a section of the establishment to at least impose the same travel restrictions against the Crown Prince as the Trump administration had imposed on others involved in the plot.

The White House appears to have drawn a fine distinction between MBS and the Saudi military. While the Crown Prince is unlikely to be invited to the United States in the immediate perspective, the establishment has denied that the Saudi ruler is being given a “pass”.

It is pretty obvious though, that the coveted International Visitor Program (IVP) will not be denied to the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince. Going by the terms of protocol, he may yet be treated as a state guest in America.-Reuter

The world at a T-junction

America’s 5 Stages of Grief Over China’s Rise; Trump and wife test positive for Covid-19

The hegemonic anxiety of America First

The root of the matter: shame - shamefulness and shamelessness

Thursday, February 4, 2021

Ex-AG says Mahathir’s monumental betrayal made way for Trump-like Muhyiddin

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/560580

Publisher to sue anyone sharing PDF copy of Tommy Thomas ...

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/02/01/publisher-to-sue-anyone-sharing-pdf-copy-of-tommy-thomas-book/

In new memoir, ex-AG reveals Dr M wanted him out after Malay backlash

A “monumental betrayal” by Mahathir Mohamad led to a “kakistrocracy” formed by Muhyiddin Yassin, says Tommy Thomas. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA: Former attorney general Tommy Thomas has harsh words for Dr Mahathir Mohamad, whose resignation as prime minister in February 2020 paved the way for Muhyddin Yassin to take power.

In an epilogue to his recently-published memoirs, Thomas described Mahathir’s resignation as “a monumental betrayal”.

In a Churchillian turn of phrase, Thomas said: “Seldom in our nation’s history have so many million voters been let down by the actions of one man.”

Mahathir resigned on Feb 24, causing the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan government two years after it came to power in the 2018 general election. His resignation led the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to seek a new prime minister and cabinet from members of Parliament.

Muhyiddin was appointed five days later after the King consulted political leaders to determine who commanded a majority in the Dewan Rakyat. He formed a government of parties in the Perikatan Nasional coalition.

Thomas said the formation of the new government “by a coalition of Malay-centric parties that proudly proclaim their race and religion” had brought disastrous consequences to multi-racial Malaysia.

He compared Muhyiddin Yassin to former US president Donald Trump, saying they both represented the rise to power of those lacking credibility and principle.

Both Muhiddin and Trump represented the modern ‘”kakistocracy”, he said, using a term invented in 17th century England to mean “government by the worst; to describe the political rise of the least qualified or most unscrupulous”.

Calling it a “misgovernment for profit”, Thomas said the kakistocracy served a political agenda – the shameless pursuit of hate politics: (Trump’s) America First, or the Malay/Muslim Agenda of the PN government.

He also said that Trump displayed “dictatorial conduct” during his tenure, disregarding conventions, norms and even legal requirements. Malaysia’s opposition parties have used similar terms against Muhyiddin after his government declared a state of emergency.

Source link

Najib threatens to sue Tommy Thomas

Sunday, January 24, 2021

A look back at Trump's four years, US trumped out in trade war

A look back at Trump’s four years

https://youtu.be/2BdEO3hKt60

With the new President in the White House, the time to embrace the global community is now and not delay any longer. Washington will then be looked upon with great respect after four years of rule by one man, which was nothing but traumatic, chaotic and deceitful.( Pic shows Biden signing executive orders on first day of Presidency.)

AS we now welcome the era of Bidenomics over the next four years, one cannot help but to review the impact of the previous US president’s tenure which ended just three days ago.

One of Trump’s rallying cry was his call of making America great again. With that, the US embarked on a trade war with the rest of the world, in particular with China, to reduce the massive trade deficits that the US has been experiencing for umpteen years.

In addition, Trump also wanted to bring foreign manufacturers to the US on the assumption that this would reduce their import bill, attracting foreign direct investments as well as creating jobs for Americans.

The trade war saw US imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, and in retaliation, China too started to impose tariffs on US goods – effectively a tit-for-tat move by the two superpowers where effectively nobody wins.

The US-China trade war led to nervousness in markets, in particular during the 2018-2019 period, but the impact of the stand-off tapered off sometime about a year ago when both agreed to enter into the Phase 1 trade deal.

To recap, that trade truce entailed China agreeing to increase the import of American goods and services by at least US$200bil over the next two years. China, which purchased some US$130bil in total goods and US$56bil in services in 2017, was supposed to increase total imports by about US$162bil in total goods purchased and US$38bil in services over the two-year period.

In terms of breakdown for the year 2020 and 2021, China was to increase its imported goods by US$64bil in 2020 and US$98bil this year from the base line figure of 2017. In terms of services, the level of imports by China was expected to increase by about US$13bil last year and US$25bil this year.

Since the Phase 1 trade deal was inked about a year ago, how has the Chinese trade with the rest of the world and in particular the US performed in 2020? Overall, with the December 2020 trade data just released last week, China saw its total exports for the year rising by 3.6% while imports fell by 1.1% year-on-year (y-o-y).

This, of course, would lead to one thing – a widening trade surplus. In fact, China’s 2020 total trade surplus jumped by 27% to US$535bil – the highest in five years.

How about China’s trade with the US? Based on the data released, China’s trade surplus with the US rose by 7.1% to US$316.9bil and contrary to what president Trump intended to achieve with his tariff measures. Chinese exports to the US in 2020 increased by 7.9% to US$451.8bil while imports surged 9.8% y-o-y to US$134.9bil.

This definitely fell short of the targeted US$194bil total goods that was supposed to be imported by China in 2020 (US$130bil base line + US$64bil target). In terms of percentage, the shortfall was as much as 30%.

Based on the data from the US, trade with China up to November 2020 showed that US exports to China totalled some US$110bil while imports stood at US$393.6bil, giving rise to a trade deficit of US$283.6bil.

It is likely that for the month of December 2020, the US will add another US$30bil in deficit and thus bringing the 2020 total trade deficit with China to around US$314bil. Total exports for the year will likely come in at about US$125bil, up 15.8% y-o-y; while imports are expected to come in 3% lower at US$439bil.

Compared with the 2018 import value, US imports from China effectively would have dropped by about US$102bil but exports to China have increased by just 2.5% from the 2018 level of US$122bil.

In essence, while the US bought 19% less goods from China, what it sold to Beijing was barely any higher. In addition, while the US trade deficit with China may have improved by about US$30bil y-o-y in 2020, the Chinese trade surplus with the rest of the world is significantly higher.

What does this mean for Phase 1 Trade Deal?

With a shortfall of some US$70bil (based on US data) in 2020 and on the assumption that China is to import an additional amount of US$98bil this year to meet the target of Phase 1 trade deal, China would need to import as much as US$298bil worth of goods from the US this year!

This is derived after taking into consideration the base line of US$130bil in 2017, adding the US$70bil shortfall in 2020 and topping it up with the pledged US$98bil increase. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that China would be able to meet this target, which is more than doubled what it imported from the US last year.

Effectively, Phase 1 trade deal is dead in the water. Trump’s strategy can be said to have failed and China in effect has emerged as a clear winner in the trade war. What is now left to be seen is what will Bidenomics bring to the table as far as the trade war is concerned.

Will the new President soften his approach towards China? Will it be status quo or will Biden continue with Trump’s hard approach in dealing with China? After all, Janet Yellen, the treasury secretary nominee was quoted as saying that the US is prepared to take on China’s “abusive” trade and economic practices.

However, in the interest of globalisation and ease of movement of goods and services, tariffs effectively serve no purpose, especially to consumers as it actually only adds to the cost of goods purchased as the cost of tariff is passed on to the end buyers. Tariff is not a tool to restrict movement of goods or services. Instead, nations should strive to make themselves more competitive.

With the new President in the White House, the time to embrace the global community is now and not delay any longer. Washington will then be looked upon with great respect after four years of rule by one man, which was nothing but traumatic, chaotic and deceitful.

By Pankaj C. Kumar who is a long-time investment analyst. Views expressed here are the writer’s own.

Source link

Related posts:

Trapped in US-China trade war when 2 elephantine economices fight ...

US-China trade war escalates, tariff list aims to hinder China’s high-tech development: expert

China hits back after US imposes tariffs worth $34bn

China staunch defender of free trade under WTO, meet the 'selfish giant' of global trade

Did Huawei violate Iran sanctions? No, it shows deeper US-China battle for global influence as power coming from high-tech sector

Minds without borders: A coffee with Huawei Ren: We will be reborn by 2021

China battles US for AI and robotic space: Who’s ahead?

US adopts blinkered view of TikTok

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Democracy in the US in clear and present danger

https://youtu.be/-oAudzgilHU

Next Wednesday, Joseph Biden will be anointed President, guarded by 20,000 National Guard troops in battle gear against not foreign enemies, but domestic threats

A week is a long time in politics. Last Wednesday, armed supporters of President Trump stormed the sanctity of the Capitol, the temple of American democracy.

This Wednesday, President Trump became the first president in American history to be impeached twice.

Next Wednesday, Joseph Biden will be anointed President, guarded by 20,000 National Guard troops in battle gear against not foreign enemies, but domestic threats.

This was supposed to happen only in Hollywood movie scripts.

Consider these bizarre facts: the pandemic is claiming more than 4,000 deaths daily in the United States; digital media like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have banned tweets and comments by their own President; all US stock market indices are still rising, and bitcoin has surged by 27.9% in 13 days.

The article of impeachment stated in more stark terms than any foreign commentator would dare to express: “President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of government.

“He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.

“Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust, or profit under the United States.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (pic below)summed it up as “he is a clear and present danger to the nation.”

Arguably, Trump has committed the sin of poisoning the well of democracy, not just in America, but for the rest of the world.

Although Western democrats extol its virtues back to the Greek Age, modern liberal democracy is very recent.

As late as 1978, only one third of the world lived in democracies; by 2015, more than half do. But since then, populism, Brexit and Trumpism have caused many to lament that democracy is receding.

Today, the gold standard of liberal democracy in America is being tested, if not questioned.

Work in progress

The problem is that liberal democracy based on social equality, rule of law, tolerance of diversity, is a work in progress.

Given very different cultures, history, religion and institutional set-ups, democracy is practiced differently, requiring huge efforts by all citizens.

Democracy that has no performance-accountability when what is promised is not delivered.

That became evident when the 2008 global financial crisis accentuated rising social inequality and insecurity to large segments of the population.

Democratic politics fragmented and did not seem to be able to deliver on promises.

Austrian economist and political philosopher Joseph Schumpeter became famous for his observation that the driver of capitalism was entrepreneurship, which led to creative destruction. He was equally original and sharp in his realist analysis of democracy.

In his classic Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, four conditions must be satisfied for democracy to work: the quality of politicians in terms of ability and moral character; social consensus that democracy does not solve everything; a well-trained and effective bureaucracy; and finally, “effective competition for leadership requires a large measure of tolerance for difference of opinion.”

Schumpeter understood that democracy has difficulty in making decisions when society is deeply divided.

Vote-seeking

Vote-seeking behaviour means that policies are always for the short-term, so politicians under serve the long-term interests of the nation.

For example, democratic and rich countries like Australia cannot even agree on dealing with climate change, because vested interests in the mining industry consistently block change through lobbying. If democracies cannot deliver long-term structural reforms that are painful and unpopular, then in the long-run, citizens will seek alternatives, such as autocracies or anocracies (democracy with autocratic characteristics).

Trump put American democracy in clear and present danger by violating all four Schumpeter conditions.

First, nearly half the voting population ignored his moral issues, because they believed him calling the mainstream news as “fake”.

Second, he violated many of the unspoken rules, codes and conventions that buttressed democratic checks and balances, aided by lawyers and attorney generals whom he also threw under the bus.

Third, he questioned the loyalty and efficacy of the vaunted American bureaucracy, which then failed to protect the Capitol from violent protests.

Lastly, he openly sought division, rather than work bi-partisanly to heal social divisions.

Asians have much to learn from Schumpeter, who foresaw that democracy is about majority rule, but works in practice through an elite that deals in votes rather than in money. Since capitalism by definition values money more than labour, money under financial capitalism has a nasty habit of corrupting politics.

How to control money politics from corroding diverse rights and public goods is a perennial issue in all systems of governance.

If there is one lesson that should resonate in Asia, it is that violence cannot be an answer to the democratic process.

Inciting violence

Trump realised too late that inciting violence in his supporters to protect his version of electoral victory ended up with him denouncing violence in the name of law and order.

Retribution occurs to those who incite violence abroad, because violence can bounce back at home.

Next week, the Trump Reality Show will thankfully end, and life will return to some form of normality, so we can address the threats of pandemic and job losses without being diverted by another tweet.

For Trump, impeachment will only withdraw his right to hold further public office. He was made by media, and he will be haunted by media for the rest of his life. But he will go on to earn millions from book sales and paid appearances.

The clear and present danger to democracy is a distorted system where heads I win, tails you lose.

We need to change this system, but we don’t know how to do this democratically. Perhaps Joe Biden has the answer.

By Andrew Sheng, a Distinguished Fellow of Fung Global Institute, a global think tank based in Hong Kong. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link