The Economy: Weapon of the Future

Consider this, a “Wait, wait, there’s more” posting. Jim Bacon just noted the interest of the Chinese and Russians in using the Internet to disrupt American infrastructure such as electrical grids and the like.

Well, Politico reports that the Pentagon has been getting into the act in its own way. Last month, it staged a two-day exercise about how to respond to the threat of foreign nations using whatever economic means available to screw over the U.S.

The two day event near super secret Fort Meade in Maryland worked in a Dr. Strangelove-style “War Room.” Hedge fund managers and economics professors replaced bomber jockeys and nuke theory gurus as the players. Their game: blunt attempts by China, Russia or anyone else to toast the U.S. economy through any variety of plays, such as currency manipulation or shorting stocks.

According to Politico, various scenarios acted out included the collapse of North Korea, the Kremlin playing around with natural gas prices, flare ups between Taiwan and China and other crisis. Players assumed roles of Russia, China and the U.S. China won, since the U.S. and Russia spent so much time one-upping the other that they were diverted.

When you think about it, economics is really the prime reason for many wars. It was behind the American Revolution (not the gleaming thoughts of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and other rhetoric stars). Ditto Japan’s economic ambitions in Asia. Hitler, of course, was bent on ideology.

War games can be fun. When I was in college majoring in international relations, my dorm was near the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a big deal foreign affairs graduate school. It was controversial because these were the Vietnam years and Fletcher hosted lots of CIA, Foreign Service and military types. I found some of them interesting because they had actually had experience in the field, unlike many of my professors who were more bent on protest alone.

Anyway, I got to know an Air Force colonel who was doing a mid-career teaching stint at Fletcher and he invited me to participate in a game he was doing with students. It lasted two days without sleep and it was fascinating (although I can’t remember exact details).

The point of the Ft. Meade exercise seems to be that the weapons of the future won’t be Stealth destroyers or F-22 Raptors but Sovereign Wealth Funds, Credit Default Swaps and hot money currency plays.

Might be interesting to know where Virginia, the nation’s No. 2 defense industrial state, fits in with this.

Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

9 responses to “The Economy: Weapon of the Future”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    somewhere I read a novel in which the soviets sent a copy of their war game simulation with a note that sais “We win, surrender or we will execute”.

    The Pentagon ran it through their simulator and got the same answer.

    The remainder of the novel was about how the president should respond.

    RH

  2. Larry G Avatar

    “…weapons of the future won’t be Stealth destroyers or F-22 Raptors but Sovereign Wealth Funds, Credit Default Swaps and hot money currency plays.”

    as an explicit nation-state strategy ? or… companies running on the fringes.. essentially rogues..with the capacity to bring down entire countries economies, etc?

    What I thought I heard from the latest meeting of the major nations finance folks – was an agreement to work together to deal with companies that game the system for fun and profit with winks and nods.. but ultimately if not reined in.. a very real possibility that when they crash and burn, they can set the whole house on fire.

    If finance leaders do what they say they are going to do… a company “fingered” as one that is gaming and evading … will have fewer places to operate – namely most of the industrialized countries.

    I think it’s being recognized that there are companies that do this and we only need to go back a few years to companies that played one country or one state off against another by dangling jobs in exchange for a highly polluting industry.

    Only after the EPA make rules – nationwide … and only after the US and the Europeans followed suit in a fashion… if anything the EC is more strict than the US about pollution, did these companies decide that going to other places to pollute wouldn’t work if the US and the EC would not buy their products.

    So now.. they’ve gone off to China and other more receptive countries but the noose is slowly closing on them. They have fewer and fewer places to operate and fewer and fewer countries that will buy what they sell if it comes from a highly polluting plant.

    so these finance companies are now being viewed as “toxic” in their behaviors.. that if they are allowed to continue to play off one country against another.. i.e. exploiting loopholes, hedge funds, and other dangerous behaviors, that while profitable, are dangerous to others… they will be invited out of the countries that decide to deal with them en mass.

    sure..they’ll still be able to operate in more friendly countries but they’re also going to be marginalized and, in fact, become more marginal in their ability to move about freely in the industrialized world.

    they’ll become stigmatized and unwelcome… like the blood diamond trade or trading in exotic animal hides and products.

    If more and more of the world starts to agree more and more on the standards for acceptable company behaviors.. it could.. over the longer run.. have the same effect that the EPA had when they asserted control over all 50 states on pollution standards.

    Now.. I’m not saying this to spin up Ray… if fact.. I promise I’m not going to respond to any of his subsequent posts if they start moving in his trademarked “property rights” spins.

    My main point here… is that the more the world agrees to cooperate on standards – the harder it is going to be for companies who specialize in playing countries off against each other.. and that we’ll see this in the financial sectors soon if not right away.

  3. Larry G Avatar

    I’m probably being ignorant here but I’m having trouble envisioning how any nation-state economy can operate in such a way as to be a strategic weapon – because it can never be independent of the rest of the world…

    It would be like China thinking they can control the world by selling cheaper products?

    what would they do with all the money they got?

    you can’t squirrel it away and in doing so ..make your country more powerful and more rich… right?

    I mean if countries could do this.. 3rd world countries could out-produce all the industrialized countries by totally undercutting the price and that don’t happen… does it?

    For instance, why can’t Mexico become the China of the Western Hemisphere?

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I agree on Peter with this one. Just as war is an extension of politics and diplomacy, the same can be said of the economy. Think back to World War II, the world’s last “total war.” Governments commandeered their economies to mobilize the resources to field the largest armies and most far-flung fields of operations the world had ever seen.

    Access to strategic resources — particularly oil — drove war strategy, from Germany’s summer 1942 offensive against Russia, to Japan’s invasion of Indonesia, to the allied bombings of the Romanian oilfields. Germany used its U-boats to strangle the English economy by cutting off trade. Likewise, both the axis and the allies prohibited all trade with the enemy.

    World economies are much more interrelated now, and connected in ways that are far less obvious than back in 1942. As Peter observes, the side with large cash reserves can use them in all sorts of insidious ways to disrupt the economies of their enemies. As dependent as the U.S. economy is to outside credit, we’d be fools not to consider the possibilities.

    (On the other hand, we hold a big weapon over China. If they get ugly, we can put a “hold” on their $2 trillion+ investment in U.S. treasuries… In the case of all-out war, we could simply expropriate their wealth. So, these things do run two ways.)

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Folks,
    Thanks for the good comments. However, I am merely pointing out the news of what the Pentagon is doing — I’m not really advocating anything.
    Moreover, I am at a loss trying to contemplate the world economy vs. statism/nationalism on this one. The “global economy” has been a mantra for at least 20 years although there does seem to be a stubborn sense of nationalism about. It could be that advanced countries such as those in Europe blame the U.S. for permissiveness and laxity that led to the current economic crisis. China has always played to its national self-interest since it is still a Communist state. The Journal reports today that Russia is favoring national champion companies when it comes to the Internet — it is blocking Google from buying Russian search engine firms, for example.
    Part of this could be a reaction to the “U.S. only and first” policies that the Georgw W. Bush admininistration followed and which made the U.S. a but of a pariah among nations. I’m still waiting to see what Obama will be doing, but he atually seems to be taking harder lines — especially in Afghanistan — than maybe a lot of liberals, conservatives thought he would.

    Peter Galuszka

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “A friend had turned me on to a futurist named Gerald Celente, who anticipated the Asian financial crisis and other calamities. Now, Celente says, the U.S. is heading for a middle-class tax revolt, food riots, and a Central Park engulfed by shantytowns.

    The blog Calculated Risk is always a reliable turn-on. The guy who runs it combs the financial media for “cliff-diving” rates of this and that. One data point he often cites is the A2P2 spread, or the difference “between high- and low-quality 30-day nonfinancial commercial paper.” Turns out it “gapped” dangerously last fall. Worrying about the A2P2 spread is like having a dirty secret. I spend many fruitful minutes playing out scenarios: What do I do when my corner deli gets looted? What bridge do I take out of town? There’s something very exciting about it all.

    Like real porn, the economic variety gives you the illusion of control, and similarly it only leaves you hungry for more. But econo-porn also feeds a powerful sense of intellectual vanity. You walk the streets feeling superior to all these heedless knaves who have no clue what’s coming down the pike. “

    “Pessimism Porn” NY Magazine.

    http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/53858/

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Now.. I’m not saying this to spin up Ray…”

    Why would you think that would spin me up? You are arguing my case for me.

    What you are saying is tha the developed countries have developed and are enforcing new property rights, whech benefit the environment.

    Unethical or profit seeking businesses have temproarily fled to other countries where proeprty rights are not so well enforced, and wher it is easier to steal (profits from the general welfare).

    You think that window is closing and all countries will eventually have better property rights laws.

    The countries with bad laws (either too lax or too strict) will continue to lose production and the countries with good laws will have both the production and the money to pay for a good environment. You might want to move you company to a place with lax property laws that allow you to poinson other people, but not so lax that you are likely to be nationaized.

    It is an international exercise or experiment in cost benefit analysis.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When the woman who calls herself Queen Omega moved into a three-bedroom house here last December, she introduced herself to the neighbors, signed contracts for electricity and water and ordered an Internet connection.

    What she did not tell anyone was that she had no legal right to be in the home.

    Michael Stoops, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said about a dozen advocacy groups around the country were actively moving homeless people into vacant homes …

    So now we have organized bandos! And it sounds like the competition is fierce:

    “At 10 o’clock in the morning, I went over to the house just to make sure everything was O.K., and squatters took over our squat. Then we went to another place nearby, and squatters were in that place also.”

    ——————————

    Even squatters think they have property rights – unless someone else had them first!

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We've got economic wargmes going on every day, right in front of our faces: with ever special interest trying to "win" their particular battle, no matter what other destruction it brings.

    What else is new?

    ———————————-

    "U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE09-001

    Abstract:

    A rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high paying, interesting, and provide collective rights. This literature is built on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.

    Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

    Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

    Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions.

    Government interference – such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests – will generate stagnation.

    Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.

    Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

    Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today's demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

    In this Article, we survey the green jobs literature, analyze its assumptions, and show how the special interest groups promoting the idea of green jobs have embedded dubious assumptions and techniques within their analyses.

    Before undertaking efforts to restructure and possibly impoverish our society, careful analysis and informed public debate about these assumptions and prescriptions are necessary.

    ————————–

    I know, sounds like a special interest, lobbying for mor money for “their” side. In this case “more study is needed..”

    RH

Leave a Reply