Is Trump boosting the Economy?

US June Jobs report has come out, and unlike the previous mistrust from Trump  regarding the official numbers of unemployment rate he and his supporters seem to be astonishingly happy for a unemployment decrease that according to experts is just an extension of the trend that was observed in 2016 under the Obama administration in terms of Job Creation.

According to data, in June nonfarm payroll employment, which is any job with the exception of farm work, unincorporated self-employment, and employment by private households, the military and intelligence agencies, increased by 220,000 in June. The unemployment rate suffered little changes, considering the 2 previous months (4,4% in April and 4,3% in May) being now at 4.4 percent. Special highlight for the Health Care, Social Assistance, Financial activities and mining, in terms of jobs creation.

Many Trump supporters, and specially his vice president Mike Pence believe this Jobs report just show Trump’s commitment to create “tons of jobs” is being delivered. At the same time there is an urge by some people to believe investors and economic agents are confident on the economy and the way things will evolve.

Captura de ecrã 2017-07-09, às 12.08.07.png

Employment by Selected Industry, source: US Labor Statistics

Taking into consideration the chart above we can clearly see that the Education and Health Services was the industry that had added more jobs to the economy in June, around 59,100, not the type of industry that depends on business owners feelings but more on the needs of the population. Retail Trade which only added around 8,100 jobs in June and Utilities, which added 1,800 jobs, this past month are betters examples of industries driven by economic feelings and weren’t that much expressive as it was Education and Health Services, even if take into consideration their added jobs together.

This happens for a reason, optimism towards the economy is seeing a decline, referring to pre-election levels, as we can see in the chart below.

Captura de ecrã 2017-07-09, às 12.28.36

Source: New York Times, Neil Irwin’s article

This decline in optimism between consumers can be expressed in their practically stagnant wage. As the June Jobs reports states, in this month average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $26.25 in comparison to May. However if we look from June 2016 to June 2017 average hourly earnings rose only 63 cents, around 2.5 percent. This is an important factor to take into consideration because if consumers don’t have a reasonable disposable income or aren’t pretty confident on their future economic conditions they won’t consume which won’t create a Demand for business owners to invest and hire more people to meet the demand for more products/services.

In the end a question still has to be answered, “Is Trump boosting the economy?”

Not even 6 months have passed since his inauguration and even though there is a urge to say this economic evolution is due to the “Trump factor” to justify the argument that “He isn’t so bad after all” I do believe it’s really early to make such assumptions. Yes he already signed legislation to roll back some regulations to promote jobs creation and expressed his intention to cut taxes, even though trickle down economics has proven to be mislead, but some things take time to start affecting the economy this is just one of them, we’ll probably have to wait the first year or two to see if he is really boosting the economy or just continuing the trend that started under the Obama administration.

 

 

Luís Carvalho, economics bachelor student and proud 2015 Graduate of Democracy

Seven Nation Army

“In peace, there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon…”

 

It has become some kind of European routine: confronted with an increasing number of citizens displeased by the Union’s policies, lack – or excess – of shared programs, European leaders revive the idea of a European army from time to time. There’s nothing new about using the military to reassure people, for it’s both a useful tool and a symbolic object of the utmost importance: in France, politicians are after all still debating about re-establishing a military service and arguing about its ability to mix social groups ([1]) within a single, united corp. But as Russia seems to be revaluating its strategic orientations to promote a more active approach to security issues while revitalising its military industrial complex, Europe, now forced to act by The Donald’s erratic way of handling foreign affairs, might have no other choice but to go “once more into the breach.”

Still, obstacles are various: even though interoperability have been promoted for quite a long time, European armed forces still use different material, especially in strategic realms such as the air force – the French Armée de l’Air uses Rafale and Mirage, while the German Luftwaffe uses Eurofighters, for instance. Moreover, shared industrial program such as the A400M one ([2]) – which aimed at providing various European armies with a common transport aircraft – met surprising difficulties, costs skyrocketing without any apparent progress being made. In addition to those technical, industrial issues, the sole idea of a common European armed force raises many more issues, from political ones to military ones: what would the missions be of such a force? By whom would it be commanded? What about language and structure? Where would its bases be located? In order to rationalise all of these rightful inquiries, one has to draw the line somewhere: it is almost impossible, if not simply bizarre to imagine that 28 countries will ever come together to form an armed force capable of designating its capacities, foes, theatres of operations and missions in a clear way.

The French Armed Forces, created in 1792, are currently divided into five branches: the Armée de Terre, the Marine Nationale, the Armée de l’Air, the Gendarmerie and the National Guard. Recently deployed in Sub-Saharan Africa (3,000 troops) in Iraq (3,200 troops) the French Armed Forces are also taking part in various peacekeeping missions by mobilising nearly 1,000 blue helmets. Besides enjoying the world’s only nuclear-powered carrier completed outside of the United States Navy, the French Armed Forces can rely on highly functional tools as various as fifth-generation aircraft (Rafale) and ultramodern frigates (FREMM) Yet, the French Armed Forces are suffering from the same drawbacks as most of their European partners: a chronic lack of funding which currently sever its ability to carry out  missions on its own and this has resulted in a lack of strategic airlift and unmanned aerial vehicles. However, recent reforms have been announced: they include investing in the modernisation of the Rafale, investing in the French special forces and speeding up the modernisation of France’s armoured vehicles

While discussing military integration, less is more. It is always easier to merge a small number of forces into one than to try and design a European military based on twenty-eight countries’ will to create something shared and common. ([3]) In fact, common characteristics exist between some militaries in the Union: German and French forces, for instance, are reaching an almost similar level of operational capacity, France’s main asset being that they have  acquired important experiences on theatres as diverse as South America, Sub-Saharan and Central Africa, Levant and Middle-East and own combat-proven aircrafts (Rafale) self-propelled howitzers (Caesar Canon) infantry fighting vehicles (VBCI) tactical transport helicopters (Caracal) and attack helicopters (Tigre) the latter being the result of a European military program and therefore used not only by France but also Germany and Spain.

 The Spanish Armed Forces aren’t as important as the French or Italian ones, but they still represent forces to be acknowledged, members of both NATO and the Eurocorps and representing around 130,000 men and women divided between the Ejército de Tierra, the Armada Española, the Ejército del Aire and the Guardia Civil. Though only carrying modest missions and relying on small battlegroups, the Spanish Armed Forces enjoy modern and various equipment including German MBT (Leopard II) European and American helicopters (Tigre, Chinook) and Austrian-Spanish IFV (ASCOD Pizarro) asserting its capacity to act in coordination with other western forces. Yet, and as many European forces, the Spanish ones suffer from a lack of investment resulting in poor operational abilities based on aging tools and gears, which was made even worse by the political turmoil faced by the nation a year ago

 This, for instance, came from a simple thought: “We all need a similar tool to carry out similar missions on similar theatres of operation. Why not share the costs of production as well as future, prospective benefits?” such a model of military cooperation being encouraged by the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation ([4]), which currently supervises no more than twelve military programs, from armoured fighting vehicles (Cobra) to multi-mission frigates (FREMM). Its most active members include France – with nine shared military programs – Italy – seven – Germany – three – and Benelux – three. Seven military’s therefore sharing highly efficient tools and reaching an almost unmatched interoperability capacity; seven countries active on shared battlegrounds such as Mali or Iraq and who could, at one point, start to exist as a Seven Nation Army.

As far as organisation is concerned, the Forze Armate Italiane can be compared to the French one. It is divided into four corps: the Esercito Italiano, the Marina Militare, the Aeronautica Militare and the Arma dei Carabinieri and represent nearly 300,000 men and women. Recent reforms in the Italian military included a decrease in the number of the army personnel meant to reallocate military funds to instruction, training and armaments. Its main assets include: owning two STOVL aircraft carriers – short takeoff and vertical landing – meant to carry short-range missions in the Mediterranean Sea, having at its disposal a vast number of military aircrafts – the most recent being Eurofighter and F 35 – and an even more impressive number of soldiers. This military strength furthermore relies on two things: an efficient arms-industry – Leonardo, Beretta – and a satisfactory operative level based on experiences acquired in Afghanistan

But as important as industrial cooperation might be, their sine-qua-non conditions remain to share strategic orientations and goals, and that’s where the rub is. Italian and French objectives include controlling the Mediterranean Sea or having the means to carry out short-range missions, but France has interests in North and Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It therefore needs slightly different tools, including the ability to carry out long-range missions, such missions relying, for instance, on tanker aircrafts and light warships. But why would Germany need those? Its most recent military doctrine has been designed after the Ukrainian Crisis and mostly revolves around countering any Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. ([5]) Such a threat isn’t to be deterred by tools designed for long-range projections, but rather by mechanised and armoured vehicles, anti-aircraft weapons, intelligence and counterintelligence assets or artillery systems. But what would France make of those in Mali’s desert, or in Bangui’s unstable streets? That’s when the dream of a European army meets a dead end.

With military budgets barely superior to 1% of their GDP, the Belgian and Dutch Armed Forces aren’t as impressive as the French or German ones. Though mostly equipped with modern equipment, they are both in need of more recent planes, the Royal Netherlands Air Force having already settled for American Lockheed Martin F-35. This of course came as a surprise, since such an investment would have been a perfect occasion to support Europe’s military-industrial complex. Moreover, the Composante Terre/Land Component suffers from the same flaws as the French Armée de Terre as it is currently used to patrol the streets which weaken the soldiers’ morale while damaging its military budget. Though modest in strength, the Belgian and Dutch Armed Forces are still members of the European military cooperation programs, with one each: the A400M Atlas and the Boxer

Finally, the idea of a European military poses another issue: the one of nuclear defence. In its recent article The Case for a European Nuke, Foreign Affairs’ Doug Bandow ([6]) perfectly explained how the perspective of a shared nuclear programme could benefit both the European and the American military interests by reducing Washington’s expenditures on our soil while increasing our influence in the West’s military decisions. As noted by Ulrich Kühn of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “it would be far too expensive for Europe to match Russia’s store of 2,000 to 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons” but Europe could, by using France’s nuclear doctrine settle for a deterrent force. “Europe,” notes Doug Bandow, “is also the most obvious place for Washington to close at least one of its nuclear umbrellas. None of the United States’ Asian allies possesses nuclear weapons, and their development would have unpredictable regional effects and be more likely to trigger proliferation” making this issue of a European Nuke a priority of the utmost importance.

Such a European military revolution would nevertheless have to be handled with care. Creating a European Nuke and therefore increasing the number of nuclear weapons possessed by European nations could arguably have an important impact on non-proliferation. It would also pose a very concrete question: to whom should fall the ultimate decision to fire those weapons? This has been established by many specialists: the first and main strength of a nuclear deterrent is its credibility. Not only do you have to let your prospective enemies know about your weapon, you also must absolutely erase any possibility to let them think you might not be prepared or ready to resort to those weapons of mass destruction. In the French case, the president has the possibility to order the use of nuclear bombs without referring to any counter-powers. This of course goes with him constitutionally being the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and raises some political issues, but it is also ultimately there to assert France’s ability to punish any important attack on its most vital interests. In the event of a European Nuke, who shall we entrust with the possibility to unleash weapons so powerful one might think of them as blasphemous ([7])? Here, the military idea of a shared weapon meets the political necessity of a common executive power.

The almost romantic idea of a European Army, let alone of a Seven Nation Army, is no dream nor illusion, but a strategic necessity. Yet, the obstacles to be overcome in the process of creating such a tool are both various and imposing: beyond the inherent need to build it around shared military objectives, orientations and tools, it would furthermore require a common sense of politics, a remarkable – almost unreachable in those modern times – pedagogy and the insurance that this device, while being controlled by civil authorities, would not be neutralised by them. In the meantime, humble industrial cooperation appears to be the main way forward in designing the collective tools upon which unity shall, one day, be accomplished.

 

Hugo Decis is currently studying International Relations i Paris and is the current Communication Officer. This article was previously posted on Mercoeur, a french blog specialised on International Relations, at this address:  https://mercoeur.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/seven-nation-army/ 

 

[1] Le Creuset de l’Armée : Un Mythe de l’IntégrationJean-Dominique Merchet, Libération

[2] Airbus : Le Programme A400M est-il en danger ?Michel Cabirol, La Tribune

[3] Samuel Beckett’s European ArmyDaniel Keohane, Carnegie Europe

[4] Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, official website – available at: http://www.occar.int/programmes

[5] In a Reversal, Germany’s Military Growth Is Met with Western ReliefAlison Smale, The New-York Times

[6] The Case for a European NukeDoug Bandow, Foreign Affairs

[7] Towards the Nuclear Sublime: Representations of Technological Vastness in Postmodern American PoetryRob Wilson, Cambridge University

Israel and the resolution 2334: At last isolated?

The resolution 2334, stating that Israel′s settlement activity constitutes a « flagrant violation » of international law and has « no legal validity » [1] came as a shock and that, for various reasons: in Israel, it was interpreted as the Obama administration’s last betrayal, after months and months of tensions and petty rivalries, though Obama’s relative audacity consisted in not vetoing a resolution which only officialise a neutral Continue reading “Israel and the resolution 2334: At last isolated?”

Why Obama’s final plan for the Middle East must be prevented at all costs

The recent upheaval regarding America’s decision to abstain from using its veto power to protect Israel from a UN security council resolution was hard to miss. Israel was not just surprised, they felt humiliated by their traditional ally. President-Elect Donald Trump and Israeli officials had convinced Egypt, the original initiator of the resolution, to delay the voting process but current President Barack Obama unexpectedly made sure the vote would happen and even passed. This article will argue why that can be a horrible mistake. Continue reading “Why Obama’s final plan for the Middle East must be prevented at all costs”

Civil disobedience in Sudan: Another Arab Spring?

“Peaceful” civil disobedience is always linked in the minds with Mahatama Ghandi’s march to the sea in protest of the British monopoly on salt, his most courageous act of civil disobedience against the famous British rule in India in 1930. However, this time the news come from Africa, specifically in Sudan where Sudanese  started on Sunday 27th of November 2016 a five-day civil disobedience with varying proportions of response among the residents of the country.

Continue reading “Civil disobedience in Sudan: Another Arab Spring?”

Trump’s presidency and its implications for the European Union’s foreign policy

In the past days we are coming to terms with the fact that in the next 4 years we will have to deal with the Trump administration leading the most powerful country in the world, “the leader of the free world” would be a controversial person like Donald Trump. The two articles on this blog written by Luís[1] and Tjeerd[2] highlighted the failure of the Democratic Party and the Establishment to present a credible alternative or deliberately undermining one (yes, I am talking about Bernie). But after going through the five stages of grief with denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance it is time to look into the future and deal with the situation as it is. Some would even say there is a silver lining Continue reading “Trump’s presidency and its implications for the European Union’s foreign policy”

Where did it go wrong for Clinton?

Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States. A few days ago when saying this, people would have declared you mad. Hillary Clinton, the nominee for the Democratic party, was seen as favorite to succeed President Barack Obama. Trump was a clown, a racist, even a woman hater. The many scandals would prevent him from obtaining America’s highest public position. How different did it turn out to be.

First let me help some readers to get rid of their mourning and sadness. Hillary Clinton was never the perfect candidate. Not just because of the mail-affair or for whatever Bill Clinton did wrong. But because she was chosen for her name, not for her ideas. Sure, she was turned into the natural successor of Obama and a champion for women’s rights. But she never came with a great plan to back that image. When looking at her policy plans it was really hard to say what Clinton’s presidency would have actually stand for. Continue reading “Where did it go wrong for Clinton?”

The rage against the Establishment

November the 9th, 6:30 Am

I woke up quite early to hit the gym, I started my daily routine packing up things, had a quick breakfast trying to avoid the inevitable, checking who had won the elections or was predicted to win at that time. It was with no surprise that I saw Trump with 244 electoral votes against 215 from Hillary.

I must admit I wasn’t shocked at all, the night before I went to bed with the feeling the next morning I would wake up with Trump being the winner and that was what happened.

How did a guy accused of sexual assault, who filed for bankruptcy more than once, who proposed to build a wall, bring back waterboarding and torture[i], ban Muslims coming in, with no political experience and all his sexist, homophobic and racist interventions manage to be seen as the most fit for the job at the oval office? Continue reading “The rage against the Establishment”

The decline of the Arabian Peninsula. Time for a party?

The Middle East is going up in flames but the Arabian Peninsula has for years been the prosperous exception. This is now changing. The countries of the GCC are experiencing decreasing demand for oil which is putting pressure on prices worldwide. Oil economies that stop selling oil will at some moment collapse. Its a scenario that the international community has to prepare for. The question that remains is if we should fear this development, or celebrate it.

There are many reasons why the demand for oil is decreasing. The main one is the lower-than-expected growth of industrialized economies. Especially the disappointing growth in Asia has negatively impacted the demand for oil and gas. But also other factors have played a role. The United States for example, although recovering from a financial crisis, has increased domestic oil production to become more self-supporting. The oil producing countries of the GCC however, had prepared for better times. They are now stuck with a surplus in oil and in no strategical position to increase their prices. Continue reading “The decline of the Arabian Peninsula. Time for a party?”

An Alternative for Berlin?

14408147_10154643972719558_1117834378_oGiven the success of the rightwing populist party AfD, the outcome of the regional elections in Berlin last Sunday can hardly be considered a victory for the SPD, which remained the strongest force. If the political parties in Germany do not come up with true alternatives to revive the political debate, the influence of the AfD will continue growing.

What has happened to Berlin? What has happened to the European capital of ‘multi-kulti’, world-openness and progressive lifestyle? The rightwing populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has achieved 14,2% of vote at the regional elections and will have 25 seats in the regional parliament. The Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) has 38 seats with 24,8% of vote. Continue reading “An Alternative for Berlin?”