by Shanmuganathan N

“China Vs US” Tariff Wars – A Repeat of “David Vs Goliath”

Highlights of Tamil Nadu’s First Economic Survey – 2024-25 “China Vs US” Tariff Wars – A Repeat of “David Vs Goliath” by Shanmuganathan N May 2, 2025 Indian Economy, Indian Liberals, World Economy Like the David-Goliath battle, China is poised to emerge victorious—once economic fundamentals are clear, it’s evident the real sinking ship is the US economy The world is in the middle of an escalating tariff war between US and China. The reverberations have been felt in most markets worldwide, and with no signs of a backdown by either country, the road ahead appears murky. However, that is only if one does not understand the principles of trade, currencies, and economics. As I see it, there is only one way this war will end – By China replacing the US as the dominant economic force on this planet and the US Dollar being replaced by Gold as the world’s reserve asset. The competitive advantage that China has created will stay for decades, similar to the US enjoying the dominant position during the entirety of the 20th century. Another definitive consequence of the trade wars is going to be downgrading of US treasuries from what is seen as the safest asset on the planet today to several notches below the current grade. The end game would be when the treasuries get downgraded to “near junk” status, but that is still a few years away. The decline of the US – both the economy and the Dollar – started almost very early in the 20th century, i.e., 1913, with the formation of the US Federal Reserve. But there was so much momentum and lead that the US had built up over the previous century under the classical gold standard that the decline was hardly noticeable. Similar to what Max Weber outlines in his chronicle of the decline of the Roman Empire, the culture of rugged individualism and liberty that the US was known for was conquered from within. The seeds of the precipitous part of the decline were sown much later in 1971 with the closure of the Gold Window. This ability to create “currency out of thin air” provided a carte blanche to the US Government to expand its powers within and outside the US.  This growth in government came at the expense of the private sector, which is the productive part of the economy. This restraint of gold on the government was first unshackled in 1913 with the formation of the Federal Reserve – and eventually removed entirely in 1971. Many readers may not be aware that the US Government was funded almost entirely through Tariffs on imports until 1914. Income Tax was introduced as a “soak the rich” plan to eliminate tariffs that were paid for by everybody, and instead, a small fraction of the population would pay Income Taxes. Donald Trump is right when he says Tariffs were used to fund the Government entirely at some point. But what he doesn’t know, or at least doesn’t reveal, is that Government expenses as a percentage of the economy used to be less than 2% at that point in time and not 24% as they are today. Trade – Who Benefits? With so much misinformation, it is better to start from the basics. At the outset, a trade benefits both parties involved in the transaction. When one buys a cake of soap from a retailer, it is because one prefers the soap to the currency used to purchase it. Similar is the case with the retailer who prefers your currency to the cake of soap. This is an immutable truth that trade benefits both parties involved, as otherwise, it would not happen. The trade occurs even in extreme cases of ransom/extortion because both benefit. A trade doesn’t imply that both parties benefit equally or even near equally. This is not only valid for the extortionist case above but also for legitimate transactions. For example, many customers have railed against NVIDIA for the exorbitant pricing using its “temporary” monopoly power in a specific category of chips. But in all these cases, it is indeed a voluntary transaction as NVIDIA is not forcing any company to buy its chips. Customers are buying ONLY because they are better-off with these “overpriced” chips than without. Similarly, the US imports products from China only because the citizens/residents/users benefit. The follow-on question should be obvious at this stage: If trade benefits both parties, does it stand to reason that “tariffs” hurt both parties? Of course, yes. But in very unequal ways, as I will explain in this article. Now, before getting into the details of tariffs, it’s good to correct certain misperceptions regarding the popular biblical fable of “David vs Goliath”. The usual narrative of a “victory of the underdog” is a complete misrepresentation. The truth is that Goliath never stood a remote chance of defeating David in this battle. Before explaining, think of how to defeat Bruce Lee in a one-on-one duel: the answer is simple. While Bruce Lee might come with his karate paraphernalia, you go with a loaded rifle that has a 100m range, and shoot before Bruce Lee gets anywhere near you. Another example, how can one defeat Messi? Simple again: engage him in a game of chess. The path to victory lies in making the opponent’s strengths irrelevant in the battle. Change the frame of reference. That’s what happens in David Vs Goliath as well. The latter, Goliath, is a lumbering giant figure who comes to the battle with heavy armour, shields, and swords – essentially prepared for a short-range combat. David is an expert at defending his flock of sheep from lions and wolves using his sling with devastating effect. David can very accurately aim from hundreds of yards away and that’s exactly what happens in the famed battle. Goliath lasted all of a few seconds and did not stand a chance of getting anywhere near David to use his sword. For somebody who understands military warfare, Goliath

“China Vs US” Tariff Wars – A Repeat of “David Vs Goliath” Read More »

GOLD – Is $3,000/Oz in 2025 Cheaper than $35/Oz in 1971?

GOLD – Is $3,000/Oz in 2025 Cheaper than $35/Oz in 1971? GOLD – Is $3,000/Oz in 2025 Cheaper than $35/Oz in 1971? by Shanmuganathan N March 19, 2025 Economic Reforms, Indian Liberals, World Economy Gold prices have nearly doubled in the last 18 months from the lows of $1575/oz in September 2022. Despite the heady returns in a safe-haven asset, we are still in the early days of a super cycle that will last a decade or longer. As I explain in this article, gold prices are headed for levels most analysts cannot conceive of today.   What does “Cheaper than in 1971?” imply? During the decade starting 1971, Gold prices rose nearly 25 times to top at $850/oz by 1980. That is a 25-fold return in 10 years; a similar performance would mean a $75,000/oz price by 2035. What is the probability of that happening in the decade ahead? As I explain in this article, it’s a probable event but not a certainty. At least, not yet. What is almost certain is the target of $24,000/oz, as explained in the book “RIP USD: 1971-202X …and the Way Forward”. Undeniably, even the much lower target of $24,000/oz would still be a spectacular bull market in Gold. What caused gold prices to go up 25 times during the 1970s? DeepSeek gave several reasons: the end of the Bretton Woods System, High Inflation and Stagflation, US Dollar Weakness, Geopolitical Uncertainty, Increased Investment Demand, and Central bank policies. All of these are indeed valid proximate reasons, yet DeepSeek misses out on THE fundamental reason, i.e., Price catching up with Value. The proximate reasons are nearly irrelevant in the big picture. Without the deep discount between Price and Value as it prevailed back then, none of the proximate reasons would have increased gold prices appreciably. Gold was money from about 2800 BC until 1971. In 1980, the market priced gold at a level that would have allowed for the restoration of the Gold Standard, enabling Gold-Dollar convertibility at a fixed rate. This property of being the free market choice of money determined the value of gold in dollar terms during the 1970s; it is the same reason that is playing out today. Incidentally, when the gold window was closed in 1971, all the paper economists (i.e., the Communists, Keynesians, and the Friedmanites) unanimously predicted that the price of gold would fall well below $35/oz. It was forecasted that the price of gold would fall to $10/oz, accounting only for the industrial demand. Only to see gold prices go up 25 times in the next 10 years. The graph shows that the markets had priced gold at a level where the value of gold held at Fort Knox would have backed about 55% of the US money supply (M1). The US Federal Government could have restored the Gold-Dollar convertibility standard, with the US Dollar defined as 1/600th of an ounce of gold in 1980 / 1981. Most forms of the Gold Standard have operated with a 40% backing by bullion, and technically, the US could have transitioned to the Gold Exchange Standard that prevailed before 1971. Incidentally, the Bank of England had operated on a Gold Standard from 1717 to 1931 using a 40% reserve ratio. Ronald Reagan, a supporter of limited government and the Gold Standard, missed the last opportunity to close the Pandora’s box that Richard Nixon had opened in 1971. It is not to argue here that a 40% reserve ratio is the correct adaptation of the Gold Standard. Anything less than 100% backing is “stealth inflation”, and as long as Governments are in charge of the money supply (either through a Central Bank or with a regulatory system as was the case in the US before 1913), we are going to have the Fractional Reserve Banking system. There is no getting away from that. The point to be recognized is that even this 40% backing is vastly superior to our current unbacked paper monetary system. How high can gold prices go? – What does the above “Gold Stock – M1” graph imply for a return to the Gold Standard today? The ratio as of Q1 2025 is 0.035, and to achieve a 40% backing of the current money supply (M1), gold prices have to be about $35,000/oz. At this point, the key question is, what would the money supply be 10 years later?  That would indicate whether the current bull market in gold can rival what happened during the 1970s. Forecasting M1 Growth Two factors account for the substantive increase of M1 since 2008. Increase in National Debt: The accumulated National Debt from 1789 to the end of 2007 was a little over $9 trillion. In the subsequent 16 years, starting in January 2008, we have increased it by $27 trillion, and the National Debt today stands at $36 trillion. Increase in Federal Reserve Ownership of the National Debt: The US Fed owned less than 5% of the National Debt until 2007. However, since the 2008 GFC, the US Fed has monetized an increasingly more significant portion of the federal deficits, and this percentage increased to 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2022. The trend of the US Federal Reserve owning an increasing percentage of the National Debt will likely continue. This is for geopolitical reasons, as the US Government has practically weaponized the US Dollar since the Ukraine conflict. Most countries have their price inflation / recessionary issues to deal with. So, the tendency to either pay down the National debt (e.g., Japan) or stimulate the economy (e.g., Germany) by selling the US Dollars held would only increasingly leave the US Fed as the only buyer for the US National Debt. To project this forward, even if we assume that the M1 is set to grow at a CAGR of 10%, it will grow from the current $18.5 trillion to $48 trillion over the next 10 years. With a 40% reserve backing, gold prices would have to be well

GOLD – Is $3,000/Oz in 2025 Cheaper than $35/Oz in 1971? Read More »

Above interview by N Shanmuganathan is Member in Board of Advisor in AgaPuram Policy Research Centre.

Gold Price Surge & Market Trends: Insights from Board of Advisor Interview on Sun News Gold Price Surge & Market Trends: Insights from Board of Advisor Interview on Sun News by Shanmuganathan N February 12, 2025 latest, media Above interview by N Shanmuganathan is Member in Board of Advisor in AgaPuram Policy Research Centre click here to watch The interview in Sun News by N Shanmuganathan is Member in Board of Advisor in AgaPuram Policy Research Centre highlights the long term trend of gold price and its recent hike. Also the market trend in India and China perspectives of N Shanmuganathan is very interesting.    

Above interview by N Shanmuganathan is Member in Board of Advisor in AgaPuram Policy Research Centre. Read More »

Indian Budgets – Missing the Forest For the Trees by Shanmuganathan N

Indian Budgets – Missing the Forest For the Trees by Shanmuganathan N Indian Budgets – Missing the Forest For the Trees by Shanmuganathan N by Shanmuganathan N February 4, 2025 Economic Reforms, Indian Economy, Indian Liberals I have consciously avoided commenting on Indian budgets despite writing extensively on various macroeconomic issues over the years. For a nation whose economic advisors have been steeped in the Keynesian witchcraft, it would have been easy to dismiss my arguments in favour of individual liberty, limited government and sound money as preposterous, or worse, anti-poor or anti-growth. What has changed now? Today, we have a Javier Milei (current Argentina President democratically elected 1 year back) demonstrating real time that ONLY Libertarianism works. I no longer have to go back to the days of the Classical Gold Standard or Patrick Henry to justify my arguments. So here it is..  On the budget passed – I can discuss income tax exemptions, the supposed ease of doing business, FDI hikes etc. Countless experts have opined but all of those discussions miss the “Forest For The Trees.”   The criticism in this article is valid for all Indian budgets without exception. In fact, there is hardly any difference whatsoever between the UPA and NDA budgets. Incidentally, Congress could have presented the same budget as Ms.Sitharaman did, and the BJP would have dismissed it as anti-growth and Inflationary (…or whatever). If I were to summarize the issue in one phrase that plagues the Indian Economic policy making since Independence, it is “Interventionism” – from a fiscal, monetary, and regulatory perspective. Starting from 1947 would be difficult for this article. However, we supposedly have adopted a reformist path since 1991 and so will start there. How has China leapfrogged India when we were both at the same level in 1991? Should we not even question the basic premise of Indian budgets and the philosophical leanings of our economic advisors? How is it that the Yuan has appreciated over the last three decades vis-à-vis the US Dollar while the Rupee has virtually plummeted with no end in sight? China has a trillion-dollar Annual trade surplus while we run trade deficits—so much for the arguments that a cheaper currency helps in promoting exports. As a country, we have buried our heads in the sands of “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.” When we should have followed Mises and Rothbard, we have chosen to borrow from Keynes and Karl Marx. In fact, from an economic policy perspective, we are closer to Marx than Keynes today. There is nothing remotely close in our budgets to describe the BJP as a “Right of Center” or “Far Right” party. Economically speaking, it’s even to the left of what the Congress was between 2005 and 2014. Right of Center used to mean something – balanced budgets, reducing regulations, minimum government etc. Today it is a political slogan. But this was the case even with Ronald Reagan so I don’t find any point in picking on current day conservatives. For the record, even Keynes never advocated running deficits during periods of growth. But this is like leaving a bottle of booze unchaperoned in a school and telling kids to drink only in an emergency. No prizes for guessing what would have happened next. Governments around the world, lead by the US, have spent like there is no tomorrow. Fiscal Deficits – The Cancer of Our Economy Firstly, we need to understand the gargantuan size of our deficits. Reporting the deficits as a % of the GDP, notwithstanding the international consensus on this, is a very disingenuous move on the part of Governments. It hides the extent to which the Governments are living beyond their means. Let’s take our FY2025 numbers: Government revenues were Rs.31 Lakh Crore, expenditures were Rs.48 Lakh Crore, and the interest component was Rs.11 Lakh Crore. I am using whole numbers because decimals are truly rounding off errors in the scheme of things. The fiscal deficit was 4.8% of the GDP as reported. I can pick several holes in the accounting principles used to report a lower deficit than is really the case, but I am skipping all of it and jumping ahead. Here is the big picture – The Total Amount available to Government after paying interest on current borrowings was Rs.20 Lakh Crore and they spent Rs.37 Lakh Crore. The Indian Government has overspent to the tune of 85% as compared to what was available to them. So, how does the Government fund the balance of Rs.17 Lakh Crore? That comes through the “Inflation Tax” (though it’s euphemistically referred to as borrowings from the Central Bank). I am simplifying here, but this is not far from the truth. At the end of the day, in essence, what doesn’t get funded directly through taxation gets indirectly funded through inflation. So the cost of Government to the citizens is not what it taxes but what it spends. The above 85% is not an exception. This would be the ballpark from 1991, perhaps even 1947. So what are the consequences of this Interventionism on the Fiscal front by the Government? There is one hallmark of Interventionism that is just plainly obvious to somebody who understands Laissez-Faire economics, but in reality, almost everybody seems to be oblivious to the fact. That Interventionism begets more Interventionism and this begets even more Interventionism becoming an infinite loop. So here are the follow-on effects. Not an exhaustive one by any standards. The deficit is met by the RBI monetization and this is “the monetary Inflation (MI)”. One of the consequences of MI is Price Inflation and this results in high interest rates. RBI then “intervenes” to lower the interest rates below what would be the “Natural Rate of interest”. This artificially low interest rate leads to the business cycle (refer “Austrian Business Cycle Theory”) or what is more commonly known as the boom-bust cycle. This leads to artificially high asset prices eventually resulting in the bursting of

Indian Budgets – Missing the Forest For the Trees by Shanmuganathan N Read More »