Investing Politics: Globalization Backlash and Government Disruption!

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

    I will start with a couple of confessions. The first is that I see the world in shades of gray, and in a world where more and more people see only black and white, that makes me an outlier. Thus, if you are reading this post expecting me to post a diatribe or a tribute to Trump, tariffs or Tesla, you are likely to be disappointed. The second is that much of my work is in the micro world, where I look at companies and their  values, and the work that I do on macro topics or variables is to help me in that pursuit. Thus, my estimates of equity risk premiums, updated every month, are not designed to make big statements about markets but more to get inputs I need to value companies. That said,  to value companies today, I have no choice but to bring in the economics and politics of the world that these companies inhabit. The problem with doing so, though, is that with Trump and tariffs on the one hand, and Mush and DOGE on the other, it is easy to be reactive, and to let your political leanings drive your conclusions. That is why I want to step back and look at the two larger forces that have brought us to this moment, with the first being globalization, a movement that has shaped economics and markets for much of the last four decades, but that has now, in my view, crested and is facing pushback, and the other being disruption, initiated by technology start-ups in the 1990s, and extended to lay waste to the status quo in many  businesses in the decades since, but now being brought into the political/government arena.

    Globalization has taken different forms through the ages, with some violent and toxic variants, but the current version of globalization kicked into high gear in the 1980s, transforming every aspect of our lives. I am no historian, but in this section, I will start with a very short and personal history of how globalization has played out in my classroom, examine its winners and losers, and end with an assessment of how the financial crisis of 2008 caused the movement to crest and create a political and economic backlash that has led us to today.

    The best way that I can think of illustrating the rise of globalization is to talk about how it has made its presence felt in my classroom over the last four decades. When I started my teaching journey at the University of California at Berkeley in 1984, business education was dollar-centric, with business schools around the world using textbooks and cases written with US data and starring US companies. My class had a sprinkling of European and Japanese students but students from much of the rest of the world were underrepresented. The companies that they went to work for, after graduation, were mostly domestic in operations and in revenues, and multinationals were more the exception than the rule, with almost all of them headquartered in the United States and Europe. 

    Today, business education, both in terms of location and material, has become global, with European and Asian business schools routinely making the top business school list, and class materials reflecting this trend. My classes at NYU often have more students from outside the United States than from within,  and very few will go to work for entities with a purely domestic focus. Many of these hiring firms have supply chains that stretch across the world and sell their products and services in foreign markets. As businesses have globalized, consumers and investors have had no choice but to follow, and the things we buy (from food to furniture) and the companies that we invest in all reflecting these global influences. 

    As consumers, companies and investors have globalized, there have clearly been many who have benefited from its rise. Without claiming to be comprehensive, here is my list of the biggest winners from globalization. 

1. China: The biggest winner from globalization has been China, which has seen its economic and political power surge over the last four decades. Note that the rise has not been all happenstance, and China deserves credit for taking advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization, making itself first the hub for global manufacturing and then using its increasing wealth to build its infrastructure and institutions. To get a measure of China’s rise, I look at its GDP, relative to GDP from the rest of the world over the last few decades: 
   

   Source: World Bank

   China’s share of global GDP increased ten-fold between 1980 and 2023, and its centrality to global economic growth is measured in the table below, where I look at the percentage of the change in global GDP each decade has come from different parts of the world: 

   

   Between 2010 and 2023, China accounted for almost 38% of global economic growth, with only the United States having a larger share, though the winnings for the US were on a larger base and are more attributable to the other global force (disruption) that I will highlight in the next section.

2. Consumers: Consumers have benefited from globalization in many ways, starting with more products to choose from and often at lower prices than in pre-globalization days. From being able to eat whatever we want to, anytime of the year, to wearing apparel that has become so cheap that it has become disposable, many of us, at least on the surface, have more buying power.
3. Global Institutions : While the World Bank and the IMF predate the globalization shift, their power has amped up, at least in many emerging markets, and the developed world has created its own institutions and  agreements (EU and NAFTA, to  name just two) making it easier for businesses and individuals to operate outside their domestic borders. In parallel, International Commercial Courts have proliferated and been empowered to enforce the laws of commerce, often across borders.
4. Financial Markets (and their centers): Over the last few decades, not only have more companies been able to list themselves on financial markets, but these markets has become more central to public  policy. In many cases, the market reaction to spending, tax or economic proposals has become the determinant on whether they get adopted or continued. As financial markets have risen in value and importance, the cities (New York, London, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Tokyo and Mumbai) where these markets are centered have gained in importance and wealth, if not in livability, at the expense of the rest of the world.
5. Experts: We have always looked to experts for guidance, but globalization has given rise to a new cadre of experts, who are positioned to identify what they believe are the world’s biggest problems and offer their solutions  in forums like Davos and Aspen, with the world’s policy makers as their audience. 

    When globalization was ascendant, its proponents underplayed its costs, but there were losers, and that list would include at least the following: 

1. Japan and Europe: The graph that shows the rise of China from globalization also illustrates the fading of Japan and Europe over the period, with the former declining from 17.8% of global GDP in 1995 to 3.96% in 2023 and the latter seeing its share dropping from 25.69% of global GDP in 1990 to 14.86%. You can see this drop off in the graph below:
   

   While not all growth from globalization is zero-sum, a significant portion during this period was, with economic power and wealth shifting from Europe and Japan to newly ascendant economies.

2. Consumers, on control: I listed consumers as winners from globalization, and they were, on the dimensions of choice and cost, but they also lost in terms of control of where their products were made, and by whom. To provide a simplistic example, the shift from buying your vegetables, fish and meat from local farmers, fishermen and butchers to factory farmers and supermarkets may have made the food more affordable, but it has come at a cost.
3. Small businesses: While there are a host of other factors that have also contributed to the decline of small businesses, globalization has been a major contributor, as smaller businesses now find themselves competing against companies who make their products thousands of miles away, often with very different cost structures and rules restricting them. Larger businesses not only had more power to adapt to the challenges of globalization, but have found ways to benefit from it, by moving their production to the cheapest and least restrictive locales. In one of my data updates for this year, I pointed to the disappearance of the small firm effect, where small firms historically have earned higher returns than large cap companies, and globalization is a contributing factor.
4. Blue-collar workers in developed markets: The flip side of the rise of China and other countries as manufacturing hubs, with lower costs of operation, has been the loss of manufacturing clout and jobs for the West, with factory workers in the United States, UK and Europe bearing the brunt of the cost. While the job losses varied across sectors, with job skills and unionization being determining factors, the top line numbers tell the story. In the United States, the number of manufacturing jobs peaked at close to 20 million in 1979 and dropped to about 13 million in 2024, and manufacturing wages have lagged wage growth in other sectors for much of that period. 
   

5. Democracy: In my view, globalization has weakened the power of democracy across the world. The fall of the Iron Curtain was greeted by optimists claiming the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism and the dawn of a new age of democratic freedom. That promise has largely been dashed, partly because the biggest winners from the globalization sweepstakes were not paragons of free expression and choice, but also because voters in democracies were frustrated when they voted for change, and found that the policies that followed came from a global script. The Economist, the newsmagazine, measures (albeit with their own biases) democracy in the world, and its findings in its most recent update are troubling.
   

   Not only does the world tilt more authoritarian than democratic in 2024, the trend line indicates that the world is becoming less democratic over time. While there are other forces (social media, technology) at play that may explain this shift as well, the cynicism that globalization has created about the capacity to create change at home has undoubtedly contributed to the shift away from democracy.

    Coming into this century, the march of globalization seemed unstoppable, but the wave crested in 2008, with the financial market crisis. That crisis exposed the failures of the expert class, leading to a loss of trust that has never been recovered.  While the initial public responses to the financial crisis were muted, the perception that the world was still being run by hidden (global) forces, unelected and largely unaccountable to anyone, has continued, and I believe that it has played a significant role in British voters choosing Brexit, the rise of nationalist parties in Europe, and in the elections of Donald Trump in the United States. Trump, a real estate developer with multiple international properties, is an imperfect spokesperson of the anti-globalization movement, but it is undeniable that he has tapped into, and benefited from, its anger. While he was restrained by norms and tradition in his first term, those constraints seem to have loosened in this second go around, and he has weilded tariffs as a weapon and is open about his contempt for global organizations. While economists are aghast at the spectacle, and the economic consequences are likely to be damaging, it is not surprising that a portion of the public, perhaps even a majority, are cheering Trump on.

    In the world of my youth, disruption was not used as a compliment and disruptors were consigned to the outside edges of society, labeled as troublemakers or worse. That has changed in this century, as technology evangelists have used disruption as a sword to slay the status quo and offer, at least, in their telling,  more efficient and better alternatives.

    I have written about disruption in earlier posts, and at the risk of repeating myself, I will start with a generalized description of the playbook used by disruptors to break up the status quo.

1. Find a business to disrupt: The best businesses to disrupt are large (in terms of dollars spent on their products/services), inefficient in how they make and sell these products, and filled with dissatisfied players, where no one (or at least very few) is happy. For the most part, these businesses have made legacy choices, which made sense at the time they were made, have long outlived their usefulness, but persist, because systems and practices have been built around them, and changes are fought by the beneficiaries of these inefficient systems.
2. Target their weakest links: Legacy businesses have a mix of products and services, and it is inevitable that some of these products are services have high margins and pay for other products that are offered at or below cost. Disruptors go after the former, weaning away unhappy customers by offering them better deals, and in the process, leaving legacy businesses with a less profitable and viable product mix.  
3. Move quickly and scale up: Speed is of the essence in disruption, since moving quickly puts status quo companies at a disadvantage, as these companies not only take more time to respond, but must weather fights within their organizations, often driven by politics and money. With access to significant capital from venture capital, private equity and even public investors, disruptors can scale up quickly, unencumbered by the need to have well formed business models or show profits at least in the near term.
4. Break rules, ask for permission later: One feature shared by disruptive models, albeit to varying degrees, has been a willingness to break rules and norms, knowing fully well that their status quo competitors will be more averse to doing so, and that the rule makers and regulators will take time to respond. 
5. There is no alternative: By the time the regulators or legal system catches up with the disrupters, they aim to have become so ascendant, and the status quo so damaged, that there is no going back to the old ways.

In the last three decades, we have seen this process play out in industry after industry, from the retail business (with Amazon), the music business (with Apple iTunes first and Spotify later), the automobile business (with Tesla) and advertising (with Google and Facebook), to name just a few.

    The obvious winners from disruption are the disruptors, but since many of them scaled up with unformed business models, the payoff is less in the form of profits, and more in terms of their market capitalizations, driven by investors dazzled by their potential. That had made the founders of these businesses (Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg) not only unbelievably wealthy, but also given them celebrity status, and created a host of winners for those in the ecosystem, including the disruptors’ employees and investors. As these disrupted businesses prioritized scaling up over profitability, consumers benefited as they received products and services, at bargain-basement prices, sometimes below cost. 

    The clearest loser from disruption is the status quo. As legacy companies melt down, in terms of profitability and value, the damage is felt in concentric circles, with employees facing wage cuts and job losses, and investors seeing write downs in their holdings  The peripheral damage is to the regulatory structures that govern these businesses, as the rule breakers became ascendant, leaving rule makers impotent and often on the side lines. To the extent that these regulations and rules were designed to protect the environment and the public, there are side costs for society as well.

    In short, disruption may have been a net positive for society, but there are casualties on its battlefield. In the battle for the global economic pie, the fact that so much of the disruption has originated in the United States, aided both by access to a capital and a greater tolerance for rule-breaking, has helped the United States maintain and even grow its share of global GDP. In practical terms, this has manifested in the soaring market capitalizations of the biggest technology companies, and it is their presence that has allowed the United States to ward off the decline in economic power and market cap that you have seen in much of the rest of the developed world.

        For much of its history, disruption has been restricted to the business space and it has had only limited success when directed at systemic inefficiencies in less business-driven settings. Health care clearly meets all of the criteria for a good disruption target, consuming 20% of US GDP, with a host of unhappy constituencies (doctors, patients, hospitals and payers). However, attempts at disruption, whether it be from Mark Cuban’s pharmaceutical start-up or from Google and Amazon’s health care endeavors, have largely left the system intact. I have described education, at the school and college level, as deserving of disruption for more than two decades, but notwithstanding tries at online education, not much has changed at universities (yet).

    Can entire governments be disrupted? After all, it is hard to find anyone who would describe government organizations and systems as efficient, and the list of unhappy players is a mile long. The pioneers of government disruption have been in Latin America, with El Salvador and Argentina being their venues. Nayib Bukele, in El Salvador, and Javier Milei, in Argentina, have not just pushed back against the norms, but have reveled in doing so, and they were undoubtedly aided by the fact that the governments in both countries were so broken that many of their citizenry viewed any change as improvement. As we watch Elon Musk and DOGE move at hyper speed (by government standards), break age-old systems and push rules and laws to breaking point, I see the disruption playbook at play, and I am torn between two opposing perspectives. On the one hand, it is clear the US government has been broken for decades and tinkering at its edges (which is what every administration has done for the last forty years) has accomplished little to reduce the dysfunctionality of the system (and the deficits and debt that it creates). On the other, though, disrupting the US government is not the same as disrupting a business, since there are millions of vulnerable people (social security, Medicare and veteran care) whose lives rest on government checks, and a break in that process that is not fixed quickly could be catastrophic. There is a middle ground here, and unless DOGE finds it quickly, this disruption story will have lots of casualties.

    As I have wrestled with the barrage of news stories in the last few weeks, many with large consequences for economies and markets, I keep going back to what this means for my micro pursuits, i.e., analyzing how companies make decisions on investing, financing and dividends and what the values of these companies are. It is still early in that process, and there is much that I still don’t know the answer to, but here the ways I see this playing out.

    There are two key inputs that are market-driven which affect the values of every company. The first is interest rates, across the maturity spectrum, since their gyrations will play out across the market. In the graph below, I look at US treasury rates and how they have moved since the Trump election in early November:

The ten-year US treasury rate has declined from 4.55% on Election Day (November 5)  to 4.27% on March 13, 2025, but since that treasury rate is driven of expectations about inflation and real economic growth, Trump supporters will attribute the decline to markets anticipating a drop in inflation in a Trump administration and Trump critics suggesting that the rate drop is an indicator of a slowing  economy and perhaps even a recession. The yield curve has flattened out, with the 10-year rate staying higher than the 2-year rate, pushing that very flawed signal of economic recession into neutral territory. 

The equity risk premium at the start of March was at 4.35%, surprisingly close to the 4.28% on Election Day, but that number has jumped to 4.68% in the first two weeks of March, indicating that uncertainty about tariffs and the economy is undercutting the resilience that the market has shown so far this year. In my view, the pathway that the equity risk premium takes for the rest of the year will be the key driver in whether equities level off, continue to decline or make a comeback. If equity risk premiums continue to march upwards, driven by increased uncertainty and the potential for trade wars, stock prices will drop, even if the economy escapes a recession, and adding a recession, with the damage it will create to expected earnings, will only make it worse. In one of the first posts I wrote this year, I looked at US equities, and valued the S&P 500 at 5262, putting it about 12% below the index level (5882) at the start of the year. Even with the drawdown in prices that we have seen through March 10, the index remains above my estimated value, and while that value reflected what I saw at the start of the year, what has happened in the last few weeks has lowered the fair value, not raised it.

    Changes in interest rates and risk premiums will affect the valuations of all companies, but assuming that the tariff announcements and government spending cuts will play out over the foreseeable future, there will be disparate effects across companies. I will draw on a familiar structure, where I trace the value of a company to its key drivers:

By narrowing our focus to the drivers of value, we can look at how company exposure to trade wars and DOGE will play out:

1. Revenue growth: On the revenue growth front, companies that derive most or all of their revenues domestically will benefit and companies that are dependent on foreign sales will be hurt by tariff wars. To assess how that exposure varies across sectors, I look at the percentage of revenues s in each  sector that companies in the S&P 500 get from foreign markets:

Collectively, about 28% of the revenues, in 2023, of the companies in the S&P 500 came from foreign markets, but technology companies are most exposed (with 59% of revenues coming from outside the country) and utilities least exposed (just 2%)  to foreign revenue exposure. It is also worth noting that the larger market cap companies of the S&P 500 have a higher foreign market revenue exposure than smaller market cap companies. On the DOGE front, the attempts to cut costs are likely tol hit healthy care and defense, the two businesses that are most dependent on the government spending, most directly, with green energy, a more recent entrant into the government spending sweepstakes, also on the cutting block.

2. Operating  margins: A company that gets all of its revenues from the domestic markets can still be exposed to trade wars, if its production or supply chains is set in other countries. The data on this front is far less visible or reported than revenue data and will require more company-level research. It is also likely that if the attempts to bring production back to the United States come to fruition, wages for US workers will increase, at least in the longer term, pushing up costs for companies. In short, a tariff war  will lower the operating margins for many firms, with the size of the decline depending on their revenues, 

3. Reinvestment: To the extent that companies are altering their decisions on where to build their next manufacturing facilities, as a result of tariff fears or in hope of government largesse, there should be an effect on reinvest, with an increase in reinvestment (lower sales to capital ratios) at businesses where this move will create investment costs. Looking across businesses, this effect is likely to be more intense at manufacturing companies, where moving production is more expensive and difficult to do, that at technology or service firms.

4. Failure risk: Since 2008, the US government has implicitly, if not explicitly, made clear its preference for stepping in to help firms from failing, especially if they were larger and the cost of failure was perceived as high. It is not clear what the Trump administration’s views are on bailing out companies in trouble, but may initial read is that government is less likely to jump in as a capital provider of last resort. 

    While it is easy to blame market uncertainty on Trump, tariffs and trade wars for the moment, the truth is that the forces that have led us here have been building for years, both in our political and economic arenas. In short, even if the tariffs cease to be front page news, and the fears of an immediate trade war ease, the underlying forces of anti-globalization that gave rise to them will continue to play out in global commerce and markets. For investors, that will require a shift away from the large cap technology companies that have been the market leaders in the last two decades back to smaller cap companies with a more domestic focus. It will also require an acceptance of the reality that politics and macroeconomic factors will play a larger role in your company assessments, and create a bigger wild card on whether investments in these companies will pay off.

1. Valuation of Tesla in March 2025