speech on investment

The Good Investors

How to invest in stocks

The Best Investing Speech, And 5 Lessons

Timeless investing lessons and wisdom were shared in an investing speech delivered 38 years ago in 1981.

Surprise! The best investing speech I’ve ever come across is not from Warren Buffett or other well-known investing legends such as Peter Lynch, Benjamin Graham, or John Neff. It’s from the little-known Dean Williams. 

The speech , Trying Too Hard, was delivered 38 years ago in 1981, when Williams was with Batterymarch Financial Management. But its content remains as relevant as ever. Here are five gems I took away from Williams’ timeless speech.

1.  Confidence and accuracy

“Confidence in a forecast rises with the amount of information that goes into it. But the accuracy of the forecast stays the same.”

Keep this in mind the next time you come across a market forecaster who is highly confident just because he’s backed by mountains of data. Bad data, however much the amount, can lead to bad forecasts. A poor understanding of how markets work (such as assuming that price movements in the financial markets follow a normal distribution) will also lead to toxic outcomes even when there’s plenty of data involved.

In fact, research by Philip Tetlock, a psychologist at Berkeley, brings this Dean Williams quote one step further by suggesting that confidence and accuracy in a forecast can often be inversely correlated.

2. Don’t just do something, stand there!

“The title Marshall mentioned, “Trying Too Hard”, comes from something that happened to me a few years ago. I had just completed what I thought was some fancy footwork involving buying and selling a long list of stocks. The oldest member of Morgan’s trust committee looked down the list and said, “Do you think you might be trying too hard?” At the time I thought, “Who ever heard of trying too hard?” Well, over the years I have changed my mind about that.”

Finance professors Brad Barber and Terry Odean published a paper in 2000 that looked at the trading records of more than 66,000 US households over a five-year period from 1991 to 1996. The research was astonishing: The households who traded the most generated the lowest returns. The average household earned 16.4% per year for the timeframe under study, while the most frequent traders only earned 11.4% per year.

Investor William Smead once said that “Your common stock portfolio is like a bar of soap. The more you rub it, the smaller it gets.” How true.

3. We know less than we think we do

“Here are the ideas I’m going to talk about: the first is an analogy between physics and investing… The foundation of Newtonian physics was that physical events are governed by physical laws. Laws that we could understand rationally. And if we learned enough about those laws, we could extend our knowledge and influence over our environment.  That was also the foundation of most of the security analysis, technical analysis, economic theory and forecasting methods you and I learned about when we first began in this business. There were rational and predictable economic forces. And if we just tried hard enough… If we learned every detail about a company. . . .If we discovered just the right variables for out forecasting models… Earnings and prices and interest rates should all behave in rational and predictable ways. If we just tried hard enough. In the last fifty years a new physics came along. Quantum, or subatomic physics. The clues it left along its trail frustrated the best scientific minds in the world. Evidence began to mount that our knowledge of what governed events on the subatomic level wasn’t nearly what we thought it would be. Those events just didn’t seem subject to rational behavior or prediction. Soon it wasn’t clear whether it was even possible to observe and measure subatomic events, or whether the observing and measuring were, themselves, changing or even causing those events. What I have to tell you tonight is that the investment world I think I know anything about is a lot more like quantum physics than it is like Newtonian physics. There is just too much evidence that our knowledge of what governs financial and economic events isn’t nearly what we thought it would be.”

Investing involves human psychology, which is incredibly hard to model. The great physicist Richard Feynman apparently once said “Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had emotions.” That’s the problem we as investors have to deal with. 

Investing is not always a case of “if X, then Y.” According to a study done in 2004, South Africa’s economy expanded by 6.5% annually from 1900 to 2002, but saw its stock market rise by less than 1%. The Federal Reserve in the US started its bond-purchase programme, Quantitative Easing, in 2008. Investors thought back then that interest rates would rise when QE stopped since the Fed’s massive presence would be gone. QE officially ended in late 2014 but the Fed had stopped and restarted QE on a number of occasions. Morgan Housel showed that, contrary to the general idea, interest rates rose each time the Fed stopped QE between the beginning of 2008 and April 2013.

The good thing is you and I need not be helpless. We can work with sound investing principles that are backed by strong logical reasoning and evidence, and we can invest with humility by diversifying. 

4. The power of simplicity and consistency

“You are familiar with the periodic rankings of past investment results published in Pension & Investment Age. You may have missed the news that for the last ten years the best investment record in the country belonged to the Citizens Bank and Trust Company of Chillicothe, Missouri. Forbes magazine did not miss it, though, and sent a reporter to Chillicothe to find the genius responsible for it. He found a 72 year old man named Edgerton Welsh, who said he’d never heard of Benjamin Graham and didn’t have any idea what modern portfolio theory was. “Well, how did you do it?” the reporter wanted to know. Mr. Welch showed the report his copy of Value-Line and said he bought all the stocks ranked “1” that Merrill Lynch or E.F. Hutton also liked. And when any one of the three changed their ratings, he sold. Mr. Welch said, “It’s like owning a computer. When you get the printout, use the figures to make a decision–not your own impulse.” The Forbes reporter finally concluded, “His secret isn’t the system but his own consistency.” EXACTLY. That is what Garfield Drew, the market writer, meant forty years ago when he said, “In fact, simplicity or singleness of approach is a greatly underestimated factor of market success.””

I’ve previously shared in The Good Investors about how a simple portfolio of US stocks, international stocks, and global bonds have bested even the best-performing endowment funds of US colleges that invests in incredibly complex ways. Here’s another good one, according to Morgan Housel: “Someone who bought a low-cost S&P 500 index fund in 2003 earned a 97% return by the end of 2012… Meanwhile, the average equity market neutral fancy-pants hedge fund lost 4.7% of its value over the same period, according to data from Dow Jones Credit Suisse Hedge Fund Indices.”

5. Investing without forecasts

“And when it comes to forecasting—as opposed to doing something—a lot of expertise is no better than a little expertise. And may even be worse. The consolation prize is pretty consoling, actually. It’s that you can be a successful investor without being a perpetual forecaster. Not only that, I can tell you from personal experience that one of the most liberating experiences you can have is to be asked to look over your firm’s economic outlook and to say, “We don’t have one.”

Successful investing can be done without paying attention to economic forecasts. I have been investing for more than 9 years, and have never depended on outlooks on the economy. My focus has always been on a stock’s underlying business fundamentals . It’s the same when I was with the Motley Fool Singapore’s investing team – the prospects of a stock’s business was our primary concern . In his speech, Dean Williams also said “Give life a try without forecasts.” I have tried, and it’s been great . 

Disclaimer:  The Good Investors  is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Statement by President Joe   Biden on the United   States’ Commitment to Open   Investment

The Open Investment Policy of the United States is a pledge to treat all investors fairly and equitably under the law. As Governors, CEOs, and other public and private sector leaders come together at the 2021 SelectUSA Summit this week, I want to reiterate my administration’s commitment to ensuring that the United States remains the most attractive place in the world for businesses to invest and grow, thus creating jobs here at home, strengthening supply chains across the country, and deepening our relationships with allies and partners. America has the most productive workforce in the world. We have an unmatched business environment strengthened by our culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, outstanding educational institutions, and commitment to transparency, protection of intellectual property, flexible and efficient capital markets, and the rule of law. We believe that our country – and our world – are safer, more resilient, and more prosperous because of the investment of foreign-owned companies in the United States. As we continue to advance our agenda to revitalize American manufacturing, build an inclusive 21st century workforce, and maintain our competitive edge, the United States welcomes foreign investment. Today, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies directly employ almost 8 million Americans and help boost U.S. innovation by investing $70 billion in research and development. They contribute to all sectors of the U.S. economy and are responsible for nearly 24% of all U.S. goods exports. We will always protect our national security, and certain foreign investments will be reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for this purpose. But, we will also maintain a level playing field. As the United States faces increasing competition for the jobs and industries of the future, we will remain the destination of choice for investors around the world.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

A collection of TED Talks (and more) on the topic of Finance.

Video playlists about Finance

How to shape your future with confidence

The most popular TED Originals of 2021

How to take charge of your personal finances

How to invest in social good

Talks about finance.

How to live with economic doomsaying

The unsung heroes fighting malnutrition

Why you should invest in AI

Why AI will spark exponential economic growth

A playbook for financing climate solutions

The power of unconventional thinking

What does "wealth" mean to you?

The climate crisis is expensive — here's who should pay for it

What the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to know

3 ways your money can fight climate change

3 money lessons from infamous scam artists

How to discover your business's competitive advantage

The clean energy hub of the future

A for-profit mindset for nonprofit success

How millennials and Gen Z can invest in a better future

The billion-dollar pollution solution humanity needs right now

Exclusive articles about finance, 6 signs you’re overspending, plus 4 tips to get back in control, how financially literate are you 3 things you should know about your money, why your city should think about starting its own currency.

Check your browser settings and network. This website requires JavaScript for some content and functionality.

Speech The Changing Nature of Investment

Philip Lowe [ * ] Governor

Address to the Australian Financial Review Business Summit Sydney – 7 March 2018

• Audio 22.14 MB
• Download 295 KB

Thank you for the invitation to speak at this year's AFR Business Summit. It is very good to be here.

The underlying question being asked at this summit is: how does Australian business prosper in today's changing world? This is an important question to be asking.

A strong and prosperous business sector is central to Australia's economic success. It is businesses – both small and large – that employ the bulk of Australians. It is businesses that have to compete globally and find new markets around the world for the goods and services that we produce here in Australia. And it is businesses that are responsible for most of the investment spending in the country. So it is in our collective interest to have a prosperous business sector.

This morning I would like to talk about the importance of investment in helping deliver that prosperity. It is through investment that firms develop new products, find better ways of doing things and expand their productive capacity. This means that the investment climate and the level and nature of investment have an important bearing on our future prosperity.

My remarks will be in three parts. First, I will focus on recent cyclical developments in non-mining investment, including the recent lift in investment. Second, I will discuss some structural changes in the nature of investment in the Australian economy, including the increasing importance of investment in technology and knowledge-based capital. I will finish with some remarks about the investment climate and the role the RBA can play.

Recent Trends

Over the past decade or so, the resources sector has been the dominant investment story in Australia. This investment has greatly expanded productive capacity in the resources sector, and this is flowing into increased exports. This story is well known so I will not go over it again today. Instead my focus is on non-mining investment.

During the mining investment boom it was understandable that investment in the rest of the economy was subdued. But as the boom unwound, the pick-up in non-mining business investment was slow to come. For a few years, a common theme in commentary from the RBA was that non-mining investment was weaker than we had been expecting. Indeed, for six or seven years the level of non-mining investment did not change very much (Graph 1). During this period, the RBA highlighted high hurdle rates of return and a lack of animal spirits. And the businesses we spoke with cited numerous uncertainties: uncertainty about the global economy, technology, politics and the level of household debt, among other things. For many firms, these uncertainties were a reason to delay investment spending; to wait for more clarity before proceeding.

Over the past year the picture has begun to change. While we don't get the final investment figures for 2017 until later this morning, we estimate that over the past year, non-mining business investment increased by around 9 per cent. This is stronger than we were expecting a year ago and would be the largest increase since the onset of the global financial crisis. We expect to see further growth over this year. While businesses still face some significant uncertainties, including the future strength of consumer spending in a world of low real income growth and high household debt, the picture is a better one than it has been for some time.

The pick-up in investment reflects a combination of factors. One is the stronger global economy, which has boosted demand and reduced some of the uncertainties that businesses face. Another is the continuation of accommodative monetary policy in Australia; borrowing costs here remain low and finance is available. The ongoing growth in Australia's population has also played some role. Since 2008, Australia's population has increased by 3½ million people, or 16 per cent. This growth, combined with low levels of investment, has started to put pressure on capacity utilisation (Graph 2). It is also relevant that businesses are reporting stronger business conditions than at any time since before the financial crisis.

Another important part of the investment story recently is strong growth in investment in public infrastructure (Graph 3). The pick-up has been particularly noticeable in spending on transport infrastructure in the eastern states and the pipeline of work to be completed is large. The extra investment is directly creating demand in the economy today and adding to tomorrow's productive capacity. The Bank's analysis is that there are positive spillovers to the rest of the economy from the spending on public infrastructure, especially given that we still have some spare capacity. [1] In our business liaison, a number of firms report that they are investing more to meet the extra demand from infrastructure projects. So it is a positive story.

Changing Nature of Investment

I would now like to take a more structural perspective and highlight two changes in the structure and nature of investment. The first is the increasingly important role played by investment in information technology. And the second is a change in the industries in which investment is occurring.

Over recent times, one of the central themes in the RBA's discussions with businesses has been the much greater use of information technology to increase productivity. Among other things, we hear about the possibilities and the challenges of data analytics, machine learning, artificial intelligence, the better use of sensors to control production and the automation of processes and production methods.

A similar picture emerges from a survey undertaken by Ai Group last year, where CEOs were asked about their main investment priority for the year ahead. At the top of the list were investment in technology and the staff training that is needed to support that investment (Graph 4). Next on the list was investment in research and development (R&D). Further down the list was investment in physical assets. If we look back at previous surveys, it's clear that this focus on investing in technology has increased over time.

This is not to underplay the importance of investment in physical assets. This remains critical. We need places to work, live, shop and play, and investment in buildings & structures and machinery & equipment remains central to this. But increasingly, investment decisions in these areas are also often just as much about technology as they are about other things. In every industry – in manufacturing, mining, agriculture, the health sector and business services – businesses are having to make investments in information technology to remain competitive. This is changing the way we think about investment.

Tracking this shift in investment for the economy as a whole is complicated by some limitations in the available data. The ABS does, however, publish separate figures for investment in buildings & structures, machinery & equipment and intellectual property (Graph 5). [2]

These data show that over the past couple of decades, investment in intellectual property has grown noticeably faster and more consistently than investment in buildings & structures and machinery & equipment. This is particularly so since 2009/10. Over this period, the weakness in overall non-mining investment is explained by there being almost no growth in investment in tangible assets. In contrast, investment in intellectual property has grown at an average rate of 5 per cent.

Following this sustained period of strong growth in investment in intellectual property, this component now accounts for around 20 per cent of total non-mining investment, in nominal terms. By way of comparison, this share was just 3 per cent in the early 1980s (Graph 6). Conversely, the share of investment spending on machinery & equipment has declined over time. This is partly, but not wholly, explained by the steady decline in the relative price of machinery & equipment.

These shifts are significant and are consistent with the rising importance of investment in information technology. Within the broad heading of intellectual property, we can further disaggregate the data into investment in computer software, R&D and artistic originals (Graph 7). Over recent times, the strongest growth has been in investment in software, with investment in this area doubling over the past seven years. The picture for R&D is a little different; investment in R&D has not grown for a few years now, but this follows earlier strong growth.

The impact of the increased investment in technology is also evident in the figures for output growth by industry. In particular, since the early 1990s, the fastest growing industries in the Australian economy have been information, media & telecommunications and professional, scientific & technical services. Both have grown faster than the mining industry, recording compounded average growth of around 5 per cent per year. The effects are also evident in the labour market, with strong demand for various types of workers in information technology. Indeed, some of the pockets of the Australian labour market in which wage growth has picked up over recent times are in professional, scientific & technical roles.

The second structural change that I want to highlight is a shift in the industries in which investment is taking place.

This shift can be seen in this next graph, which shows the share of non-mining investment accounted for by various industries (Graph 8). In the 1980s, the manufacturing industry accounted for around one quarter of non-mining investment in Australia. At that time, manufacturing required high levels of investment in machinery & equipment, not only to expand capacity, but to offset fairly high rates of depreciation. So investment in the manufacturing industry accounted for a large share of total investment. But since the mid 1990s, manufacturing has accounted for a steadily declining share of non-mining investment. Today, that share stands at just 11 per cent. In contrast, the shares of investment accounted for by information, media & telecommunications and professional, scientific & technical services have increased significantly. Combined, these two industries now account for about 16 per cent of non-mining investment, up from around 8 per cent in the early 1990s. Investment in health, education and transport has also increased as a share of total investment.

Given these structural changes, one question that sometimes gets asked is: do we need less investment than we used to? This question has also been raised in the context of the subdued levels of non-mining investment over recent years: perhaps we simply don't need to devote the same share of output to investment as we once did?

There isn't a straightforward answer to this question, but our analysis points to a couple of conclusions.

The first is that the increased emphasis on technology and the shift to an increasingly service-oriented economy explains some – but only some – of the subdued levels of investment spending over recent years. Rather, the bulk of the explanation for low levels of investment lies in what has been going on within individual industries, not shifts across industries. In most industries, the ratio of investment spending to output has been relatively low over recent years (Graph 9).

The second conclusion is that, from a longer-term perspective, it is plausible that non-mining investment will account for a lower share of GDP than used to be the case. This largely reflects the decline in manufacturing as a share of the economy and the fact that the ratio of investment to output in the manufacturing industry is higher than in most other industries. While putting precise numbers on the size of any change is difficult, we estimate that this shift away from manufacturing could reduce the steady-state ratio of non-mining business investment to GDP by 1 to 2 percentage points.

It is important, though, to point out that this does not mean the ratio of total investment to GDP will necessarily decline by this amount. This is because of what has happened in the resources sector, where there has been a very large increase in the capital stock. This higher capital stock means more depreciation, and more depreciation requires more investment to maintain the higher capital stock. So it is likely that the amount of investment in the resources sector, as a share of GDP, will be higher than it was before the mining investment boom. We are already seeing some evidence of this, with increased spending on ‘sustaining’ the capital stock being one of the factors behind the recent improvement in the Western Australian economy.

The main point of all these facts and figures is that the nature of investment in the Australian economy is changing. There is a much greater focus on information technology and a shift to investment in the service industries. This has implications for how we think about investment and the measures necessary to create an environment that supports investment in our modern economy.

The Investment Climate

This brings me to the third issue I raised at the outset: that is the importance of a positive investment climate.

No matter what type of investment a firm is considering, the environment in which the decision is being made has a major bearing on the decision to invest or not.

Australia's long record of economic and financial stability is a positive from this perspective. So, too, are our strong legal system and our well-established institutions. To this list I could add the opportunities offered by our links to the fastest-growing part of the global economy and our skilled, diverse and flexible workforce. All these things make Australia an attractive place to invest.

But we can't rest on these advantages. It is a competitive world out there and the nature of comparative advantage is changing. Once upon a time, comparative advantage came largely from a country's endowments or resources. Indeed, in our own case, the big waves of investment in Australia have been to capitalise on our natural endowments. These resources have made us wealthy and they are central to our continued prosperity. But in today's world, comparative advantage is just as likely to be built, as it is to come from endowments. It is likely to be built through innovation, creativity and ingenuity. And it is likely to be built through investing in information technology and the skills of our labour force.

Creating a positive environment that encourages this investment is a joint responsibility of government and private business. The government certainly has an important role to play, but so does business. A business culture that highly values innovation and competition and that is not afraid of taking risk will surely help in creating this positive environment.

There are no simple answers here. But a recent report by Innovation and Science Australia provides some guideposts. The report's subtitle is ‘A plan for Australia to thrive in the global innovation race’. It is worth a read. The report rightly focuses on the importance of education and the accumulation of human capital. Our ability to innovate rests on the skills of our workforce, so investing in these skills is central to building a positive investment climate. The report also discusses the way we go about research and development and how we can support innovative firms. It also discusses the importance of culture and ambition.

Over recent times there has also been quite a lot of discussion about the effect of tax on the investment climate and international competitiveness. This is an important discussion to have as Australia does need to remain an attractive place for global capital to invest. As we have this discussion, it is also important that we keep focused on the other issues I just touched on, as these areas play an important role in building durable comparative advantage and prosperity.

I would like to finish with a few words about the role of the RBA in contributing to a positive investment climate.

We obviously have no role in influencing the structural considerations that I just spoke about. We do, though, have an influence on the overall environment within which business investment decisions are made.

At the highest level we seek to be a source of stability and confidence. Having strong credible institutions in the country helps provide the community with a degree of confidence. We seek to build and maintain this credibility through developing a reputation for being a central bank that is transparent, independent, pragmatic and analytical.

Beyond this contribution, the investment climate is obviously better if we are able to deliver on our core goals of monetary and financial stability. Investors should have confidence that, over time, CPI inflation in Australia will average between 2 and 3 per cent. They can expect some variation from year to year, but over the medium term the average inflation rate will be 2 point something. As I have spoken about on previous occasions, we pursue that objective in a way that promotes sustainable growth in the economy and pays close attention to financial stability risks.

You may have noticed that at yesterday's meeting, the Reserve Bank Board left the cash rate unchanged at 1½ per cent, where it has been since August 2016.

Our assessment is that the economy is moving in the right direction. We expect stronger growth in 2018 than in 2017 and a further reduction in the unemployment rate. We also expect inflation to increase a little from its current low rate. These developments should help support the climate for business investment.

With the economy moving in the right direction, and interest rates still quite low, it is likely that the next move in interest rates in Australia will be up, not down. Having said that, the expected progress in reducing unemployment and having inflation return to target is likely to be only gradual. With only gradual progress expected, the Board does not see a strong case for a near-term adjustment of monetary policy. We will, of course, keep that judgement under review at future meetings.

Thank you for listening. I am happy to answer questions.

I would like to thank Andrea Brischetto, Mark Chambers and Michelle van der Merwe for assistance in the preparation of this talk. [*]

See Reserve Bank of Australia Statement on Monetary Policy ‘ Box C: Spillovers from Public Investment ’, February 2018. [1]

Data on investment in cultivated biological resources – that is farmed livestock, orchards and the like – are also published. These are excluded from the figures reported in this section. Investment in cultivated biological resources has declined from over 40 per cent to just below 4 per cent as a share of overall non-mining investment over the past six decades as livestock farming has become a smaller part of the economy. [2]

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Home   |  About WTO   |  News & events   |  Trade topics   |  WTO membership   |  Documents & resources   |  External relations

Contact us   |  Site map   |  A-Z   |  Search

• speeches list

WTO NEWS: SPEECHES — DG ROBERTO AZEVÊDO

> Workshop on Trade and Investment

Ambassador Lisson, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,

Good morning and welcome. I am pleased to see such an excellent turnout for this event.

Members’ interest in this subject highlights the vibrant debate that is going on here at the WTO — not only on this issue, but on many other areas as well.

I congratulate the MIKTA group for taking the initiative to organize this workshop. Indeed, I think that MIKTA itself is a testament to how much can be accomplished when developing and developed members find common ground and decide to work together.

And you have brought together a wide range of expertise here today — with representatives from governments, industry, academia and leading international organizations. Thank you all for taking part.

I think three major changes in the global economy invite us to take a fresh look at the relationship between trade and investment.

The first is the rapid rise of developing countries — and the way they have leveraged mutually reinforcing trade and investment flows to accelerate their growth, development, and integration into the world economy.

Between 1990 and 2015, developing countries’ share of world exports increased from a third to almost half. And their share of inward FDI flows grew from 17% to close to 40%.

Even more striking is how developing countries are also emerging as major outward investors - accounting for over 35% of worldwide FDI outflows today, compared to just 8% at the turn of the century.

Of course China is a prominent example here. Today China is the world’s largest exporter and second largest foreign investor. Thirty years ago, it ranked 32nd in world trade and barely registered as a foreign investor. At the same time, UNCTAD reminds us that developing countries will need an additional 2.5 trillion dollars annually in foreign and domestic investment if we are to meet our 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

So my point here is simple: trade and investment are now important development issues — and their expansion is of growing interest to all WTO members, not just advanced ones. We must also ensure that this growth in developing countries does not leave some behind — that all developing countries benefit from this trend.

The second major change is the way trade and investment are increasingly interlinked in the real economy.

Global value chains have spread design, manufacturing and assembly across borders to the most cost-efficient or skills-rich locations. With the rise of these “world factories”, multinational companies view trade and investment as two sides of the same coin — they are interdependent elements of a single strategy.

Some GVCs focus on consumer products, others on capital goods, others on services, agricultural, or natural resource production. But all rely on sophisticated trade and investment networks to deliver "just-in-time" production. All of this is taking place against the backdrop of the sweeping digitization of our economies — further blurring the lines between trade and investment.

So again, my point is simple: given that trade and investment flows are so intertwined, efforts to expand global trade are increasingly related to expanding global investment as well. Therefore developing a coherent policy approach to both is increasingly important. And again this is evolving.

This is the third change I wanted to mention: how to address these challenges from a policy perspective.

Three weeks ago, the Trade Facilitation Agreement entered into force.

This Agreement broke new ground for the WTO in at least two ways.

It acknowledged that, in a world of integrated production, efforts to simplify and speed up cross-border trade are as important as efforts to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers. Fully implemented, the TFA could reduce trade costs by 14 per cent — a bigger impact than eliminating all remaining tariffs.

Equally important, the TFA points the way to how trade challenges — especially regulatory issues — could be addressed in the future.

One of the most striking features of the negotiations was how they were driven. It was less about market access trade-offs than about the search for cooperative solutions to shared challenges — such as standardizing customs procedures, harmonizing documentation requirements, or improving information exchanges.

This approach is why the negotiations on the TFA were the most inclusive in the system’s history — and why it is the first WTO agreement where implementation by members is explicitly linked to their individual capacity.

Since all members have a shared interest in facilitating one another’s trade, they also have a shared interest in helping them to implement the Agreement. It is not surprising that many of the ideas and approaches pioneered in trade facilitation are now being explored in other areas — and that WTO members are discussing ideas around services facilitation and investment facilitation.

In today’s open, integrated and multipolar global economy, I believe that multilateralism is more important than ever.

None of the global economic challenges we face can be effectively and inclusively tackled without global approaches and global cooperation. I think we are seeing this across the range of discussions here — whether focused on investment or agricultural subsidies, for example.

But an essential first step in developing appropriate solutions is to engage in an open and informed dialogue about where the challenges lie, what current best practices are, and whether or not the WTO can play a constructive role.

Until now, discussions on the deepening relationship between trade and investment have taken place in almost every international economic fora — the G20, UNCTAD, OECD, APEC — but not the WTO.

If members wish to consider putting more focus on these issues at the WTO then an open and informed dialogue is a useful initiative.

That’s why events like this are a welcome step. I wish you a productive discussion.

>  Problems viewing this page? Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Commerce

Was this page helpful, remarks by u.s. secretary of commerce gina raimondo on the u.s. competitiveness and the china challenge, office of public affairs.

Introduction

This year marks the 50 th anniversary of the opening of relations between China and the United States. For most of this period, the United States was committed to the idea that economic engagement with China would serve our mutual interests: first, as a counterweight to the Soviet Union, and later as a gateway to a deeper political and economic partnership. Engagement also provided U.S. companies with greater access to China’s market and helped open China’s economic system. And some even thought that over time China would take its place alongside the U.S. and other advanced economies to become a pillar of the post-war liberal international order.

But now it is clear that China took a different path—and with that has come profound impacts on our bilateral relationship and on China’s behavior on the global stage.

Over the past decade, China’s leaders have made clear that they do not plan to pursue political and economic reform and are instead pursuing an alternative vision of their country’s future. They are committed to increasing the role of the state in society and the economy, constraining the free flow of capital and information, and decoupling economically in a number of areas, including many technology sectors of the future. They have firewalled their data economy from the rest of the world. And they are accelerating their efforts to fuse their economic and technology policies with their military ambitions.

As China’s economy has grown in size and influence, so too has its commitment to using non-market trade and investment practices in ways that are forcing us to defend our businesses and workers – and those of our allies and partners. China’s reprioritization away from economic growth toward national security and its assertive military behavior means that we have to rethink how we protect our national security interests while also promoting our interests in trade and investment.

In the face of this dramatically transformed strategic environment, our economic priorities are clear: ensuring that the U.S. builds the talent, technologies, and manufacturing capabilities necessary to lead the global economy in the 21 st century—to be at the forefront of global innovation in an era of unprecedented technological change and competition; to provide our workforce with the education and training necessary to compete for the jobs of the future; to safeguard our national security and democratic values; and grow in ways that reflect our values of sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as openness, transparency, and the rule of law.

Our strategy to realize these priorities has four components—

• First, we are making transformational investments in American innovation.
• Second, we are bolstering our domestic capabilities and creating new ones to prevent China from undermining our national security and democratic values.
• Third, we are partnering with our allies in new ways to advance our shared values and shape the strategic environment in which China operates.
• And fourth, we are advocating for U.S. trade and investment and the benefits that come with it, as well as working together with China to address transnational issues, such as climate change and global macroeconomic stability.

But U.S. government policies are only part of the answer. We need the private sector, including business, labor, and universities, to work with us to ensure America’s long-term prosperity and security. We are pushing on all fronts, all at once. And we need to do it all together. 

Our competition with China is global, but our economic strategy begins at home. Our economic competitiveness and national security depend on a bold domestic investment agenda in strategic and critical sectors.

In just the first twenty months of the administration, we worked with Congress to enact the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. Taken together, it represents over $1 trillion of investment in America. A once-in-a-generation commitment to innovation, technology, manufacturing, workforce training, and the infrastructure, including broadband, we need to ensure our future competitiveness and national security. It is what President Biden has termed a “modern industrial strategy” – an approach rooted deeply in America’s history—from Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufacturers to President Lincoln’s intercontinental railroad—but calibrated to the new, forward-looking challenges and opportunities of the 21 st century.

With these transformational investments, we are also reimagining our national innovation ecosystem well beyond Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley to create new technology innovation and manufacturing hubs throughout the country. These hubs will take advantage of our nation’s diversity, foster new collaborations among businesses, universities, labor, and local communities, and position the United States to lead in the 21st-century global economy.

In R&D, we are working across the government and with leading university and industry experts to identify and invest in core critical and emerging fields of technology where we want to attain global leadership, such as advanced computing, biotechnologies and biomanufacturing, and clean energy technologies.

We are also revitalizing U.S. domestic manufacturing, particularly advanced manufacturing. Over the past decades, communities across the country have seen manufacturing shut down, businesses shutter, and the local engines of innovation grind to a halt, as we exported jobs and manufacturing capacity to China and the rest of Asia and reduced investment in the workforce development and infrastructure necessary to maintain our long-term competitiveness.

I felt the effects of this shift firsthand. My father worked his whole career in the Bulova Watch Factory in Providence. But after 28 years, his job moved to China as the company chased cheap labor. And just like all his friends, my father was forced into early retirement. What happened to my father is hardly unique. It happened to millions of Americans over the last 40 years. 

While we watched China become a world leader in manufacturing and reap the massive benefits of manufacturing-driven innovation, the U.S. economy became LESS competitive and overly dependent on China for an increasing number of critical technologies and goods. It is worth noting, by the way, that China achieved its success through massive state support of its industries. COVID opened our eyes to the long-term risk for both the private sector and the American people of this over-dependence on China and the need to rebuild domestic manufacturing and innovation.

Semiconductors are ground-zero in this technological competition and central to our new investment strategy. They drive innovation in nearly every emerging technology and support critical national security applications. The U.S. invented the semiconductor industry and once led the world in producing the most advanced chips.  Today, we no longer manufacture the world’s most advanced semiconductors and produce only 10 percent of global chip capacity. Meanwhile, since 2020, nearly 75 percent of the new global capacity for certain mature chips has been added in China.

The CHIPS and Science Act marks the beginning of a new chapter in U.S. innovation where we reverse that decline and ensure that the United States retains its leadership in the technologies and industries of the 21 st century. In the coming years, the Commerce Department will invest $52 billion in domestic semiconductor manufacturing, including workforce training and R&D, to create a vibrant domestic industry.

But this public investment is only a starting point. It is designed to spur the business community to crowd in private capital and be our partner in making the kinds of investments that generate long-term returns for business and advance American competitiveness. Our goal is to lay a foundation for American business to do what American business does best – innovate, scale, and compete.   

Through R&D and manufacturing incentives, we are facilitating new public-private partnerships to enable domestic production of the most advanced chips and expand the production of mature chips essential to national and economic security. And we are looking to labor and educational institutions to provide the workforce training and apprenticeship programs necessary to build and operate new manufacturing facilities.

We have adopted a similar approach to public investment in the Inflation Reduction Act—the IRA. We are investing $369 billion, which is the largest federal investment ever made to transition the United States to a clean energy future and combat the climate crisis. By one estimate, that $369 billion will catalyze another $1.7 trillion in public and private investment over the next ten years.

The administration also recently launched a National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative to ensure that what happened to the United States in semiconductors and telecommunications does not happen in biotech—ensuring we translate our leadership in biotech R&D into leadership in biotech manufacturing and jobs.

I am proud to say that we are already seeing our strategy pay off. Companies such as Micron Technology and Intel have announced significant new investments in semiconductor manufacturing in Syracuse and Columbus. And they are partnering with local universities and community colleges to develop the courses and training programs necessary to support tens of thousands of new, well-paying manufacturing jobs. Already we have added more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs to the U.S. economy—the most in almost three decades.

Going forward, we are not only going to invent the technologies of the future in America but we are going to manufacture them here too.

We are also investing in America’s massive talent pipeline. The United States is blessed with universities that consistently produce world-class scientists, innovators, and entrepreneurs. Here at MIT, your graduates and professors have contributed to pathbreaking scientific and technological advancements for more than 150 years.

But we want—and need—more Americans to be part of this exciting innovation ecosystem. We are increasing the amount of R&D funding we make available to universities OUTSIDE our major research centers to ensure that we access the broadest possible range of talent. We are also making significant investments in STEM education for underrepresented students, such as people of color, girls, and low-income youth. And we are building new onramps to high-skilled, well-paying manufacturing jobs – many of which don’t require a college degree.

We must also continue to attract the most talented people from around the world. Our history of renewal and reinvention has been powered by immigrants. And let me be clear: there is no room in our path to competitiveness for racism or xenophobia. Chinese Americans have been – and will continue to be - an essential part of this American story of renewal. Right now, there are roughly 300, 000 students from China studying in the United States. We will continue to welcome Chinese students and immigrants, and we won’t hesitate to stand up to racism against people of Chinese heritage.

Attracting and retaining the world’s best STEM talent is an advantage that is America’s to lose. And we are not going to let that happen. Early this year, we announced a series of measures to streamline the immigration process and open new pathways for international STEM students and researchers. But there is so much more to do. We are ready to work with industry and Congress on a bipartisan basis to capitalize on what is truly America’s superpower.

Our other great competitive advantage is our diversity. Diversity fuels innovation. But to unleash all of our talents, we must give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy of the 21 st century. With support from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Department of Commerce is connecting tens of millions of Americans to affordable, high-speed internet. We will have an economy where Americans can participate from anywhere and compete everywhere .

Our transformative domestic investment agenda is at the heart of our long-term economic competitiveness. But outcompeting China to shape and lead the global economy of the 21 st century also demands that we move nimbly and quickly to harden our defenses against an array of emerging and ongoing practices that tilt the playing field against American workers and businesses and in some cases, threaten our national security.

China today poses a set of growing challenges to our national security. It is deploying its military in ways that undermine the security of our allies and partners and the free flow of global trade. It dominates the manufacturing of many critical materials and goods and has exploited other economies’ dependence on its market for political coercion. It also seeks to dominate certain advanced technology sectors, while using many of those technologies to advance its military modernization and undermine fundamental human rights at home and abroad.

We believe there are three families of technologies that will be of particular importance over the coming decade: first, computing-related technologies, including microelectronics, quantum information systems, and artificial intelligence; second, biotechnologies and biomanufacturing; and third, clean energy technologies. We will continue to take action to protect our advantage and maintain as large a lead as possible in these foundational technologies.

We are moving aggressively to reform our current capabilities and create new ones to accomplish this goal. Together with the private sector, we are going to bolster our system of export controls, enhance our investment screening regimes, strengthen our supply chain resiliency, and develop innovative solutions to counter China’s economic coercion and human rights abuses.

To begin with, we are redoubling our efforts to safeguard our core technologies by strategically and continuously updating our export control policies and investment screening frameworks.

In October, we released a set of rules that impose systematic and technology-specific export controls to limit China’s ability to purchase and manufacture certain very advanced computing chips that are used to train large-scale artificial intelligence models, and which power the country’s advanced military and surveillance systems, as well as the manufacturing equipment used to make these cutting-edge chips.  

In addition, we restricted American citizens from supporting these advanced technology programs.

For too long, America’s export control strategy was reactive—focused on preventing China from expanding its technological capabilities after it accessed American intellectual property. But these new rules are strategic, targeted, and designed to protect our national security. 

And as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, we worked in a bipartisan way with Senators Cornyn and Casey and Representatives McCaul, Lucas, and DeLauro to implement historically strict guardrails to ensure the investments we make in research and innovation are never used to benefit China’s military efforts.

We are also modernizing our review of inbound investment. A few months ago, we issued Presidential guidance—the first of its kind since the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States was established decades ago—to direct a focus on certain critical new risk factors when evaluating potential inbound investment, such as technological leadership, supply chain dependency, and foreign company access to our personal data.

And together with Congress and the private sector, we are working to identify and mitigate the risks to our national security from outbound capital investments in critical technology sectors.  As one example, we have prohibited companies receiving CHIPS funding from investing in leading-edge or advanced technology facilities in China for ten years. 

Our strategy also includes the protection of our critical supply chains.

During the COVID pandemic, we witnessed how the concentration of personal protective equipment manufacturing in China put Americans at risk.

I remember this time vividly. I was Governor when the pandemic hit. Like so many other states, Rhode Island desperately needed ventilators and PPE. I spent night after night calling countries around the world, nearly always in Asia, asking them to help us get the supplies we needed.

Now, as Commerce Secretary, I am determined that we will never let ourselves become dependent on one country for the goods we need to keep our people safe.

We have mounted a whole-of-government effort to identify the commodities and technologies where our inability to source, process, or manufacture domestically could cause great damage to our security.

In these areas, we are working with the private sector to re-shore or friend-shore core parts of our supply chains. And we are developing a near real-time “common operating picture” of global supply chains for critical industries so that we can address vulnerabilities as quickly as possible.

Related to this, we are exploring new avenues to defend ourselves and others from China’s economic coercion. Reducing our companies’ dependence on China for core parts of our critical supply chains is one part of the answer, but not the entire answer.

For example, when China cut off trade with Lithuania, we opened our markets to Lithuanian agricultural products and provided a $600 million export credit agreement focused on manufacturing, business services, and renewable energy.

Developing an effective deterrent against this kind of economic coercion is a priority for the Biden Administration, as well as for our partners and allies.

I also want to underscore the priority that we are placing on ensuring that our companies are not complicit in China’s gross human rights abuses. Our trade and investment with China should reflect our core democratic values. That is why, President Biden signed the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act into law – requiring companies to certify that they are not sourcing goods that relied upon forced labor in their production.

Finally, I hear often from U.S. business leaders about the challenges this rapidly changing policy environment poses to their ability to make smart, long-term investment decisions. And while I certainly understand this challenge, our policies cannot be static.  They need to adapt continuously to the dynamic interaction between technological change and national security. But in such a complex environment, it’s on us in the government to provide clear and consistent guidance that the business community needs to succeed; to be as consultative and transparent as possible, to minimize disruptive change, and to adopt measures multilaterally. We are committed to a strong and vibrant partnership with our private sector.

At the same time, it’s on the private sector to recognize that we’re operating in a fundamentally different strategic environment from a decade ago and to work with us to realize our economic and national security objectives. The decisions our universities and companies make today on where and how they undertake research, engage in trade, and make investment decisions will profoundly shape our economic and national security for decades to come. And I would note that MIT’s recently released China strategy report on research integrity and collaboration with PRC partners is an example of the type of initiative we need to help inform our policy and chart a sensible path forward. 

Now, all of the measures I have outlined—from export controls to new investment parameters to supply chains—require not an only partnership between the U.S. government and private sector but also between the U.S. and our allies and partners.

In our competition with China to shape the 21st-century global economy, we cannot go at it alone. As Secretary Blinken articulated earlier this year, the Biden administration’s approach to China is centered not only on investment at home but also on alignment with our allies and partners abroad. When I meet with my counterparts from other countries, they voice similar concerns about China’s behavior and a shared desire to cooperate and coordinate our policies around the rules, standards, and values that advance our collective national security and economic well-being. They, too, see how China’s direction has changed and are adjusting their strategies accordingly.

For example, we have established the Quad Critical and Emerging Technologies working group with Japan, Australia, and India, as well as the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, or TTC, which will be meeting next week in DC, to align our approaches secure supply chains, export controls, data governance, and investment screening.

We are witnessing the strength of this partnership right now in the extraordinary degree of coordination we have achieved around the implementation of sanctions against Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine.

We are also reasserting U.S. economic leadership and partnership in the most economically dynamic region of the world. Last May, in Tokyo, President Biden launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework or IPEF, with thirteen partner countries that together with the U.S. represent over 40 percent of global GDP.

This innovative economic framework represents a proactive economic strategy, designed to support a regional economy that is connected, resilient, clean, and fair and will provide a competitive and attractive new market for U.S. exports and investment.  

It will also be a kind-of-a “supply chain diversity accelerator” by facilitating U.S. companies with more competitive sources of production and suppliers.  

And American workers will benefit too. For example, last summer we saw how COVID-related chip manufacturing slowdowns in Asia contributed to layoffs for auto workers in Detroit. IPEF’s supply chain crisis response mechanism will help us avoid a similar situation in the future.

Long-term U.S. competitiveness also depends on our continued and active participation in international institutions that set data and technology standards.

In recent years, China has assumed leadership positions in several important international standard setting bodies. We have heard from our companies, as well as those from other countries, that China often packs these organizations with government and business representatives who work together to push the country’s authoritarian standards and values.

These efforts “to game the system” undermine good governance, place our companies at a disadvantage in the global technology competition, and put at risk many of our fundamental values, such as the free flow of information and data privacy. We are taking steps to elevate U.S. leadership and presence in these bodies and to coordinate our efforts with our partners. 

It is not enough, however, to work with our traditional allies and partners to set the standards for the global economy of the 21st century. We are also engaging more deeply with the vibrant emerging economies of the global south to meet their desire for growth that is sustainable, broad-based, inclusive, and transparent.

As an important first step, President Biden, together with our G7 partners, launched the $600 billion Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, or PGII, to support climate-resilient infrastructure, better healthcare, and sustainable energy. At the Department of Commerce, for example, we are partnering with U.S. Exim-Bank, U.S. businesses, and the government of Angola to develop a $2 billion solar project. This investment will not only help Angola power its economy with clean energy but also support up to $1.3 billion in U.S. exports.

Taken together, these new multilateral arrangements reflect the shared values of the U.S. and its partners and allies. They amplify the power of U.S. and they provide the basis for future global growth that is sustainable and inclusive.

Now, while much of our China economic strategy is necessarily focused on what we can do at home and with our allies to ensure our own competitiveness, we also need to get the bilateral economic relationship with China right by protecting and also actively promoting our economic interests.

China’s government employs a range of economic practices that disadvantage foreign companies trying to compete in the PRC market. China’s government also gives unfair advantages to its own industries in ways that displace American workers and businesses – and those of our allies and partners – from the global market. We will continue to press China to address its non-market economic practices that result in an uneven playing field, such as such as its massive support – financial, regulatory, or otherwise – to its state-owned and private firms, forced technology transfer, and egregious intellectual property theft.  And we are working with our G7 allies on a shared approach to these issues.

At the same time, we are not seeking the decoupling of our economy from that of China’s. We want to promote trade and investment in areas that do not threaten our core economic and national security interests or human rights values. Annual trade between our two countries has grown exponentially from $4.7 million in 1972 to more than $750 billion today. This trade provides revenues for American companies, jobs for American workers, and connectivity with the Chinese people.

China is now our third largest export market, and those exports directly support 750,000 American jobs. The benefits from these exports go not only to our large multinationals but also to more than 25,000 small and medium-sized enterprises that exported $33 billion to China in 2020. To support these smaller businesses, the Commerce Department recently launched an export promotion initiative around personal care products. We aim to boost exports by helping SMEs navigate the market, while ensuring that their IP is protected. China is also the U.S.’s largest agricultural market, and our farmers are on track to export $36 billion in agricultural goods this year to China.  

U.S. soft power also benefits from the popularity of our companies and brands in China’s consumer culture. Starbucks has built more than 5,000 stores in China. When Apple launched its iPhone 13, shoppers in China stampeded through a mall to be first in line. Our products signify not only high-quality but also our values of openness, innovation, and creativity.

We want to continue to promote trade and investment in those areas that do not undermine our interests or values, while using all the tools at our disposal to protect our companies and counter unfair economic practices. For example, we maintain a team of intellectual property experts in China that helps address our companies’ needs while seeking to drive important changes to China’s IP laws over the longer term.

No-one can outcompete the U.S. if we are playing by the same rules.

And as President Biden made clear during his recent meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping earlier this month, we want to work with China on issues of global economic importance, such as climate change, food security, health security, and debt relief. For that reason, I met with China’s Minister of Ecology and Environment to advocate for our companies and to propose that we work together to reduce ocean pollution and marine plastic debris.

Of course, we want American workers to benefit from exporting and American companies to thrive in global markets, including China. But we also have to be sober about China’s current direction of travel.

For almost forty years, we championed the benefits of a robust trade and investment relationship with China, often overlooking the long-term costs for the near-term benefits. And above all, we must remember that sustaining these benefits over the long term requires that we defend our security and values in the near term.

In recent years, China’s leaders have promoted a narrative that the East is rising, and the West is declining.

I hope you see something different. I see something different.

I see that the U.S. is the world’s largest economy, that it is blessed with one of the most diverse populations in the world—and that this diversity is a source of unparalleled creativity and strength—that our companies are among the world’s most innovative and profitable, that our universities are the envy of all countries, and that we have a strong and growing network of powerful allies and partners.

Yet, despite all of our strengths, competing effectively with China will take hard work.

We are taking the steps necessary to address the full range of challenges that China now presents. We are redoubling our commitment to invest at home. We are aligning our policies with our allies around our values of freedom, privacy, the rule of law, and fair competition. And we are competing by investing in robust public-private partnership and rethinking our tools of economic statecraft.

All of this leaves me confident that we can deliver on the clarity of purpose, consistency in execution, and long-term commitment that will be necessary to ensure our continued leadership in global innovation and protect our economic and national security.

Share this page

Keynote speech by Anabel Gonzalez at the Jamaica Investment Forum 2015

Anabel Gonzalez, Senior Director, Trade & Competitiveness Global Practice Jamaica Investment Forum 2015 Montego Bay, Jamaica

·         Good morning, most Honorable Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, Honorable Minister of Finance Peter Phillips, Honorable Minister of Industry, Investment and Commerce Anthony Hylton, ministers, business executives, partners and colleagues.

·         Let me start by thanking Jamaica’s leadership for organizing the Jamaica Investment Forum 2015 and inviting me to speak today on the competitiveness and growth agenda.

Background and context

·         Transforming a country’s economy requires a long-term vision, but also pragmatic steps and bold actions.

·         Jamaica has taken the first step with its National Development Plan, “Vision 2030 Jamaica,” and has put itself on a positive trajectory. 

·         This plan include key reforms to stimulate private investment and growth, including achieving macroeconomic stability, improving the business environment, and ensuring that the structures of its industries are internationally competitive.

·         This is part of a historic moment in Jamaica.

·         To quote Minister Hylton: “Jamaica is putting its house in order.” 

·         These actions have already produced positive results:

o   The Jamaican economy is expected to grow at 2-3 percent over the medium term, clearly seizing a unique opportunity to escape the trap of high debt and low growth.

o   In World Bank Group’s most recent Doing Business report , Jamaica had the Caribbean's highest ranking on the ease of doing business and made the sharpest year-over-year improvement.

o   Jamaica recorded $567 million in FDI in 2014 -- a five-year high.

·         And the country is embarking on an exciting initiative that has the potential to position Jamaica as a logistics hub in the Caribbean, and could generate significant growth.

·         The Logistics Hub Initiative (LHI) capitalizes on the country’s position along busy trade routes between the Panama Canal and Miami, and has the potential to not only attract investment, but create jobs and retain the country’s young talent.

Connecting Jamaica’s economy to the global economy

·         The main reason we are gathered here today is because we recognize that offshore investment in the Jamaican economy has the potential to drive economic growth and diversification.

·         Countries grow because they produce better goods and services or find better ways to produce those goods and services.

·         Foreign investment helps this all happen.

·         Throughout Jamaica’s growth process, an important step will be to connect the domestic economy with the international private sector.

·         This means increasing the country’s participation in global value chains (or GVCs) -- production processes that cross borders, from conception, to inputs, to distribution to the final consumer.   

·         Integrating with global value chains helps creat jobs and bring capital and new technologies.

·         It also creates incentives for broadening and upgrading workers’ skills. This would allow countries such as Jamaica to specialize in specific tasks, while compelling Jamaican firms to meet high standards of quality, timelines, and efficiency.

·         But the benefits are not automatic, and here is where our technical focus on global value chains can help.

·         In the World Bank Group’s Trade and Competitiveness Global Practice, our experts know that success in economic development lies in innovation at the level of small and medium-sized enterprises.

·         It lies in ensuring that exporting firms – whether large Jamaican companies or large offshore companies – work together to strengthen the country’s smaller firms and their ability to manufacture in Jamaica.

·         We also know that one of the most important government responsibilities in helping a country benefit from GVCs is predictability in regulatory actions.

·         Frequent changes in regulations can create uncertainty in domestic and foreign investment returns.

·         It is also important to implement reforms – not stop after creating a plan.

·         Ultimately, success in connecting the domestic sector to FDI and reaping the benefits of GVCs depends on many factors.

·         One is building human capital through access to strong education and training.

·         Another factor is developing linkages between the domestic and international economy .

·         To do this, many countries have developed very effective programs that better connect domestic suppliers with foreign FDI . 

·         Countries also need to develop international and domestic connectivity.

·         Investment promotion is critical for all emerging markets, and especially for smaller economies such as Jamaica.

·         In particular, governments must continuously demonstrate their commitment to improving their countries’ business environment.

·         They must make efficient and transparent regulations and embark on competitiveness strategies that include industry-specific and firm-level innovations efforts.

World Bank Group support to Jamaica

·         The World Bank Group, and in particular the Trade and Competitiveness Global Practice that I lead, is committed to assisting Jamaica to become a more competitive player in the global economy.

·         I am accompanied here by colleagues, including IFC resident representative Rajeev Gopal and acting World Bank representative Kathy Lalazarian, who are ready to support Jamaica directly in encouraging private sector investment.

·         And, in fact, just as Jamaica’s reforms have put it on a hopeful path, our institution’s internal reforms mean that we can be a better partner in those efforts.

·         In our global practice we have brought together experts in both private sector development and trade policy, and our approach includes practitioners in investment and in logistics.

·         With this new approach, our teams span more disciplines and are more nimble.

·         We respond to clients with integrated solutions that are coordinated at many levels. They might include economy-wide proposals, such as trade policy changes, but also sector-specific advice and firm-level interventions.

·         We have expertise in many specific areas relevant to Jamaica and to your businesses here – including logistics, manufacturing, and tourism, to name a few.

·         We also work across regions, as we are doing with our participation in the Caribbean Growth Forum, helping countries identify competitiveness strategies and reforms.

·         In Jamaica, the World Bank Group’s work is defined by a Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) that is guided by the priorities of Vision 2030 Jamaica.

·         This strategy proposes a lending program of $510 million over four years focused on strengthening both the public and private sectors while improving social safety nets and the conditions of the most vulnerable.

·         A recently-approved, $75 million Development Policy Loan is part of that program and will help Jamaica continue to make reforms that improve its investment climate and competitiveness, as well as its public financial management.

·         In July 2014, the World Bank approved the “Foundation for Competitiveness and Growth Project, ” a US$50 million loan that provides support for investment climate reforms, strategic investments, and SMEs. 

·         This project has rallied investment from the IFC and guarantees from MIGA, the World Bank Group’s insurance arm. It is helping to complete the chain of development from growing SMEs to building special economic zones to increasing trade.

·         In addition, the Logistics Hub Initiative, also supported by the World Bank Group, has aligned public and private players around significant investments in ports, airports, and other transportation infrastructure. 

·         The LHI has a lot of promise:

o   It will increase the connectivity of the country, reducing the time and costs to access markets for Jamaica’s domestic exporters, and enhance competitiveness.

o   It could help the country attract enhanced skills and develop new business opportunities.

·         Of course, it also has risks.

o   There will certainly be competition amid the changing regional shipping dynamics.

o   Other countries throughout the Caribbean and Central America could try to compete as shipping and services hubs bases on similar geography and skills advantages.

o   To keep its advantage, Jamaica will need to ensure that its infrastructure services operate at a high level of productivity and quality.

·         To ensure that the LHI and Jamaica’s competitiveness and growth agenda succeeds, it is important to keep trade costs low.

·         Jamaica has made recent improvements in this area, but still has some distance to go.

·         We are here to help, especially in key areas, such as improving transparency in trade and simplifying border control processes and coordination at the border.

·         Let me finish by reiterating the World Bank Group’s commitment to supporting Jamaica in implementing its national development plan.

·         In particular, we support its trade and investment policy strategies that are pushing the country along on its current path of recovery and long-term growth.

·         Thank you very much for your attention.   

• Latin America and Caribbean
• The Caribbean: Development news, research, data | World Bank

Newsletters

You have clicked on a link to a page that is not part of the beta version of the new worldbank.org. Before you leave, we’d love to get your feedback on your experience while you were here. Will you take two minutes to complete a brief survey that will help us to improve our website?

Feedback Survey

Thank you for agreeing to provide feedback on the new version of worldbank.org; your response will help us to improve our website.

Thank you for participating in this survey! Your feedback is very helpful to us as we work to improve the site functionality on worldbank.org.

Old Xi Jinping speech sparks China monetary easing speculation

LIQUIDITY AMPLE, ROOM TO CUT RATES

Get a look at the day ahead in Asian and global markets with the Morning Bid Asia newsletter. Sign up here.

Reporting by Ryan Woo; Additional reporting by Samuel Shen and Jason Xue; Editing by William Mallard

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Canada services PMI falls in March as downturn lengthens

The downturn in Canada's services sector deepened in March as higher prices and elevated borrowing costs crimped customer demand but firms remained confident that better times lie ahead, S&P Global Canada services PMI data showed on Wednesday.

Investment Speech

Investment speech - general tips, understanding investing.

• Find your information - Companies & Industries
• Find Your Information - Investment Reports
• Find your information - Mutual Funds
• Find your information - Charity/Nonprofits
• Important Definitions
• Citation help

Subject Guide

The following tips are meant as an aid for writing a speech to convince someone to invest in a company.

1. Choose your company.  This can be done in several ways.

• Choose a company whose products or services you use.
• Check the company listings in ValueLine (click on "Dashboard" link at top of the page, then look for "VLIS Rank Changes" in the "Quick Links" box on the right. Look under "Ranks Moving Up" for companies moving up in ranking. Look for companies who are 1,2 3 in Safety and Timeliness rankings.
• Choose a company you see regularly on TV.
• Choose an industry you are interested in and select a company that is in this industry.

2.  Gather your information

Now that you have gathered your information, you can begin to build your speech.  The following tips can help you to have a well organized, informative speech.

Gather your information carefully.  Some things to watch for are:

• Be sure to check the Safety and Timeliness ratings for your company in ValueLine.  These should be a 1,2 or 3.
• Check your company's Beta value.  This is a measure of your company's volatility (see definition)
• Read an investment report for your company from several different investment firms.  There should be a summary section that will provide the firm's opinion of your company.
• Read about the industry performance for the industry your company is classsified in.  This can be found in IBISWorld.  This can add valuable information to your speech.
• Read your company's annual balance sheet to get a feel for how it is doing financially.

 Now, you begin to write. 

• Organize your information carefully. 
• Be decisive and up-beat in your speech.  You want to make your company sound as positve as possible while backing it up with facts.

These are resources that can help you understand the investment process

• Investing Basics Investment basics from the NYSE.
• How Stocks and the Stock Market Work
• Investing Basics
• Investment Education - ValueLine Look for the Investment Education link in the bar at the top of the ValueLine page.
• Next: Find your information - Companies & Industries >>
• Last Updated: Sep 19, 2023 5:20 PM
• URL: https://libguides.baylor.edu/InvestmentSpeech

University Libraries

One Bear Place #97148 Waco, TX 76798-7148

(254) 710-6702

   Ask a Question

Copyright © Baylor® University . All rights reserved.

Report It | Title IX | Mental Health Resources | Anonymous Reporting | Legal Disclosures

Stock market today: US futures slip again as interest rate cut pessimism takes hold

• US stock futures slid again in Wednesday's premarket trading.
• Traders have started to bet that the Federal Reserve will delay rate cuts until later this year.
• US Treasury yields held steady after hitting their highest level this year on Tuesday.

US stocks looked poised to slip again on Wednesday as signs of resilience in the US economy threatened to scupper traders' hopes for a June interest-rate cut.

Futures for the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 were down 0.2% shortly before 5 a.m. ET, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average was on course to open about 20 points lower.

Yields on 10-year US Treasury notes held steady, having ticked up 20 basis points to set a fresh 2024 high over the first two days of the week. 2- and 30-year yields were also flat.

Stocks are coming off their worst day in nearly a month after hotter-than-anticipated job openings and factory data led to the market trimming back its rate cut expectations.

About 40% of traders now think that the Federal Reserve will hold borrowing costs at their current level through June, according to the CME Fedwatch tool .

The economy's resilience has "led to fresh risk-off sentiment spreading, as worries brew about inflation staying doggedly above target and the Fed being potentially forced to hold off from cutting rates by as much as previously forecast this year," Hargreaves Lansdown's head of money and markets Susannah Streeter said.

"As concerns about higher interest rates lingering for longer percolate, Wall Street is set for a lackluster session," she added.

Other blue-chip indexes around the world also struggled on Wednesday, with Tokyo's Nikkei 225 closing 1% lower and Europe's Stoxx 600 down 0.1% at last check. In London the FTSE 100 was down 0.45% in morning trading. 

• Main content

Home Toggle navigation FR Toggle Search Search the site Search About us About us Head office Regional offices History Archives Background materials Photos and videos Accessibility Contact us Corporate governance Board of Directors Governing Council and Senior Management Governance documents Educational resources The Economy, Plain and Simple Explainers Financial education resources Careers Take a central role at the Bank of Canada with our current opportunities and scholarships.

Time to break the glass: Fixing Canada’s productivity problem

Introduction.

Good morning. Canada’s economy was built by trade and immigration. Halifax is not just a key port—it has also been the landing spot for countless new Canadians. So I’m glad to be here, speaking to a group like the Halifax Partnership, which is dedicated to helping Canadian businesses grow and thrive.

We’ve just passed the fourth anniversary of the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic. It’s been four difficult years. Beyond its human toll, the pandemic upended economies around the world and sparked the biggest global inflationary episode in decades. This led central banks—including the Bank of Canada—to raise interest rates sharply so that we could get inflation under control.

For the past two years or so, the Bank’s Governing Council has focused on restoring price stability. That’s almost all we’ve talked about in our speeches. And we’ve heard directly from Canadians who have struggled with inflation and who are feeling the impacts of higher interest rates.

The good news is that monetary policy is working, and inflation has come a long way down. We’re not all the way back to target, and we know we need to finish the job. But we have made a lot of progress. And so it’s a good time to reflect on how the economy has changed in Canada and around the world and to think about what those changes mean for the future.

When we look ahead, we see a future where inflation may be more of a threat than it has been over the past few decades. We know that many of the forces that helped create a benign environment for inflation in the past, such as globalization, are going to fade away, or even reverse. We know that changing demographics and the economic impacts of climate change will tend to put upward pressure on prices. Persistent global trade tensions also raise the risk of future inflation.

So, at the Bank of Canada, we’re turning our thoughts—as well as our speeches—to this future. And today I want to talk about a topic that is critical to our ability to navigate a future that’s more prone to inflation: productivity.

Productivity is a way to inoculate the economy against inflation. An economy with low productivity can grow only so quickly before inflation sets in. But an economy with strong productivity can have faster growth, more jobs and higher wages with less risk of inflation. That’s why I want to talk about Canada’s long-standing, poor record on productivity and show you just how big the problem is. You’ve seen those signs that say, “In emergency, break glass.” Well, it’s time to break the glass.

Canada’s labour productivity eked out a small gain at the end of last year, according to Statistics Canada. But that came after six straight quarters where productivity fell. Of course, the pandemic was a major disruptor for the economy. During the pandemic, the resourcefulness and ingenuity of Canadian business leaders was put to full use. Companies adjusted their business models and ways of working. Given how nimble companies were, we thought productivity would improve coming out of the pandemic as firms found their footing and workers trained back up. We’ve seen that happen in the US economy, but it hasn’t happened here. In fact, the level of productivity in Canada’s business sector is more or less unchanged from where it was seven years ago.

People have been sounding the alarm, but it can be hard to feel a sense of urgency about an abstract concept like productivity. Most people, when they hear that we need to improve productivity, think they’re being told they have to work harder or work longer hours to produce more, or maybe take less time off.

That’s not the case. Labour productivity measures how much an economy produces per hour of work. Increasing productivity means finding ways for people to create more value during the time they’re at work. This is a goal to aim for, not something to fear. When a company increases productivity, that means more revenue, which allows the company to pay higher wages to its workers without having to raise prices. Ultimately, higher productivity helps the economy generate more wealth for everyone. The bottom line is that the benefits from raising productivity are there no matter what your role is: for workers, for businesses and, yes, for central bankers, too. I’ll come back to this point later.

First, I’m going to spend some time today spelling out the factors that determine productivity. I’ll review Canada’s record for clues about how we can improve, and I’ll talk about what we can all do to raise Canada’s productivity and make our economy more resilient.

Ingredients of productivity, and Canada’s record

Economists will tell you that three factors determine how productive an economy’s workforce is: capital intensity, labour composition and multifactor productivity. These are the types of words that often lead non-economists to tune out. But they’re important, and once you get past the jargon, they’re not that complicated. So, let’s look at each one.

Capital intensity is about equipping workers with better tools. If you run a snow-clearing business, your workers will be able to clear more driveways if they have solid shovels that don’t break easily. Of course, give them a snow blower and they’ll be able to clear many more driveways than with just shovels. Invest in pickup trucks with plows, and they can do even more.

The most natural way to think about capital intensity is in physical terms like machinery, but of course some of the biggest advances in productivity have come through improvements in computing power and the ability to use and move information. The smartphone in your pocket has way more computing power than the spaceship that first took humans to the moon. These advances continue to put more capability in the hands of employees, giving them the ability to be more productive across a wide range of industries, whether goods or services.

Labour composition in an economy measures the skill level of people in the labour force and how much training they receive. The more skills people have and the more training they receive, the more value they can generate on the job.

Finally, there’s multifactor productivity , which measures how efficiently capital and labour are being used. This can refer to intangibles such as how much competition a company faces, economies of scale, management practices and many others. It can also refer to how well companies are taking advantage of technologies such as machine learning and generative artificial intelligence.

Those are the ingredients of productivity. Now, when people measure productivity in an economy, they are looking either at its level—how much value an economy is producing for every hour worked—or at the growth rate of that productivity. Canada has been struggling on both measures for a while.

Back in 1984, the Canadian economy was producing 88% of the value generated by the US economy per hour. That’s not great. But by 2022, Canadian productivity had fallen to just 71% of that of the United States. Over this same period of time, Canada also fell behind our G7 peers, with only Italy seeing a larger decline in productivity relative to the United States.

Improving productivity in Canada needs to be a priority for everyone, and there are two basic strategies for doing it. One is to have the economy focus more on the industries that add greater value than less-productive activities. The other strategy is to keep doing the jobs we’re doing but do them more efficiently. Ideally, Canada would use both strategies, leading to an economy with strong productivity growth and a large concentration of high-value industries.

Unfortunately, Canada’s recent record isn’t very good on either front. That may seem strange. After all, Canada is known for some high-value industries, such as energy and aerospace. But while the level of productivity here is high, the growth rates aren’t necessarily strong. At the same time, some industries in Canada have shown pretty good productivity growth over the past couple of decades. 1 But these include sectors such as retail and wholesale trade, which tend not to generate the same amount of output per worker as sectors like energy or aerospace.

I want to be clear here. Improving productivity doesn’t mean shutting down whole sections of the economy and telling workers they have to go learn new sets of skills. It means paying attention to where the future high-value industries are coming from. We need to ensure that the right incentives are in place to allow companies in these industries to grow and thrive. And they need the right supports, such as access to markets and financing.

I expect this resonates with you here in the room. History shows that advances in productivity often come from the start-ups, the new companies led by entrepreneurs with groundbreaking ideas. Organizations such as the Halifax Partnership and other incubators are encouraging the companies that can lead us to the next great breakthrough in productivity. And you can see examples across the region, particularly in the clean tech, ocean tech and agritech sectors.

How to improve

I want to turn now to what we can do to improve Canada’s productivity. Many studies have looked at this issue over the years, and there’s still no consensus about the causes of Canada’s poor performance and where policy-makers should put their energies first. But we can’t afford to wait for complete certainty. There is much we can all be doing to boost productivity. In fact, if I took the time to drill down into every potential priority, this breakfast speech would become a lunch speech, too. So I’m going to focus on three key areas.

The first is labour composition, or the skills workers bring to the job. For existing workers, improvement here means having access to training and reskilling programs—whether it’s learning how to use new workplace technologies or gaining skills that can create opportunities to switch to a whole new job. For new entrants to the workforce, we’re counting on colleges, universities and apprenticeship programs to prepare students for current and future jobs.

It's also important to acknowledge that Canada’s workforce is expanding at a record-setting pace, with immigration driving this increase. In January, the working-age population grew by over 125,000 people. That’s the fastest single month of workforce growth on record. In the future, Canada’s productivity—and our standard of living—will depend importantly on how well we leverage and develop the skills of these new workers. Too often, new Canadians are working in jobs that don’t take advantage of the skills they already possess. And too often these people wind up stuck in low-wage, low-productivity jobs. Doing better at matching jobs and workers is crucial to the future of Canada’s economy.

The second key area relates to multifactor productivity. We know that small and medium-sized companies tend to lack the economies of scale that allow larger firms to become more productive. And Canada has proportionally more of these smaller firms than many other economies do. Removing disincentives to growth is always a good idea.

But if I had to pick the biggest concern in this area, I’d say it’s competition. Simply put, businesses become more productive when they’re exposed to competition. Competition drives companies to become more productive by innovating and by finding ways to be more efficient. In doing so, competition can make the whole economy more productive.

Canada’s economy features many sectors where companies face limited levels of competition, whether from firms in other provinces, foreign rivals or new entrants. Of course, every country has certain sectors that it champions, and there can be valid reasons to protect local businesses. However, too much protection can lead to problems. It can also help to explain Canada’s weak record in business investment. This brings me to the third area for improving productivity.

The need for investment

When you compare Canada’s recent productivity record with that of other countries, what really sticks out is how much we lag on investment in machinery, equipment and, importantly, intellectual property. The global economy continues to change rapidly, and in many sectors, it’s not machinery and equipment that are key—it’s investment in intellectual property. Increasingly, companies need to own or have the rights to patents that will allow them to compete by adopting productivity-boosting processes.

Weak investment has been a problem in Canada for a long time. You can go back 50 years and find a persistent gap between the level of capital spending per worker by Canadian firms and the level spent by their US counterparts. However, the situation has become worse over roughly the past decade. While US spending continues to increase, Canadian investment levels are lower than they were a decade ago.

Economists and policy-makers across the country have worked hard to understand the root causes of why Canadian businesses seem reluctant to invest. At the Bank, we are constantly talking to companies, asking them about their challenges and opportunities. Our Business Outlook Survey consistently shows that companies say they plan to increase their spending on machinery and equipment. But we haven’t seen it in the data, at least not yet.

Adding to the puzzle is the fact that Canada has many advantages that should lead to higher investment and productivity. We have a well-educated labour force. We have a strong research culture at our universities that is driving advances in technology. And we have trade agreements that give us better access to global markets than any country in the world.

To understand the lack of investment, it might be helpful to look at the incentives that companies see. If firms have high profits, high margins and limited competition, they may not feel as much pressure to invest. Statistics Canada published a report last month that draws a link between decreasing competition within Canada and declining investment levels. 2

Another challenge for companies may be a lack of policy certainty. In some cases, incentives or regulatory approaches can change from year to year. We have also heard from companies that are naturally wary of a regulatory approval process that can be both lengthy and unpredictable.

And, of course, the past few years have been a challenging time for making investment decisions. The pandemic caused tremendous levels of instability and uncertainty. A backdrop of global trade tensions is certainly not helping matters. More recently, we’ve heard from firms that say the current interest rate environment is making financing more difficult. However, investment levels were also weak in the years before the pandemic, when rates were much lower than today.

More generally, in times of upheaval it’s natural for companies, especially established ones, to want to be cautious and build reserves. I understand that. We see the risks out there. Yet these same forces and risks are also present in other countries. And companies in those countries—our global competitors—continue to invest, widening the gap with Canada, making it increasingly urgent that we turn the situation around.

The Bank of Canada has a role here. It’s our job to deliver the economic stability that should encourage investment. You can be sure we will continue to do all we can to keep inflation low, stable and predictable, supporting the investment climate along the way. This is our contribution to helping bring about an economy that’s not only more productive but also more resilient.

It’s time for me to wrap up. I hope I’ve been clear about the pressing need for Canada to increase productivity. I’m saying that it’s an emergency—it’s time to break the glass. I’ve used some pretty grim statistics to support my point. But the urgency comes not only from the fate that awaits us if we don’t act. It also comes from the payoff if we do. So let me conclude on a more uplifting note.

Higher productivity should be everyone’s goal because it’s how we build a better economy for everyone. When a business gives workers better tools and better training, those workers can produce more. That, in turn, means more revenue for the business, which allows it to absorb rising costs, including higher wages, without having to raise prices.

For our part, central bankers look at the economy as a whole, not at individual companies. And when the entire economy becomes more productive, that means the country can have more growth before we see upward pressure on inflation. We can have more jobs. We can have higher wages.

We’ve all just been through a wrenching period in the global economy. We’ve been reminded how corrosive inflation is and how difficult but necessary the remedy can be. Increasing productivity is a way to protect our economy from future bouts of inflation without having to rely so much on the cure of higher interest rates.

At the Bank of Canada, we will keep working to provide the stability that’s most conducive to risk taking and investment. With governments providing the right policy background, and with the business community doing its part to invest, together we will all be able to help Canada’s economy to grow—and Canadians to prosper—in the years ahead, no matter what surprises may come.

I would like to thank Eric Santor for his help in preparing this speech.

The productivity problem

Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers talks about some of the reasons for Canada’s poor productivity track record, and what we can do to turn the tide.

Speech: Halifax Partnership

The urgent need to improve Canadian productivity  — Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers speaks before the Halifax Partnership. (08:15 (ET) approx.).

• 1. See C. Haun and T. Sargent, “Decomposing Canada’s Post-2000 Productivity Performance and Pandemic-Era Productivity Slowdown,” Centre for the Study of Living Standards, International Productivity Monitor 45 (2023): 5–27.[ ← ]
• 2. See W. Gu, “Investment Slowdown in Canada after the Mid-2000s: The Role of Competition and Intangibles,” Statistics Canada Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper No. 474 (February 2024).[ ← ]

We use cookies to help us keep improving this website.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

The presidents of France and Brazil meet and announce a $1.1 billion investment plan for the Amazon

French President Emmanuel Macron, second left, flies a drone, accompanied by Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, right center, first lady Rosangela da Silva, and Gov. Helder Barbalho, left, on Combu Island, near Belem, Para state, Brazil, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. Macron is on a three-day official visit to Brazil. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

French President Emmanuel Macron, from left, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Chief Raoni Metuktire, pose for photos on Combu Island, near Belem, Para state, Brazil, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

Davi Kopenawa, Yanomami leader, from left to right, French President Emmanuel Macron, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Chief Raoni Metuktire and Chief Watatakalu Yawalapiti, leader of the Xingu women’s movement, raise their arms in unison as they pose for a photo on Combu Island, near Belem, Para state, Brazil, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

French President Emmanuel Macron, left, speaks as Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva takes photos, during a ceremony on the Combu Island, near Belem, Para state, Brazil, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

French President Emmanuel Macron smiles while attending a ceremony on Combu Island, near Belem, Para state, Brazil, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. Macron is on a three-day official visit to Brazil. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

French President Emmanuel Macron, left, and Chief Raoni Metuktire poses for photos after Macron presented Chief Raoni with the French distinction, the Legion of Honor, during a ceremony on Combu Island, near Belem, Para state, Brazil, Tuesday, March 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

• Copy Link copied

SAO PAULO (AP) — The Brazilian and the French presidents on Tuesday announced a plan to invest 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) in the Amazon, including parts of the rainforest in neighboring French Guiana.

The two countries’ governments said in a joint statement the money will be spread over the next four years to protect the rainforest. It will be a collaboration of state-run Brazilian banks and France’s investment agency. Private resources will also be welcomed, Brazil and France said.

French President Emmanuel Macron and his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are meeting this week to revive the relationship between the countries after years of frictions with former President Jair Bolsonaro, deepen cooperation to protect the rainforest and boost trade.

Macron started his three-day visit to Brazil in the Amazon city of Belem, where he met his long-time ally Lula. The French president then took a boat to the Combu island to meet with Indigenous leaders.

Both Macron and Lula saw a protest by Greenpeace Brazil with banners that read “No oil in the Amazon.” Brazil’s government has contemplated allowing the tapping of oil in a region close to the Para state, where Belem lies.

Lula said during a speech that Macron’s visit is part of a global effort to beef up rainforest protections.

“We want to convince those who have already deforested that they need to contribute in an important way to countries that still have their forests to keep them standing,” Lula said in a speech next to the French president.

Macron’s office prior said to the trip that a potential European trade deal with the South American bloc Mercosur won’t be on the agenda. The French president is an opponent of such an agreement as long as South American producers don’t respect the same environment and health standards as Europeans, after farmers raised concerns during protests across France and Europe.

The French president decorated Indigenous leader Raoni Metuktire with the prestigious Legion of Honor medal for efforts at conserving the rainforest.

“You were in Europe and I promised to come here to your forest and be with your people in this forest that is coveted,” Macron told the Indigenous leader, according to French radio RFI. “President Lula and I have a common cause for one of our friends in this land that belongs to you.”

Lula and Macron will seek to “set a common course” to fight both climate change and poverty, Macron’s office said, as Brazil is to host the summit of the Group of 20 leading economies in Rio de Janeiro in November and UN climate talks in Belem next year.

On Wednesday, Macron and Lula will launch a diesel-powered submarine built in Brazil with French technology at the Itaguai shipyard outside Rio de Janeiro. The French president will then head to metropolis Sao Paulo to meet with Brazilian investors. On Thursday, the French president will head to Brasilia to again meet with Lula.

____ Corbet reported from Paris.

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Limited time offer save up to 40% on standard digital.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print
• Everything in Premium Digital

The new FT Digital Edition: today’s FT, cover to cover on any device. This subscription does not include access to ft.com or the FT App.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

• Moneycontrol Trending Stock
• Infosys  INE009A01021, INFY, 500209
• State Bank of India  INE062A01020, SBIN, 500112
• Yes Bank  INE528G01027, YESBANK, 532648
• Bank Nifty 
• Nifty 500  
• Mutual Funds
• Commodities
• Futures & Options
• Cryptocurrency
• My Portfolio
• My Watchlist
• FREE Credit Score ₹100 Cash Reward
• My Messages
• Price Alerts
• Chat with Us
• Download App

Follow us on:

How Parshottam Rupala's speech has reignited Patel-Rajput rivalry in Gujarat's Saurashtra

An important reason that makes saurashtra different is the centrality of caste divisions in its political lexicon..

In Gujarat’s Saurashtra-Kutch—a region that sends the largest number of legislators to the state Assembly, years of caste tensions have resulted in conflicts and even killings.

The agitation by the Rajput community against Union minister and BJP's Rajkot Lok Sabha candidate Parshottam Rupala’s March 22 speech has once again brought the decades-old caste rivalry between the Patels and the Rajputs to the forefront of Gujrat’s political discourse ahead of the 2024 parliamentary polls.

The leader triggered an outrage when he praised the Dalits at the expense of the Kshatriyas or Rajputs. Addressing a small gathering in Rajkot Rupala remarked that erstwhile 'maharajas' succumbed to the persecution of foreign rulers as well as the Britishers.

The Union minister further said these 'maharajas' broke bread with these rulers and also married off their daughters to them. Rajput community members saw the remarks as an insult to them. They have urged the BJP to withdraw Rupala's candidature or face defeat.

Although it is little early to gauge the electoral impact of this agitation, social commentators believe such inadvertent comments may play a role in the overall tally that the Bharatiya Janata Party is expected to win form this region of Gujarat.

Revival of caste rivalries between Rajputs and Patels?

Related stories

In Gujarat’s Saurashtra-Kutch—a region that sends the largest number of legislators to the state Assembly, years of caste tensions have resulted in conflicts and even killings. One of the most high-profile and talked about killings involve a Patel legislator of the Congress, Popat Sorathiya, who was shot dead in public by a person named Anirudhdhsinh Jadeja on August 15, 1988.

Another such incident which deepened the division was the killing of three Rajputs near Mangadh village in Bhavnagar in 1982. Nearly 20 Patels (Patidars) who were arrested in the case were later acquitted. Rajputs allegedly took revenge by killing nine Patidars of Mangadh two years later.

Kshatriya community members, led by women, gathered at the Vadodara District Collectors’ office to hand over a memorandum against the statements made Parshottam Rupala during his campaign in Rajkot. Carrying banners, the protesters chanted slogans and demanded that Rupala be pulled out of the Lok Sabha race.

In Bharuch, too, the protesters chanted slogans against the BJP and demanded that Rupala’s candidature be withdrawn. The crowd also clashed with the police after the cops foiled their attempt to burn an effigy.

When BJP wrested control from Congress in Gujarat

During the days when Congress dominated the political arena in Gujarat, and particularly in Saurashtra, Rajputs held their sway over Patels despite their numerical disadvantage. But in the mid-1990s, the complete consolidation of the Patels in favour of the saffron party helped the BJP wrest state from the Congress.

Since 1995, the BJP has won seven consecutive Assembly elections in the state. Today, both the Rajputs and Patels firmly support the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Also Read: Congress Lok Sabha 2024 candidates: See full list of 39 names here

The importance of Saurashtra-Kutch in Gujarat’s politics

Saurashtra-Kutch sends largest number of 54 legislators to the state Assembly. Geographically, the region forms two-thirds of Gujarat’s total area. Just like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, deep-tooted caste system is still prevalent in the region.

An important reason that makes Saurashtra different is the centrality of caste divisions in its political lexicon. It has prevented a cross-caste Hindu consolidation that the BJP managed to achieve in other parts of Gujarat.

All the eight Lok Sabha seats in the region are with the BJP since a long time. The focus this time will be on Porbandar, where Union minister Mansukh Mandaviya has been fielded, and Rajkot, where his cabinet colleague Parshottam Rupala will try his his luck. The two ministers have so far reached Parliament through the Rajya Sabha rout

The region has a distinct, dialect, culture and political trajectory. For instance, it was one of the regions where the saffron party  actually lost ground as Modi's power increased both in the state and nationally. This is unlike in Central or South Gujarat where the BJP's dominance has increased under him.

During elections, both the Congress and BJP try to balance between all the different caste groups in the region. In some seats, both parties end up fielding candidates of the same caste group that is dominant in the area, for instance in Porbandar, the battle has mainly been between Mer community candidates.

Discover the latest business news , Sensex , and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!

Trending news

• Ex-JP Morgan analyst gets Rs 292 crore after a glass door shattered on her in New York City. Video
• Unacademy's Gaurav Munjal says Bengaluru is better than Mumbai, Delhi for startups: 'Odds of your success...'
• Man vomits live worm after complaining of nausea. Video is not for the faint-hearted
• ‘Late to office because my scooter was updating’: Noida man’s unique excuse is viral

You got 30 Day’s Trial of

• Ad-Free Experience

• Actionable Insights
• MC Research
• Economic Calendar

You are already a Moneycontrol Pro user.

Access your Detailed Credit Report - absolutely free

Countries, economies and regions

Select a country, economy or region to find embassies, country briefs, economic fact sheets, trade agreements, aid programs, information on sanctions and more.

International relations

Global security.

• Australia and sanctions
• Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office (ASNO)
• Counter-terrorism
• Non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control
• Peacekeeping and peacebuilding

Regional architecture

• Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
• Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
• East Asia Summit (EAS)
• Australia and the Indian Ocean region
• Pacific Islands regional organisations

Global themes

• Child protection
• Climate change
• Cyber affairs and critical technology
• Disability Equity and Rights
• Gender equality
• Human rights
• Indigenous peoples
• People Smuggling, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment
• Australia’s treaty-making process

International organisations

• The Commonwealth of Nations
• United Nations (UN)
• World Trade Organization

Foreign Arrangements Scheme  

Trade and investment, about free trade agreements (ftas).

• The benefits of FTAs
• How to get free trade agreement tariff cuts
• Look up FTA tariffs and services market access - DFAT FTA Portal
• Discussion paper on potential modernisation – DFAT FTA Portal

About foreign investment

• The benefits of foreign investment
• Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)
• Australia's bilateral investment treaties
• Australia's foreign investment policy

For Australian business

• Addressing non-tariff trade barriers

Expo 2025 Osaka, Kansai

Stakeholder engagement.

• Ministerial Council on Trade and Investment
• Trade 2040 Taskforce
• First Nations trade

Australia's free trade agreements (FTAs)

• ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand (AANZFTA)
• Chile (ACLFTA)
• China (ChAFTA)
• Hong Kong ( A-HKFTA & IA)
• India (AI-ECTA)
• Indonesia (IA-CEPA)
• Japan (JAEPA)
• Korea (KAFTA)
• Malaysia (MAFTA)
• New Zealand (ANZCERTA)
• Peru (PAFTA)
• Singapore (SAFTA)
• Thailand (TAFTA)
• United Kingdom (A-UKFTA)
• USA (AUSFTA)
• Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
• European Union (A-EUFTA)
• India (AI-CECA)
• Australia-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
• Australia-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

Trade and investment data, information and publications

• Fact sheets for countries and regions
• Australia's trade balance
• Trade statistics
• Foreign investment statistics
• Trade and investment publications
• Australia's Trade through Time

WTO, G20, OECD, APEC and IPEF and ITAG

Services and digital trade.

• Service trade policy
• Australia-Singapore Digital Economy Agreement
• Digital trade & the digital economy

Development

Australia’s development program, performance assessment.

• Development evaluation
• Budget and statistical information

Who we work with

• Multilateral organisations
• Non-government organisations (NGOs)
• List of Australian accredited non-government organisations (NGOs)

Development topics

• Development issues
• Development sectors

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

• Sustainable Development Goals

Where we deliver our Development Program

Humanitarian action.

Where and how Australia provides emergency assistance.

People-to-people

Australia awards.

• Australia Awards Scholarships
• Australia Awards Fellowships

New Colombo Plan

• Scholarship program
• Mobility program

Public diplomacy

• Australian Cultural Diplomacy Grants Program
• Australia now
• UK/Australia Season 2021-22

Foundations, councils and institutes

• Australia-ASEAN Council
• Australia-India Council
• Australia-Indonesia Institute
• Australia-Japan Foundation
• Australia-Korea Foundation
• Council for Australian-Arab Relations (CAAR)
• Council on Australia Latin America Relations (COALAR)

International Labour Mobility

• Pacific Labour Mobility Scheme
• Agriculture Visa

Australian Volunteers Program

Supporting organisations in developing countries by matching them with skilled Australians. 

Sports diplomacy

Australia is a successful global leader and innovator in sport.

A global platform for achievement, innovation, collaboration, and cooperation

About Australia

Australia is a stable, democratic and culturally diverse nation with a highly skilled workforce and one of the strongest performing economies in the world.

Australia in Brief publication

This is the 52nd edition of Australia in Brief, revised and updated in February 2021

Travel advice

To help Australians avoid difficulties overseas, we maintain travel advisories for more than 170 destinations.

• Smartraveller – travel advice

International COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate

Prove your COVID-19 vaccinations when you travel overseas.

• Services Australia

The Australian Passport Office and its agents are committed to providing a secure, efficient and responsive passport service for Australia.

• Australian Passport Office

24-hour consular emergency helpline

• Within Australia: 1300 555 135
• Outside Australia: +61 2 6261 3305
• Getting help overseas
• Visas for Australians travelling overseas
• Visas to visit Australia

The Sixth RCEP Joint Committee Meeting, 26-27 March 2024

The Sixth RCEP Joint Committee (RJC) Meeting was held in Beijing, China on 26-27 March, co-chaired by Indonesia and China. Australia’s delegation was led by Mr Richard Emerson-Elliott, Assistant Secretary, FTA Implementation and Inclusive Trade Branch, FTA and Stakeholder Engagement Division.

Under Article 18.3 of the Agreement, the RJC considers all matters related to the implementation and operation of RCEP, including supervision of the subsidiary bodies tasked with the technical work necessary to advance RCEP’s built-in agenda.

At the meeting, the RJC finalised arrangements to establish an RCEP Support Unit in 2024 and continued discussions on implementation matters, including the experience of businesses using the Agreement.