Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Why China needs Putin to win in Ukraine

Published

on

NATO forces fear China is taking a back seat approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine

Until now, China has been Ukraine’s largest trading partner. But analysts believe China stands to profit even further if Russia takes over the country. 

With every passing day of Putin’s war in Ukraine, it’s becoming clear just how great his miscalculation has been.

While the Ukrainian people and its government are suffering through the Russian onslaught, Putin’s regime is being laid bare.

Ukraine knows their resistance has limits, even with the help of NATO weaponry and aid.

While America has recently rewarded Ukraine’s efforts with more military aid than originally offered, another great power is sitting in the wings, patiently watching before deciding which side of history it wants to be associated with.

China’s silence

Despite Vladimir Putin’s meeting with Xi Jinping in Beijing on the eve of the war, China has remained suspiciously quiet.

For one, China is Ukraine’s largest trading partner. As Russia intensifies its war, China’s installation of 4G services across the Kyiv metro system has been put on hold.

Massive agriculture shipments of corn and barley have stopped.

The Ukraine and China trade turnover grew to almost 9 billion dollars in 2018.

But China might be hoping its trade with Ukraine would only grow if Moscow-backed forces take over for good, because if Ukraine falls, then western sanctions would apply to it too – and China may then become its saviour.

China won’t budge

China has rebuffed calls from western powers to rein Russia in.

The US and NATO now fear that China has taken a sit back and wait approach to watch how the disaster in Ukraine unfolds.

Experts believe China wants to see Putin prevail in Ukraine, because his downfall or overthrow could leave Xi Jinping personally exposed.

Ahron Young is an award winning journalist who has covered major news events around the world. Ahron is the Managing Editor and Founder of TICKER NEWS.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Efficiency and creativity the only way to fix Australia

As Australia grapples with the intricacies of its expanding public sector, the imperative for a more efficient, innovative, and adaptable government has never been more pressing.

Published

on

As Australia continues to navigate the complexities of its growing public sector, the need for a more efficient, creative, and agile government has never been more urgent.

Australians adore the beach. What makes our country great—our laid-back, chilled lifestyle—is also the very thing that can hinder us. I have Australian friends overseas who felt compelled to leave the country in search of individuals who aspired to perfection. They reminisce about Australian workplaces and refer to them as the “80% nation”—as in, 80% effort is quite satisfactory, right?

The conversation surrounding public service reform is one that has sparked fierce debates – especially since Elon Musk’s DOGE started looking behind closed doors in Washington.

In Australia, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has vowed to slash “wasteful” government spending and reduce the size of the public service. But while cutting costs is important, it’s equally vital that efficiency is not pursued at the expense of creativity and long-term problem-solving. Australia’s future hinges on our ability to balance these priorities.

The idea of reducing the public service is not new. Over the past few decades, governments have made various attempts to streamline the bureaucracy, from Scott Morrison’s overhaul of government departments to Mathias Cormann’s calls for a more innovative and responsive Australian Public Service (APS). On paper, these ideas look attractive—especially when framed in terms of reducing administrative bloat and saving taxpayer money. However, the real question is: how do we ensure these cuts don’t stifle innovation?

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton

Inflation and debt

Peter Dutton’s pledge to shrink the public service is grounded in his belief that it will drive productivity and help ease Australia’s economic challenges, including inflation and debt. His vision is to eliminate wasteful spending, a move that has garnered both support and backlash. Supporters argue that less bureaucracy means less inefficiency, while critics warn of the practical impacts—slower processing times for essential government services like pensions, healthcare, and other public support systems. Governments around the world world will be watching Elon Musk carefully to see how he manages to work through this.

Can technology help to create efficiency without losing the personal touch that many people require. After all, who in their right mind would touch base with the government unless they desperately needed to?

Dutton’s approach—focused on efficiency and cutting waste—can only go so far if it’s not balanced with an emphasis on creativity. Efficiency shouldn’t just mean reducing costs; it should also mean improving the ways we deliver services and fostering a culture of innovation within government. As seen in the private sector, cost-cutting initiatives must be paired with new ways of thinking—embracing technology, new workflows, and a willingness to challenge old assumptions.

I call it the take and give approach. If you take something away, you must replace it with something that’s better.

Jobs and funding

The pursuit of efficiency should not be confined to simply eliminating jobs or reducing funding for departments. Instead, we should be asking: How can the government operate more effectively while still maintaining a level of creativity that allows the government to respond to new challenges and opportunities?

Australia’s government could take inspiration from the success of creative industries, where disruption and the breaking of norms often lead to better products and outcomes. Why shouldn’t this same mentality be applied to public service? Creativity, when combined with efficiency, can transform the way we solve problems.

But creativity in government doesn’t just mean high-tech solutions. It also involves empowering public servants to think outside the box – and to attract people to the public service who think that way.. This requires a shift in culture: one that values not just speed and cost reduction, but also innovation and a commitment to long-term problem-solving.

The debate about public service reform is far from over. Peter Dutton’s call for reducing the public service size and cutting wasteful spending is a start—but it must be paired with a strategy for fostering creativity. As taxpayers, we must demand value for money, as we would if we were buying a new couch.

As we move forward, we must balance the need for efficiency with the need for bold, creative solutions to the challenges ahead. Only then can we ensure that Australia’s public service is not just lean, but also capable of adapting to a rapidly changing world.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Trump’s tariff threat: A test for Albanese’s trade strategy

Published

on

TICKER VIEWS

Donald Trump’s announcement of a blanket 25 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium imports into the US is a familiar playbook move – but one that could have disastrous consequences for Anthony Albanese.

As he did in his first term, Trump is using trade as a bargaining tool, throwing out headline-grabbing policies to bring key players to the negotiating table. Australia now finds itself facing a significant economic challenge, and the Albanese government must demonstrate it has the diplomatic and strategic skills to respond effectively. If you need evidence of this, look no further than the impact the trade announcement had on Australia’s share market in the hour after Trump spoke on Air Force One.

On paper, Australia should have a strong case for exemption. The US is our closest ally, with shared defence investments through AUKUS, and Australia maintains a trade balance that is favourable to the US. These are metrics Trump understands.

However, the ability of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his government to engage successfully with the Trump administration remains untested. While Albanese has spoken with Trump once since his election victory, further high-level engagement is urgently required. Trade Minister Don Farrell, who has yet to establish dialogue with incoming US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, must act swiftly to ensure Australia is not caught in the crossfire of Trump’s aggressive trade policy.

It’s a delicate balance to get special treatment from Trump, without looking like we’re getting special treatment.

The economic implications of these tariffs extend beyond direct exports. While Australia’s steel and aluminium exports to the US are not large in dollar terms—$638 million and $439 million respectively in 2024—the global nature of these industries means the ripple effects could be significant. Reduced Chinese steel exports could impact Australia’s iron ore and coking coal industries, while Trump’s broader trade war tactics could disrupt global supply chains in unpredictable ways.

For companies like BlueScope, which has a strong US footprint and recently expanded its North Star steel mill in Ohio, there may be a silver lining.

The company’s shares rose following Trump’s announcement, and it is considering further expansion into the US market. However, for Australian manufacturers without US operations, such as Bisalloy Steel and South32, the tariffs could have severe consequences. The prospect of global steel manufacturers offloading excess supply into the Australian market could further squeeze margins and intensify competition.

Beyond the immediate economic impact, Trump’s protectionist stance represents a broader challenge for Australia.

The world is already shifting towards a more fragmented trading environment, with the European Union imposing carbon border tariffs and other nations prioritising domestic industries. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and emphasis on oil and gas production could further complicate Australia’s positioning in international markets.

The Albanese government faces a crucial test.

It must secure an exemption from these tariffs while also preparing for a world where global trade is increasingly driven by political whims rather than predictable rules. This will require skilled diplomacy, strategic economic planning, and a willingness to push back against protectionism.

Australia’s national interest lies in advocating for free and fair trade, ensuring that economic policies are not dictated by the political games of other nations.

And let’s not forget Australians are still extremely worried about how the Albanese government is managing the economy, with an election just months away.

Now is the time for decisive action.

Ahron Young is Ticker’s CEO and Managing Editor.

Continue Reading

News

Man of Steel? What do the new Trump steel tariffs mean for Australia and the world?

Published

on

On his return to the White House, candidate Donald Trump campaigned on a 60 per cent tariff on all Chinese goods, and also flagged an across the board rise of 10 per cent for every other country.

Now reality has set in with President Trump imposing tariffs by executive order. Tariffs are, as British economist Joan Robinson once said, “Like putting rocks in your own harbour” but Trump believes they are politically popular, especially in blue-collar working-class areas that voted for him in record numbers, eschewing the Democrats.

But there have been surprises. President Trump almost as soon as he came to office for a second time, imposed a 25 per cent on US allies, trading partners and neighbours Canada and Mexico, but only 10 per cent for Trump’s usual target, China. Trump linked the tariff rises to illegal immigration and fentanyl (a drug thought to be smuggled from China and India to Canada and Mexico and then across the border into the United States). But after conversations with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the tariffs were ‘paused’ after both Mexico and Canada agreed to increase resources to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs from their side of the border.

Similarly, in the case of Colombia, illegal Colombian immigrants were flown back to Bogota from the USA, and the tariffs on Colombian coffee were also rescinded.

Steel tariffs

Now, steel and aluminium have been flagged by President Trump, as he flew on Air Force One to the Superbowl after a round of golf with Tiger Woods. Trump announced 25 per cent on steel, and aluminium across the board to attempt to return the US steel industry to its glory days. With steel country, in states like Pennsylvania being crucial to Trump’s electoral revival no wonder steel is a focus for the Trump 2.0 administration.

This caused shockwaves around the world, including Australia that exports steel and aluminium to the USA. However, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise given Trump clearly campaigned on tariffs for key manufacturing sectors and US industries like steel that he wanted to ‘make great again’.

Whilst most of Australia exports go to China and the rest of Asia now, the USA still an important economic partner, in investment at least as much as trade. And of course, we Australia has a strong alliance with the USA, AUKUS and the Australia USA free trade agreement (AUSFTA) which was meant to be ‘celebrating’ its 20th anniversary this year.

Australian exemption

But will Australia receive an exemption? In the last Trump administration, they were granted an exemption on 25 per cent steel tariffs and 10 per cent on aluminium. We got an exemption last time this happened, can we get an exemption again?

One reason for the exemption is that Australian steel giant BlueScope actually has much of its production in the USA. In fact, it’s share price rose on the back of the Trump announcement. Other players like Rio Tinto also has a North American presence. But regardless, the impact on iron ore exporters selling to China would be badly impacted by a global tariff on steel. Similarly, aluminium exporters like Alcoa, would have to divert its exports between Australia and North America depending on when and where the tariffs are imposed.

Last time the Australian Ambassador was Joe Hockey, this time it’s Kevin Rudd. Rudd’s knowledge of China is certainly useful around Washington, but will he be able facilitate concessions from an emboldened and confident Trump administration? Or can Prime Minister Albanese do so in direct discussions? Let’s hope so for the sake of the American and Australian worker, consumer, and manufacturing sectors.

 *Tim Harcourt is Industry Professor and Chief Economist at IPPG, at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and host of The Airport Economist channel on Ticker News:

 https://tickernews.co/shows/airporteconomist/

Tim is also a former Chief Economist of the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade).

Continue Reading

Trending Now