Many economic and financial analysts complain that emerging countries' stock markets are often heavily manipulated by their governments and are more political than economic. The unstated assumption seems to be that, in contrast, some pristine force of economic nature drives stock markets in advanced countries, and that forecasting their performance is thus like forecasting the growth of trees.
This description of stock markets in emerging countries is not wrong, just biased, because the same description applies to stock markets in advanced countries. Indeed, the best analysts know that forecasting the performance of any country's stock market substantially means forecasting how well the government wants stock market investors to fare in the current political environment.
Consider the US stock market, by far the world's largest. The general perception is that the government leaves companies alone and that the returns from investing in the US stock market reflect the fundamental forces of a strong capitalist economy. This is one reason that the US is a magnet for portfolio investors from around the world.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
But the returns that make US stock markets so attractive reflect a delicate political balance. In particular, tax rates that affect stocks have varied through time as political pressures change. During World War II, for example, political support for great fortunes diminished and the government sharply increased taxes on capital gains, dividends and high incomes in general. When World War II produced a strong recovery from the Great Depression of the 1930s, former president Franklin Roosevelt and Congress slapped on an excess-profits tax to ensure that shareholders would not benefit too much.
By contrast, in 1980, when there was no war but the stock market was low, US voters elected former president Ronald Reagan, a man many thought too right-wing to be president. He asked for -- and got ? cuts in capital gains, dividend, and income taxes.
Political interference in the stock market is not merely about taxes on capital gains, dividends and income. Property taxes, excise taxes, import duties and sales taxes -- all of which are paid, directly or indirectly, by corporations -- can have a magnified impact on corporate profits, and hence on the stock market. It is no coincidence that wherever stock markets thrive, governments take care that these taxes stop well short of destroying after-tax corporate profits.
Indeed, the politics of stock markets does not stop with taxes. On the contrary, almost every activity of government has an impact on corporate profits, and in turn, on the stock market.
After the 1929 stock market crash the US government suspended much antitrust activity, allowing companies to acquire monopoly power that would boost their value. This policy delayed the recovery from high unemployment, but even that was not enough to rein in the political forces arrayed in favor of supporting the stock market. Similarly, one of the most important things that Reagan did was to destroy much of the remaining power of the US' labor unions, which compete for their share of the corporate pie. Reagan's defeat of the air traffic controllers' strike in 1981 was a watershed event for the US labor movement -- and for the stock market, which started its dramatic bull market in 1982.
The US government has been particularly aggressive in supporting the stock market since the peak of the equities price bubble in 2000, most notably cutting interest rates repeatedly. Of course, this was publicly justified in terms of stimulating the economy, not supporting the stock market. But it is a telling sign of the US stock market's significance that one of the most important factors perceived to be weighing on the economy was declining equity prices.
Indeed, the authorities' response was not limited to monetary stimulus. The US National Income and Product Accounts show that the effective rate of corporate profits tax (the percentage of profits actually paid to the government in taxes) crested at 33.7 percent in the first quarter of 2000 -- the peak of the stock market and the economy in general -- and fell to 20.2 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, when the market was down. Much of that decline reflects explicit tax relief measures approved by Congress, as well as the perception among corporations that in the current economic and political environment they can be more aggressive in tax avoidance.
Moreover, after the stock market crash, the maximum tax on dividends paid on stocks was slashed from 35 percent to 15 percent, giving a substantial new advantage to long-term investors and boosting the compounding effect of reinvesting after-tax dividends. Again, this tax cut was justified in terms of stimulating the economy, which can, of course, be said of practically any measure aimed at supporting the stock market. But it is the balance of political forces that determines whether such a justification will be credible.
One might say that the same variables, including hostility to high taxes and a weak labor movement, have operated in the US for the past 200 years -- and can thus be expected to continue operating in the future, producing high stock market returns and attracting huge inflows of foreign investment. Those who believe that investments in the US stock market will maintain the same strong growth trend for decades may well be right. But one should be clear about what one is forecasting. Essentially, one is forecasting not just economics, but politics -- and even the cultural values -- that shape economic policies and performance.
Robert Shiller is professor of economics at Yale University, and is the author of Irrational Exuberance and The New Financial Order: Risk in the 21st Century. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with