Quarter after quarter, the macroeconomic news from the US teaches the same lesson: real GDP growth at a sustained rate of 3 percent per year is not enough to increase the employment level. Not even real GDP growth at a sustained annual rate of 4 percent is sufficient to increase the share of American adults who have jobs.
The underlying rate of labor productivity growth in the US, pegged at 1.2 percent per year at the start of the Clinton administration and at 2 percent to 2.5 percent per year at the end of the 1990s boom, now seems even higher: it is getting harder and harder to keep the estimated labor productivity growth trend below 3 percent per year.
How long this boom in productivity growth will continue is anyone's guess: optimists point to the fact that waiting behind the information technology revolution, ready for takeoff, is the biotechnology revolution, and behind that is a looming nanotechnology revolution. If such improvements in productivity do last, the vistas they will open are amazing: an America 50 years from now in which the average full-time worker earns not $40,000 a year, but the equivalent of today's $160,000 a year.
The US is at one pole of the world economy. China -- even with its economic miracle since the 1980s -- is at the other. But China's labor productivity is now growing at roughly 6 percent per year. If that rate can be sustained -- and if the Chinese economy becomes and remains integrated enough for us to be able to speak of it as a single entity -- China's labor productivity will be comparable to today's America sometime before 2050. And India? If the growth rates of the past 15 years continue, and if India remains united, its labor productivity in 2050 will be comparable to that of Spain today.
The world of 2050 will not be a paradise. There will still be some regions where failed states do not protect property, enforce the law, encourage commerce, educate their citizens, or construct the physical, social and organizational infrastructure necessary for people to make use of the magical technologies developed since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Similarly, there will still be wars, fought with ever more brutal and destructive weapons. But we have good reason to hope that there will be fewer of them. Next winter, it will be 60 years since an army crossed the Rhine River bringing death and destruction, the longest such period since at least the late second century B.C., when the Cimbri and Teutones challenged the army of the Roman Consul Gaius Marius in the Rhone Valley.
The world of 2050 will not have "solved the economic problem." The economy is the realm of things that have value. Things have value when they are both desirable and scarce.
We humans are very good at figuring out ways to make scarce things desirable. But we do have an opportunity, and hence a duty, shared by no previous human generation: to make a world by 2050 in which nearly everyone has enough food to avoid hunger, enough clothing to keep warm, and enough shelter to remain dry -- plus a super-broadband Internet connection. The stakes in this round of humanity's poker game are huge.
The first step toward winning the jackpot is to shape global public opinion in support of creating a world without want. To make progress toward this goal is the touchstone of international relations today. We no longer have large states driven by powerful, aggressive ideologies to remake the world in their own image by any means necessary. The major sources and uses of power in the world today are softer, although not weaker. As long as we can keep it this way, we humans have a good chance of achieving our most important collective task.
J. Bradford DeLong is professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and was assistant US treasury secretary during the Clinton administration. 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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath