The world economy has had several good years. Global growth has been strong and the divide between the developing and developed world has narrowed, with India and China leading the way, experiencing GDP growth of 11.1 percent and 9.7 percent in 2006 and 11.5 percent and 8.9 percent last year respectively. Even Africa has been doing well, with growth in excess of 5 percent in 2006 and last year.
But the good times may be ending. There have been worries for years about the global imbalances caused by the US' huge overseas borrowing. The US, in turn, said that the world should be thankful: By living beyond its means, it helped keep the global economy going, especially given high savings rates in Asia, which accumulated hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves. But it was always recognized that growth under President George W. Bush was not sustainable. Now the day of reckoning looms.
The US' ill-conceived war in Iraq helped fuel a quadrupling of oil prices since 2003. In the 1970s, oil shocks led to inflation in some countries and to recession elsewhere, as governments raised interest rates to combat rising prices. And some economies faced the worst of both worlds: stagflation.
Until now, three critical factors helped the world weather soaring oil prices. First, China, with its enormous productivity increases -- resting on high levels of investment, including investments in education and technology -- exported its deflation. Second, the US took advantage of this by lowering interest rates to unprecedented levels, inducing a housing bubble, with mortgages available to anyone not on a life-support system. Finally, workers all over the world took it on the chin, accepting lower real wages and a smaller share of GDP.
That game is up. China is now facing inflationary pressures. What's more, if the US convinces China to let its currency appreciate, the cost of living in the US and elsewhere will rise. And, with the rise of biofuels, the food and energy markets have become integrated. Combined with increasing demand from those with higher incomes and lower supplies due to weather-related problems associated with climate change, this means high food prices -- a lethal threat to developing countries.
Prospects for the US consumption binge continuing are also bleak. Even if the US Federal Reserve continues to lower interest rates, lenders will not rush to make more bad mortgages. With house prices declining, fewer Americans will be willing and able to continue their profligacy.
The Bush administration is hoping, somehow, to forestall a wave of foreclosures -- thereby passing the economy's problems on to the next president, just as it is doing with the Iraq quagmire. Its chances of succeeding are slim. For the US today, the real question is only whether there will be a short, sharp downturn, or a more prolonged, but shallower, slowdown.
Moreover, the US has been exporting its problems abroad, not just by selling toxic mortgages and bad financial practices, but through the ever-weakening dollar, in part a result of flawed macro and micro-policies. Europe, for instance, will find it increasing difficult to export. And, in a world economy that had rested on the foundations of a "strong dollar," the consequent financial market instability will be costly for all.
At the same time, there has been a massive global redistribution of income from oil importers to oil exporters -- a disproportionate number of which are undemocratic states -- and from workers everywhere to the very rich. It is not clear whether workers will continue to accept declines in their living standards in the name of an unbalanced globalization whose promises seem ever more elusive. In the US, one can feel the backlash mounting.
For those who think that a well-managed globalization has the potential to benefit both developed and developing countries, and who believe in global social justice and the importance of democracy (and the vibrant middle class that supports it), all of this is bad news. Economic adjustments of this magnitude are always painful, but the economic pain is greater today because the winners are less prone to spend.
Indeed, the flip side of "a world awash with liquidity" is a world facing depressed aggregate demand. For the past seven years, the US' unbridled spending filled the gap. Now both US household and government spending is likely to be curbed, as both parties' presidential candidates promise a return to fiscal responsibility. After seven years in which the US has seen its national debt rise from US$5.6 trillion to US$9 trillion, this should be welcome news -- but the timing couldn't be worse.
There is one positive note in this dismal picture: The sources of global growth today are more diverse than they were a decade ago. The real engines of global growth in recent years have been developing countries.
Nevertheless, slower growth -- or possibly a recession -- in the world's largest economy inevitably has global consequences. There will be a global slowdown. If monetary authorities respond appropriately to growing inflationary pressure -- recognizing that much of it is imported and not a result of excess domestic demand -- we may be able to manage our way through it. But if they raise interest rates relentlessly to meet inflation targets, we should prepare for the worst: another episode of stagflation.
If central banks go down this path, they will no doubt eventually succeed in wringing inflation out of the system. But the cost -- in lost jobs, lost wages and lost homes -- will be enormous.
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics. His latest book is Making Globalization Work.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs