Four times in the past century, a large chunk of the industrial world has fallen into deep and long depressions characterized by persistent high unemployment: the US in the 1930s, industrialized Western Europe in the 1930s, Western Europe again in the 1980s and Japan in the 1990s. Two of these downturns — Western Europe in the 1980s and Japan in the 1990s — cast a long and dark shadow on future economic performance.
In both cases, if either Europe or Japan returned — or, indeed, ever returns — to something like the pre-downturn trend of economic growth, it took (or will take) decades. In a third case, Europe at the end of the 1930s, we do not know what would have happened had Europe not become a battlefield following Germany’s invasion of Poland.
In only one instance was the long-run growth trend left undisturbed: US production and employment after World War II were not significantly affected by the macroeconomic impact of the Great Depression. Of course, in the absence of mobilization for World War II, it is possible and even likely that the Great Depression would have cast a shadow on post-1940 US economic growth. That is certainly how things looked, with high levels of structural unemployment and a below-trend capital stock at the end of the 1930s, before mobilization and the European and Pacific wars began in earnest.
In the US, we can already see signs that the downturn that started in 2008 is casting its shadow on the future. Reputable forecasters — both private and public — have been revising down their estimates of the US’ potential long-run GDP.
For example, labor-force participation, which usually stops falling and starts rising after the business-cycle trough, has been steadily declining over the past two-and-a-half years. At least some monetary policymakers believe that recent reductions in the US unemployment rate, which have largely resulted from falling labor-force participation, are just as valid a reason for shifting to more austere policies as reductions in unemployment that reflect increases in employment. And much the same processes and responses are at work — with even greater strength — in Europe.
However, most important has been what looks, from today’s perspective, like a permanent collapse in the risk-bearing capacity of the private marketplace, and a permanent and large increase in the perceived riskiness of financial assets worldwide — and of the businesses whose cash flows underpin them. Given aging populations in industrial countries, large commitments from governments to social-insurance systems and no clear plans for balancing government budgets in the long run, we would expect to see inflation and risk premiums — perhaps not substantial, but clearly visible — priced into even the largest and richest economies’ treasury debt.
Sometime over the next generation, the price levels of the US, Japan and Germany might rise substantially after some -government short-sightedly attempts to finance some of its social-welfare spending by printing money. The price levels are unlikely to go down. Yet the desire to hold assets that avoid the medium-term risks associated with the business cycle has overwhelmed this long-run fundamental risk factor.
However, the risk that the world’s investors currently are trying to avoid by rushing into US, Japanese and German sovereign debt is not a “fundamental” risk. There are no psychological preferences, natural-resource constraints or technological factors that make investing in private enterprises riskier than it was five years ago. Rather, the risk stems from governments’ refusal, when push comes to shove, to match aggregate demand to aggregate supply in order to prevent mass unemployment.
Managing aggregate demand is governments’ job. While Say’s Law — the view that supply creates its own demand — is false in theory, it is true enough in practice that entrepreneurs and enterprises can and do depend on it.
If the government falls down on the job, John Maynard Keynes wrote 76 years ago, and “demand is deficient ... the individual enterpriser ... is operating with the odds loaded against him. The game of hazard which he plays is furnished with many zeros,” which represent “the increment [by which] the world’s wealth has fallen short of ... savings,” owing to “the losses of those whose courage and initiative have not been supplemented by exceptional skill or unusual good fortune. But if effective demand is adequate, average skill and average good fortune will be enough.”
For 62 years, from 1945 to 2007, with some sharp, but temporary and renationalized interruptions, entrepreneurs and enterprisers could bet that the demand would be there if they created the supply. This played a significant role in setting the stage for the two fastest generations of global economic growth the world has ever seen. Now the stage has been emptied.
J. Bradford DeLong is a former assistant secretary of the US Treasury, a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau for Economic Research.
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