Every January, I try to craft a forecast for the coming year. Economic forecasting is notoriously difficult; but, notwithstanding the truth expressed in former US president Harry Truman’s request for a one-armed economist — who would not be able to say “on the other hand” — my record has been credible.
In recent years, I correctly foresaw that, in the absence of stronger fiscal stimulus — which was not forthcoming in either Europe or the US — recovery from the Great Recession of 2008 would be slow. In making these forecasts, I have relied more on analysis of underlying economic forces than on complex econometric models.
For example, at the beginning of last year, it seemed clear that the deficiencies of global aggregate demand that have been manifest for the past several years were unlikely to change dramatically. Thus, I thought that forecasters of a stronger recovery were looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses. Economic developments unfolded much as I anticipated.
Not so the political events of last year. I had been writing for years that unless growing inequality — especially in the US, but also in many countries throughout the world — was addressed, there would be political consequences. However, inequality continued to worsen — with striking data showing that average life expectancy in the US was on the decline.
These results were foreshadowed by a study last year, by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which showed that life expectancy was on the decline for large segments of the population — including the US’ so-called angry men of the Rust Belt states.
However, with the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of Americans having stagnated for close to a third of a century — and declining for a significant proportion — the health data simply confirmed that things were not going well for very large swaths of the US. While the US might be at the extreme of this trend, things were little better elsewhere.
However, if it seemed clear that there would be political consequences, their form and timing were far less obvious. Why did the backlash in the US come just when the economy seemed to be on the mend, rather than earlier? Why did it manifest itself in a lurch to the right? After all, it was the Republicans who had blocked assistance to those losing their jobs as a result of the globalization they pushed assiduously. It was the Republicans who, in 26 states, refused to allow the expansion of Medicaid, thereby denying health insurance to those at the bottom. Why was the victor somebody who made his living from taking advantage of others, openly admitted not paying his fair share of taxes and made tax avoidance a point of pride?
US president-elect Donald Trump grasped the spirit of the time: Things were not going well and many voters wanted change. Now they will get it: There will be no business as usual. However, seldom has there been more uncertainty. Which policies Trump will pursue remains unknown, to say nothing of which will succeed or what the consequences will be.
Trump seems hell-bent on having a trade war, but how will China and Mexico respond? Trump might well understand that what he proposes would violate WTO rules, but he might also know that it would take a long time for the WTO to rule against him, and by then, the US’ trade account might have been rebalanced.
However, two can play that game: China can take similar actions, although its response is likely to be more subtle. If a trade war were to break out, what would happen?
Trump might have reason to think he could win; after all, China is more dependent on exports to the US than the US is on exports to China, which gives the US an advantage. However, a trade war is not a zero-sum game. The US stands to lose as well. China might be more effective in targeting its retaliation to cause acute political pain. In addition, China might be in a better position to respond to US attempts to inflict pain on it than the US is to respond to the pain that China might inflict on the US. It is anybody’s guess who can stand the pain better. Will it be the US, where ordinary citizens have already suffered for so long, or China, which, despite troubled times, has managed to generate growth in excess of 6 percent?
More broadly, the Republican/Trump agenda, with its tax cuts even more weighted toward the rich than the standard Republican Party recipe would imply, is based on the idea of trickle-down prosperity — a continuation of former US president Ronald Reagan era’s supply-side economics, which never actually worked. Fire-breathing rhetoric, or raving 3am tweets, might assuage the anger of those left behind by the Reagan revolution, at least for a while, but for how long? And what happens then?
Trump might like to repeal the ordinary laws of economics, as he goes about his version of “voodoo economics.” However, he cannot. Still, as the world’s largest economy leads the way into uncharted political waters this year and beyond, it would be foolhardy for a mere mortal to attempt a forecast, other than to state the obvious: the waters will almost certainly be choppy, and many — if not most — pundit ships will sink along the way.
Joseph Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001 and the John Bates Clark Medal in 1979, is a University Professor at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS