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
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