The next global downturn might still be a little way off. The chances that the North Atlantic as a whole will be in recession one year from now have fallen to about one in four. German growth might well be positive this quarter, while China could rebound, too. And although US growth is definitely slowing — to 1 percent or so this quarter — this might yet turn out to be a blip.
Let us hope so, because if the next downturn is looming, North Atlantic central banks do not have the policy room to fight it effectively.
Should a recession arrive, the US Federal Reserve would ideally be able to cut interest rates by 5 percentage points, as is customary in such situations. However, with short-term safe interest rates at 2.4 percent, it cannot. And with euro and yen interest rates still at about zero, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan would be unable to help much, either.
Looking ahead, therefore, the big risk is not that inflation will start spiraling upward, with the Fed unable to raise interest rates fast enough to stabilize the economy.
Rather, it is the downside risk that a year from now, the North Atlantic will be in recession, governments will not provide enough fiscal stimulus and the Fed will not be able to reduce interest rates enough — leaving it nearly helpless to even try to stabilize the economy.
The logical response to such an asymmetric risk is — or ought to be — to buy insurance to cover it. However, worryingly, the Fed is not taking out any policy insurance at all against a possible recession, despite having at least three possible options from which to choose.
For starters, the Fed could raise interest rates further now, creating more room for rate cuts if the US economy subsequently falls into recession, but Fed Chair Jerome Powell seems to have ruled out this option for the time being.
In a recent interview, Powell said that the Fed’s policy rate “is in an appropriate place” in view of “muted” US inflation and increasing evidence that the global economy is slowing.
“We’re going to wait and see how those conditions evolve before we make any changes to our interest rate policy,” he said.
Alternatively, the Fed could cut interest rates today to try to compensate for its inability to reduce rates enough in a future downturn. If growth then recovers and strengthens — as more likely than not it will — there is no harm done. US inflation expectations are well anchored, so the Fed could fully and cheaply offset looser monetary policy now with a tighter stance later.
However, if growth does not pick up and the North Atlantic falls into recession, the Fed would have to cut interest rates frantically at the end of this year, and it will greatly regret that it did not get ahead of the curve by pre-emptively lowering rates today.
The Fed’s third option is to leave interest rates unchanged for now, but clearly and aggressively explain how it would fight a recession effectively, should one arrive over the course of the next year. In doing so, the Fed would need to be far more convincing than it was from 2010 onward, when the US economy was struggling to recover from the 2008 financial crisis.
On that occasion, then-Fed chair Ben Bernanke’s monetary policy — and his pleas to Republican lawmakers and austerity hawks to put the national interest ahead of partisan point-scoring and support aggressive fiscal stimulus — were completely ineffective in generating growth above previous trend rates. As a result, the US recovery was anemic and unsatisfactory.
A more credible Fed plan to fight a possible recession next year, in 2021 or thereafter might well boost business confidence and make the central bank’s policies more effective. At the very least, it would reassure companies and investors who, fearing that US aggregate demand will be weak next year, might be starting to pull back.
However, this third option would require an aggressive intellectual and communications effort from the Fed, and there has been no evidence of one.
If the US falls into recession over the next year or two, the Fed might have very little room to loosen policy, and yet, it is not taking any steps to cover that risk. That is unwise.
Unless the Fed buys some recession insurance soon, the US — and the world — might well face much bigger problems later.
J. Bradford DeLong is a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a research associate at the US National Bureau of Economic Research. He was deputy assistant US Treasury secretary under former US president Bill Clinton.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers