Smart economic policymaking invariably requires trading off some pain today for greater future gains.
However, this is a difficult proposition politically, especially in democracies. It is always easier for elected leaders to indulge their constituents immediately, on the hope that the bill will not arrive while they are still in office.
Moreover, those who bear the pain caused by a policy are not necessarily those who would gain from it.
That is why today’s more advanced economies created mechanisms that allow them to make hard choices when necessary. Chief among these are independent central banks and mandated limits on budget deficits. Importantly, political parties reached a consensus to establish and back these mechanisms irrespective of their own immediate political priorities.
One reason that many emerging markets have swung from crisis to crisis is that they failed to achieve such consensus.
However, recent history shows that developed economies, too, are becoming less tolerant of pain, perhaps because their own political consensus has eroded.
Financial markets have become volatile once again, owing to fears that the US Federal Reserve would tighten its monetary policy significantly to control inflation, even though many investors still hope that the Fed will go easy if asset prices start to fall substantially.
If the Fed proves them right, it would become that much harder to normalize financial conditions in the future.
Investors’ hope that the Fed will prolong the party is not baseless.
In late 1996, then-Fed chair Alan Greenspan warned of financial markets’ “irrational exuberance.”
However, the markets shrugged off the warning and were proved correct. Perhaps chastened by the harsh political reaction to Greenspan’s speech, the Fed did nothing, and when the stock market eventually crashed in 2000, it cut rates, ensuring that the recession was mild.
In a testimony to the US Congress Joint Economic Committee the previous year, Greenspan said that while the Fed could not prevent “the inevitable economic hangover” from an asset price boom, it could “mitigate the fallout when it occurs and, hopefully, ease the transition to the next expansion.”
The Fed thus assured traders and bankers that if they collectively gambled on similar assets, it would not limit the upside, but it would limit the downside if their bets turned bad.
Subsequent Fed interventions have entrenched such beliefs, making it even harder for it to rein in financial markets with modest moves.
Now that much more tightening and consequent pain might be needed, a consensus in favor of it might be harder to achieve.
Fiscal policy is also guilty of peddling supposedly painless economic measures.
Most would agree that the COVID-19 pandemic created a need for targeted spending (through extended, generous unemployment benefits, for example) to shield the hardest-hit households.
However, in the event, the spending was anything but targeted.
The US Congress passed multitrillion-dollar bills offering something for everyone.
The US Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), for example, provided US$800 billion in grants (effectively) for small businesses across the board.
A new study from Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist David Autor and his colleagues estimates that the program helped preserve 2 million to 3 million job years of employment of more than 14 months, at a stupendous cost of US$170,000 to US$257,000 per job year.
Worse, only 23 to 34 percent of this money went directly to workers who would otherwise have lost their jobs. The balance instead went to creditors, business owners and shareholders.
All told, an estimated three-quarters of PPP benefits went to the top one-fifth of earners.
Of course, the program might have saved some firms that otherwise would have collapsed, but at what cost?
While capitalists anticipate profits, they also sign up for possible failure. Moreover, many small businesses are tiny operations without much organizational capital. If a small bakery had to close, the economic fallout would have been mitigated by the enhanced unemployment insurance, and if it had a loyal clientele, it could restart after the pandemic, perhaps with a little help from a bank.
The standard line is that the unconstrained spending was driven by a sense that unprecedented times called for unprecedented measures. In fact, it was the response to the 2008 global financial crisis that broke the previous consensus for more prudent policies.
Lasting public resentment that Wall Street had been helped more than Main Street motivated politicians in the US’ two major parties to spend with abandon when the pandemic hit.
However, targeted unemployment benefits were associated with the Democratic Party, leaving Republicans seeking wins for their own constituencies. Who better to support than small businesses?
While political fractures were driving up untargeted spending, budget hawks were nowhere to be found: Their voices had been steadily drowned out by economists.
In addition to the cranks who show up periodically to advocate ostensibly free lunches through money-financed spending, a growing chorus of mainstream economists had been arguing that prevailing low interest rates gave developed countries significantly more room to expand fiscal deficits.
Politicians who were eager to justify their policies ignored these economists’ caveats — that spending had to be sensible and that interest rates had to stay low. Only the headline message mattered, and anyone suggesting otherwise was dismissed as a hair-shirt fanatic.
Historically, it has been the Fed’s job to take away the monetary punch bowl before the party gets frenzied, and Congress’ job to be prudent about fiscal deficits and debt.
However, the Fed’s desire to spare the market from pain has driven more risk-taking and reinforced expectations of further interventions.
The Fed’s actions have also added to the pressure on Congress to do its bit for Main Street, which in turn has led to inflation and a belief that the Fed would back off from raising rates.
All of this makes a return to the previous consensus more difficult. When the Fed does raise rates significantly, the US government’s costs of servicing the debt from past spending would limit future spending, including on policies to reduce inequality (which has fueled political fragmentation), combat future emergencies and tackle climate change.
Every economy has a limited reservoir of policy credibility and resources, which are best used to mitigate genuine economic distress, not to shield those who can bear some pain.
If everyone wants a free lunch, the bill would eventually be paid by those least able to afford it. Emerging market economies have had to learn this the hard way. Developed countries might have to learn it again.
Raghuram Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, is a finance professor at University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS