Watch any sport and you are treated to instant replays that give you a detailed — often slow-motion — view of important moments. Watch the news, and you could find yourself feeling like you are similarly watching the past on playback.
These replays — of high inflation, soaring public debt, a brutal war in Europe, a new cold war and the rise of potentially destructive technologies — are far from instant, and the stakes are much higher.
I predicted rising inflation and slower growth as early as spring 2021. Former US secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers did so even earlier. Yet today’s inflation — the worst since the early 1980s — caught most people by surprise.
Illustration: Louise Ting
Supply-chain snarls, including energy market and food-system disruptions linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, contributed to the initial surge in prices.
However, the main driver of today’s inflation has been profligate monetary and fiscal policies, which were upheld despite quicker-than-expected recoveries from COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.
For example, US President Joe Biden’s US$1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, implemented in March 2021, was nearly three times larger than the US Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the GDP gap that still needed to be closed for the economy to reach its potential.
One cannot but notice the echoes of former US president Lyndon B. Johnson’s use of debt to finance the Vietnam War and the “war on poverty” in the late 1960s.
Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve kept its target interest rate close to zero for too long, and started to unwind its balance sheet too late — an approach that recalls the monetary policy mistakes it made under former US Fed chairman Arthur Burns in the 1970s.
Central bankers thought that it would not hurt to let inflation run above the 2 percent target for a while before bringing it back down, because they had undershot the target previously.
There are short-term benefits to running the economy “hot.” Just before the pandemic, US unemployment was low, minority groups had the lowest poverty rate in history and wages were rising fastest at the bottom of the distribution. For the first time in decades, inequality was declining.
However, the economic and political price has come due. Core inflation — which excludes food and energy prices — in the US has averaged 5.6 percent for the past 12 months. While it is down a bit from its peak, it has rotated to stickier services prices, and remains almost three times the Fed’s target.
The central bank creed is that the short-run interest rate must run above inflation for some time before inflation — after a “long and variable lag” — falls toward the target rate.
Wages have not kept pace with inflation, and most households — especially those which expansionary policies were supposed to help — have been experiencing a decline in real income for two years. Although unemployment remains very low, and the US economy has outperformed much of the rest of the world, almost half of the US population thinks it is already in a recession, and most Americans expect their children and grandchildren to be worse off than them. This perceived demise of the “American dream” has left the public — and politics — deeply unsettled.
Another replay that caught most of the world by surprise is the ferocious war in Europe. The US’ disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 weakened deterrence.
However, Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly telegraphed his plans for Ukraine. Beyond lamenting in 2005 that the Soviet Union’s demise was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century — worse than World War II, apparently, when 20 million Russians died — he seized part of Georgia in 2008 and annexed Crimea in 2014.
Third, despite all the global economic integration of recent decades, the world seems to be on the brink of a new cold war. China’s increasing economic, diplomatic and military assertiveness, together with its deepening ties with Russia, has raised fears about a realignment in international relations, and even a clash of political systems.
The Cold War pitted totalitarian regimes with centrally planned economies against mixed-capitalist democracies, led by an economically and militarily dominant US. This time, it is autocratic state capitalism versus social-welfare democracies, and the US’ resolve and capabilities are in doubt.
Particularly worrisome, nonaligned actors are hedging their bets — and the US appears to be asleep at the wheel. The China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran — a sponsor of terrorism and a supplier of advanced military drones to Russia — stands out. Does this mark a return to traditional balance-of-power geopolitics, or is it a prelude to conflict between the US and China over Taiwan?
Finally, technological advances are disrupting economies and upending expectations about the future. Technology has been transforming economies and displacing workers since well before there was a term — Schumpeterian creative destruction — for the phenomenon.
However, economies have generally adjusted: Computers did not end up causing massive structural unemployment, because the workforce was redeployed to other jobs. In any case, standards of living rose.
Will this be the case for artificial intelligence (AI)? A group of tech leaders, including Tesla Inc and Twitter Inc chief executive officer Elon Musk, are not so sure. In a recent open letter, they called for a six-month — or longer — pause on advanced AI development to gain a better understanding of the risks the technology poses and devise ways to mitigate them.
Musk said that those risks include the destruction of human civilization, and that Google cofounder Larry Page once called him a “speciesist” for wanting to safeguard humanity from AI.
Ultimately, AI is a tool. It can be used for good. For example, to develop new drugs and diagnostics.
However, it can also do great harm, such as being used to abet repression in China. I remain cautiously optimistic that the world can overcome — or at least sufficiently manage — these challenges.
However, given widespread nuclear proliferation, the costs of failure could bring the most unwelcome replay of all.
Michael J. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of former US president George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 to 1993.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
RSS